DC447

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 1229 OF 2001

State
Complainant

V

Peter Usome
Defendant

Goroka: Manue F
2001: 28th November; 13th. December

REASONS FOR DECISION

MANUE F: This is a summary offence case where the defendant has been charged by the Police for collecting money the sum of K20.00 from another person by means of wilfully misleading conduct on the 11th September 2001 at Goroka Police Station, contrary to Section 15 of Summary Offences Act.

Was the conduct of the defendant wilfully misleading when he collected the money?

The defendant is a Policeman and was at the Police Station at the relevant date. It was not disclosed whether he was on official duty. The victim approached the defendant at the Police Station Counter and enquired about his wife who had earlier been taken to the Police Station. He was enquiring to bail her pursuant to that enquiry, the defendant looked up the charge book or occurrence book. From the details recorded in the book, the victim was advised that his wife had been charged on counts of stealing and unlawful assault. The record showed that the Arresting Officer had allowed her to bail on K100.00 for the both counts. Having heard that, the victim informed the defendant that he had only K70.00 in hand, which were in a K50.00 note and a K20.00 note. The defendant then took the Recognizance To Police for the Appearance of a Defendant – a Police bail receipt book, and advised the victim that he would allow K70.00 bail as the victim’s wife was merely a female.

The victim was called into an office at the Police Station. There the K70.00 in K50.00 note and K20.00 note were given to the defendant. Defendant receipted the taking and recorded only K50.00. On enquiry by the victim of the K20.00 difference that did not show on the document, the defendant explained that the K20.00 was for his own use. Evidence also showed that the receipt did not indicate when the unlawful assault and stealing charges defendant would appear in Court. In exercising his rights, the defendant after the Prosecution case, elected to make a no case submission that was overruled and later elected to remain silent.

Having considered all the facts presented by the Prosecution I find that there is evidence against the defendant for the said offence.

The facts clearly show that his conduct was wilfully misleading when he collected the K70.00 from the victim. When the victim gave the K70.00 he believed that all the money would go towards bailing his wife. However, when the "bail receipt" was given to the victim, it showed only K50.00 with a difference of K20.00 less than the total money given to the defendant for bail purpose. When the victim enquired, the defendant told him that the K20.00 less difference was for his own use.

At no stage did the victim give the K20.00 to the defendant for his own use. He cartegorily denied when pressed on by the defendant in cross-examination.

I find that the charge has been proven.