Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Pasiu [2018] PGNC 477; N7594 (19 October 2018)

N7594

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 1177 of 2016

THE STATE

-V-

DEMAS SAPAK PASIU

Lorengau: Geita J
2018: 15, 16, 19 October

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Bribing of member of Public Service, a police officer- Criminal Code Act s97B - Guilty plea on one count

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Power of Court to invoke a fine or imprisonment discretionary

Cases Cited
Karo Gamoga v The State [1981] PNGLR 443
Saperus Yalikabut v The State [2006] SC890

Counsel
Mr. Paul Tusais, for the State
Mr. Tom Kale, for the Prisoner

19 October, 2018

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1. GEITA J: Upon arraignment the offender, aged 49 pleaded guilty to one count of bribery of a police officer. Whilst being detained at the Lorengau Police Station on charges of rape and incest, he approached the complainant in his office on 23 November 2015 and attempted to bribe him. He gave the complainant Detective Sergeant Pake Tukon a small yellow envelope containing K200 and said “Em blo buai blo yu,” to which the complainant refused but the offender insisted he keep it and said in pidgin, ÿu kisim, mi givim yu”. The offender gained access to the complainant’s office between 1.30 pm and 1.40 pm via constable Pondros Prondros who was on duty at the time. The offender has no prior convictions.

Allocutus

2. When the offender was invited to tell court on what matters the court should take into account when deciding punishment he said: This is my first time in court and I ask to be placed on probation as I have two children, aged 2 years and 4 years and my wife is dead. I am sorry to the deceased’s family.

3. The offender has pleaded guilty and so he will be given the benefit of doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution. (Saperus Yalikabut v The State (2006) SC890).
Mitigating Factors
4. The prisoner pleaded guilty;

1. Compensation paid to the deceased family members;
2. First time offender,

100. Genuine remorse shown and

4. No prior convictions
   

5. The aggravating factors are
a) Bribery is a serious crime.
Pre-Sentence Report
6. A report on the offender was prepared by the Community Based Corrections Services, Nancy Poli upon application by his lawyer.

Defence Submissions

7. Counsel for the offender Mr Tom Kale submitted that a sentence of 2 years be considered and to be wholly suspended with conditions based on the mitigating factors outweighing aggravating factors. The Court was invited to exercise its discretion under section 19 of the Criminal Code.

State Submissions
8. Mr Paul Tusais concedes that the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors barely even out. As to the need for public deterrence, both general and personal, in these types of cases, Mr Tusais submitted that sentencing was a discretionary matter however urged Court to begin with a head sentence of 18 months to 2 years (Karo Gamoga v The State [1981] PNGLR 443).

Decision making process
9. In this case I am more inclined to consider a wholly suspended sentence in light of the many mitigating factors and the extenuating factor. This appears to be the first offence of its kind in the province as no case precedents were presented to Court.

Order

10. Having been convicted on one count of bribing a police officer contrary to Section 97B (1) and (b) of the Criminal Code you are sentenced as follows:

1. You are convicted and fined K500 in default you will be sentenced to 2 years less any pre-sentence period available to you.
   
2. The bribery money of K200 shall be paid into the National Court Registry Trust Account.

Sentence accordingly.
_______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused