N11650
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) NO. 204 OF 2025

THE STATE

v

WENDY KOMBE

WABAG: ELLIS J
16, 17 DECEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – FORGERY, UTTERING and STEALING BY A FALSE PRETENCE - s. 462, s. 463 and s. 404(1)(a) CCA – Plea – Provision of false documents which enabled K17,500 to be stolen from a Primary School

Brief facts
The offender was employed at a business that enabled her to produce false documents that caused K17,500 to be stolen from a primary school’s bank account.  When questioned by Police, the offender admitted producing the false documents.

Held
Admissions in record of interview
Guilty plea by first-time offender
Prevalence of offence
K17,500 stolen from a primary school’s bank account
Offender did not benefit financially
Offer to pay K2,000 to the school
One year sentence imposed
Six months suspended if that amount is paid

Cases cited
Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88
Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496

Counsel
P. Tengdui for the State
L. Toke for the offender 

SENTENCE
1.	ELLIS J: 	Wendy Kombe of Pausa village, within Wapenamanda District in Enga Province, entered a plea of guilty to three charges: forgery, uttering and stealing by a false pretence, based on sections 462, 463 and 404(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1974.

2.	The maximum penalty for those charges is imprisonment for three years, three years and five years respectively.

Allocutus

3.	As the evidence was considered sufficient to warrant a conviction being recorded on each charge, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions.  What he said, as translated into English, was:

I was working at PNG Ink and Toner and the Headmaster and Treasurer came to see me.  They told me write a letter, so I wrote a letter. The Chairman did not come and the Headmaster told me to help him.  I said no but the Headmaster pleaded for me to help him so I did. I am sorry to the Court.   I did something that is not good.
I am sorry also to the Primary School and the headmaster and the Board and the students.  The money has been taken by people I do not know.  I am sorry.  I am asking that I can give the Primary School K2,000. My salary is K300 per fortnight. I can give K100 to the school.

Evidence for the State

4.	The evidence placed before the Court by the State was the Police brief being pages numbered 32 to 73 (Exhibit A).  

5.	Those pages included (1) statements from the Board Chairman, Treasurer and Headmaster of the school, (2) a record of interview, in Pidgin and English, (3) copies of the relevant documents, and (4) an antecedent report. 

Evidence for the defence
 
6.	A copy of the offender’s s. 96 statement was also admitted, as Exhibit 1.

Submissions for the offender

7.	It was noted that the offender had no prior convictions and that, although she was urged by others to facilitate getting money from the school, she did not benefit financially herself.  There was an acceptance if this being a prevalent offence and that the offences involved trying to steal from an educational institution.  The case for this offender was that she was a scapegoat, and the other offenders were still at large.  It was noted she had been working with her employer for a lengthy period.   The suggested sentence was one year for each offence, with concurrent sentences and it was contended that all that term should be suspended on the condition that the offender pay the school K100 per fortnight or K2,000 in one payment.

Submissions for the State

8.	It was agreed that the sentences imposed should be concurrent, but the Court was reminded that the offender played a pivotal role because she enabled others to withdraw money from the school’s bank account.  It was observed that no offer of restitution was proposed until the hearing.  There was also agreement that a sentence of one year should be imposed, but the question of whether any portion of that sentence should be suspended was left to the discretion of the Court.  The State’s case was that there are a lot of schools that could be subjected to similar conduct and that there needs to be a precedent established by this case.

Relevant law

9.	The range of sentences suggested in Wellington Belawa v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 496 (Bellawa) is now out of date, but the factors listed in that case are still relevant:

(1)	the amount taken;
(2)	the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender including his rank;
(3)	the period over which the fraud or the thefts have been perpetrated;
(4)	the use to which the money or property dishonestly taken was put;
(5)	the effect upon the victim;
(6)	the impact of the offences on the public and public confidence;
(7)	the effect on fellow employees or partners;
(8)	the effect on the offender himself;
(9)	the offender’s own history;
(10)	restitution; and
(11)	those matters of mitigation special to [the offender].

10.	The decision in Mase v The State [1991] PNGKR 88 makes it clear that, when sentencing an offender in a case involving more than one charge, the process should be (1) assess the sentence for each offence then consider whether those sentences should be cumulative or concurrent, (2) consider whether the total sentence is just and appropriate, and (3) if that is not the case, vary one or more of the sentences to produce that result.

Findings of fact

11.	From the evidence, and having regard to the submissions, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

(1)	Between 16 and 18 July 2024, the offender used her employment to produce several false documents.
(2)	Those documents were used to steal money by withdrawing K17,500 from the bank account of a primary school.
(3)	When questioned by the Police, the offender admitted producing the false documents.

Consideration

12.	Using the same numbering, the factors listed in Belawa, as they apply in this case, are set out below:

(1)	The amount taken was K17,500.
(2)	The offender abused the trust reposed in her by her employer.
(3)	The events the subject of these proceedings occurred over a few days.
(4)	There is no evidence as to how the stolen money was used.
(5)	There was a loss of K17,500, leaving only K677.28 in the bank account.
(6)	Stealing from a primary school has an impact on the education of children.
(7)	There does not appear to have been any effect on fellow employees.
(8)	The effect on the offender is that she will lose her employment.
(9)	The offender has no prior convictions.
(10)	There was an offer to pay K2,000 or K100 per fortnight.
(11)	Apart from having no prior convictions, the offender made early admissions and did not benefit from the money that was stolen.

Objective factors

13.	As to the circumstances of the offence, the use of false documents to obtain money is prevalent, that the amount stolen was significant, and that the money was stolen from a primary school.

Subjective factors

14.	The circumstances of the offender are that she is a first-time offender, who made early admissions, and has not been shown to have benefitted financially from the money that was stolen.

Consideration

15.	In this case, the aggravating factors and mitigating factors are the matters set out in the previous two paragraphs.

16.	The Court agrees with both lawyers that the appropriate sentence for each offence is imprisonment with hard labour for one year.  As the three charges relate to one activity of creating and using false documents, those sentences should be served concurrently.  A sentence of one year for all three charges appears reasonable.

17.	Due to the prevalence of these offences, and the fact that money was taken from an educational institution, there is a need for deterrence.  That is the first reason why the submission that the sentence should be wholly suspended is rejected.  The second is that to suspend a sentence in return for compensation being paid would send the wrong message, being a message that offenders can buy their way out of a term of imprisonment.

18.	The Court favours the payment of a single amount, noting that periodic payments could not be made when a term of imprisonment is imposed.  It is considered that the appropriate balance will be achieved by requiring the offender to make a single payment of K2,000 and suspending half the sentence if that payment is made.  

Sentence

19.	For the reasons indicated above, the Court considers the appropriate term of imprisonment is one year for each charge and that those sentences should be served concurrently.  As the offender was granted bail, there is no deduction for time already spent in custody.  Of that period of one year, six months will be suspended if the offender pays K2,000 to Aperus Primary School.  If that amount is paid, the offender will only be required to serve the remaining six months of that sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for one year.

Sentenced accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor