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

State v Sariman [2025] PGNC 119; N11245 (15 April 2025)

N11245

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) NO. 390 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

GEORGE SARIMAN

WAIGANI: BERRIGAN J
21 FEBRUARY, 7, 15 APRIL 2025

CRIMINAL LAW–SENTENCE – S 372 of the Criminal Code – Stealing – Guilty plea – Laptop valued at K9562.51 – Sentence of 2 years, wholly suspended on conditions including community service.

Cases cited
Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496
David Kaya and Philip Kaman v The State (2020) SC2026
State v Tio (2002) N2265
The State v Ian Sevevepa CR No 2007 of 2005
The State v Roselyn Waiembi (2008) N3708
State v Taba (2010) N3939
State v Gumnawabu (2015) N6841
State v Yapu (2016) N6633
State v David (2019) N7825
The State v Yani Paul & Anor (2019) N8026
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Dorren Liprin v The State (2021) SC673
The State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
The State v Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320

Counsel
S Wak for the State
C Koeke for the offender

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1. BERRIGAN J: The offender, George Sariman, pleaded guilty to one count of stealing a laptop valued at K9562.51, contrary to s. 372(1)(7)(a)(10) of the Criminal Code, for which the maximum penalty is 7 years of imprisonment.
   
2. The offender was a driver employed by the Bank South Pacific (BSP) out of Gordon’s Commercial Centre. On 10 June 2024 the offender picked up Ashok Kandula, a consultant engaged by BSP, from the Hilton Hotel and dropped him off at the Waigani Banking Centre. Mr Kandula absentmindedly left his laptop in the bus and the offender took it home. The offender was asked about the laptop some eight days later and admitted that he had taken it home, from which the laptop was recovered.

Sentencing Principles and Comparative Cases

3. In Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 496 the Supreme Court identified a number of factors that should be taken into account on sentence for an offence involving dishonesty, including:
   
   1. the amount taken;
   2. the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender;
   100. the period over which the offence was perpetrated;
   4. the impact of the offence on the public and public confidence;
   5. the use to which the money was put;
   6. the effect upon the victim;
   7. whether any restitution has been made;
   8. remorse;
   9. the nature of the plea;
   10. any prior record;
   11. the effect on the offender; and
   50. any matters of mitigation special to the accused such as ill health, young or old age, being placed under great strain, or perhaps a long delay in being brought to trial.
       
4. In addition, the Supreme Court suggested that the following scale of sentences may provide a useful base, to be adjusted upwards or downwards according to the factors identified above, such that where the amount misappropriated is between (emphasis mine):
   
   1. K1 and K1000, a gaol term should rarely be imposed;
   2. K1000 and K10,000 a gaol term of up to two years is appropriate;
   100. K10,000 and K40,000, two to three years’ imprisonment is appropriate; and
   4. K40,000 and K150,000, three to five years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
      
5. That guide remains unchanged for our purposes: see David Kaya and Philip Kaman v The State (2020) SC2026.
   
6. Both parties submit that a sentence of two years of imprisonment is appropriate. The defence seeks suspension, which is opposed by the State.
   
7. I have taken into account the submissions of counsel and the authorities relied upon, which are referred to below with others which I have considered:
   
   1. State v Tio (2002) N2265, Kandakasi J, the prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of stealing a chainsaw valued at K8 000 from a hardware store where he was posted as a security guard. He later sold the chain saw for K1000. He was sentenced to a period of 5 years less time spent in custody;
   2. The State v Ian Sevevepa, CR No 2007 of 2005, unreported, 10 May 2006, Lenalia J, in which the offender pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of K17,000 belonging to a service station proprietor. The offender walked into the office, pushed a female employee who was present away, and ran away with the bag of money, giving it to another person. He was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment, the balance of which was suspended;
   100. The State v Roselyn Waiembi (2008) N3708, David J in which the offender pleaded guilty to stealing K15,000 between 28 June 2002 and 26 November 2004 whilst employed by a law firm as its accounts clerk. She stole the money by including extra amounts in the cheque requisition forms every payday and taking the balance of between K50 and K700 on each occasion. She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, the balance of which was suspended upon conditions including restitution;
   4. State v Taba (2010) N3939, Cannings J, in which the offender was convicted following trial of stealing 1000 cartons of tinned fish valued at K58, 399.00 from his employer RD Tuna Canners Ltd in Madang. Documents were falsified and so the fish was packed into a container which the offender loaded onto a truck, transported to Lae, and subsequently sold to a third party. The offender had knowledge of the plan and took part in its implementation. He received K2000 of the proceeds of the sale. He was sentenced to 2 years 6 months imprisonment;
   5. State v Gumnawabu (2015) N6841, Injia CJ: the offenders pleaded guilty to stealing an outboard engine from a banana boat. They gave it to another person for safekeeping but he reported the matter upon becoming suspicious. The offenders were sentenced to five years of imprisonment, two and half years was suspended on good behaviour, the Court observing that Kirriwina is a peace-loving community where people go about their daily lives with very little or no hindrance. Travelling by boat is one of the main forms of transport in these islands and people keep their boats and engines beside their houses or out in the open in public places without reason to suspect they will be stolen. Theft of boats and engines is very rare in the Kirriwina community and once it occurs, a punitive and deterrent punishment is appropriate;
   6. State v Yapu (2016) N6633, Lenalia J: two accomplices went down to Sea-view apartment yard at Takubar beachfront where they unscrewed a Yamaha 75 Horse power Outboard motor engine. It was took heavy and they could not carry it away. They went and woke up the offender and with his help carried the motor away and hid it until it was found the following day. He was sentenced to one year, eight months;
   7. State v David (2019) N7825, Miviri J: the offender pleaded guilty to stealing K9294.26 in cash which came into his possession on various occasions over about a three month period whilst employed at the PNG Power Office, Bialla, all of which he had restituted well prior to sentence. He was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, wholly suspended on good behaviour;
   8. The State v Yani Paul & Anor (2019) N8026, Berrigan J, in which two offenders pleaded guilty to stealing, in the company of others, electrical cable, worth K37,633.18 from a warehouse, for sale on the black market. Both were sentenced to three years of imprisonment.
      

Consideration

8. It is well settled with respect to offences concerning dishonesty that, in general terms, the greater the amount of money involved the more serious the offence. Whilst the scale of tariffs in Wellington Belawa is relevant and suggests a sentence of up to two years, it is to be noted that the offender in this case has been convicted of stealing. Unlike misappropriation which attracts a maximum of 10 years for amounts more than K2000 the offence before me attracts a maximum penalty of 7 years of imprisonment. I remind myself that section 19 of the Criminal Code provides the Court with broad discretion on sentence. Whilst guidelines and comparative cases are relevant considerations, every sentence must be determined according to its own circumstances: Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.
   
9. In aggravation the offending in this case involved a breach of trust. The offender was responsible for delivering the complainant and his belongings safely as part of his duties and responsibilities as a driver, a position he had held with the bank for several years. The laptop was of significant value but there is nothing before me to show how old it was or to suggest that the offender would have been aware of its replacement value. This was a one-off, spur of the moment offence. I am sure that the offence caused stress and inconvenience to its owner but the offender returned the laptop, albeit only upon detection several days later, unharmed.
   
10. The offender comes from Malati Village, Doa Plantation, Kairuku District, Central Province. He is 42 years of age and married with two young children aged three and eight. He is educated to Grade 7 and then received some training in construction at the Hohola Youth Centre. He started as a driver with BSP in 2017. He is in good health.
    
11. In mitigation this is his first offence and I accept that he is of prior good character. He is a member of the Erima United Church and his deacon confirmed that he is a valued, humble and respectful member of the community. In doing so she described him as a workaholic. I accept that he worked hard. Most drivers do.
    
12. Drivers play a vital but sometimes forgotten role in keeping business going in this country both for locals and, as in Mr Kandula’s case, expatriate consultants. They are often required to be up early and home late to ensure that everybody else gets to where they need to be safely and on time.
    
13. Of course, they must also be trustworthy. It seems that Mr Sariman was for several years with the bank until he took advantage of his position in this case. Whilst the offender had several days to return the laptop but did not do so he immediately admitted that he had taken the laptop home upon being confronted and returned it unharmed.
    
14. This together with his cooperation with authorities and the fact that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity before the National Court is very much in his favour. I take this into account as indicative of his remorse, which he expressed on allocutus. I also take it into account on the basis that it has saved Court time and the State and its witnesses the cost and inconvenience of a trial.
    
15. The effect of the offence on the offender has been grave. He has lost a secure position with a good employer and there is no doubt he will struggle to find formal employment again in the future given his limited education and training and the nature of the offence.
    
16. There are no matters of special mitigation to the offender.
    
17. Having regard to all of the above matters I sentence the offender to two years of imprisonment. Dishonesty offences are prevalent and this case calls for both general and specific deterrence.
    
18. I intend to suspend the sentence. The offender has demonstrated good prospects for rehabilitation and this is exactly the sort of case where alternatives to service of the sentence in custody must be considered: Dorren Liprin v The State (2021) SC673. I also intend to order some community service in the form of vocational training that might prove useful to him in the future. Surely, that is what community service should be directed towards for those who have shown good prospects for rehabilitation. This is not an act in leniency but an order made in the community interest: The State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91; The State v Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320.
    
19. I make the following orders.
    

Orders

(1) The offender is sentenced to two years of imprisonment without hard labour.
(2) Time spent in custody, 1 day, is deducted from time to be served.
(3) The balance of the sentence is wholly suspended upon condition that:

1. The offender undertake 80 hours of vocational training under the supervision of Probation Services within the first three months of his sentence;
2. The offender enter into his own recognisance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the period of his sentence.

(4) Any deposited bail monies are to be refunded.

________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor