DC2023

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL (SUMMARY) JURISDICTION]

DCR 544/2011

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND

RONALD BUNAP
Defendant

Madang: J.Kaumi
2011 13th ,19th May

SUMMARY-Offence of Knowingly in Possession of Dangerous Drugs-Dangerous Drugs Act Chapter 228, Part II, Control of Dangerous Drugs – Section 3 (1) (d).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Sentence – Offence of Knowingly in Possession of Dangerous Drugs-Dangerous Drugs Act Chapter 228, Part II, Control of Dangerous Drugs – Section 3 (1) (d)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Plea of Guilt- Sentencing is a community responsibility and Courts exercise the people's power by virtue of section 158(1) of the Constitution - Need for proper Guidelines to be followed in the course of deciding appropriate sentence for purposes of Uniformity and Consistency

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-Mandatory Minimum Penalty of Three Months, Section 3 (1) (d) Dangerous Drug Act-No discretion to impose lesser sentence-But court has discretionary dispositive power to suspend all or part of the Minimum sentence and then give alternative penalty-Section 132 (1) District Courts Act, Cht 40.

An adult man pleaded guilty to being knowingly in possession of a dangerous drug, Cannabis Sativa and matter was for sentence. 

 Held:
 (1).That the minimum penalty does not deprive the Court of its power to give just and fair consideration to each case on its own merits and impose sentence as the justice of the case requires but not below the minimum. State v Inema Yawok [1998] N1766 (16/06/1998) Kirriwom.J 

(2).Drug pushers or sellers are a totally different breed and worst type of offenders from consumers and as such deserve to be treated in a manner befitting their status.

Cases cited

Acting Public Prosecutor v Don Hale Sc 564 
State v Inema Yawok [1998] N1766 (16/06/1998) Kirriwom.J 
State v Michael Kamban Mani (21/05/02) N2246
Kovi v The State [2005] SC 789 (31/05/05)Waigani:Injia DCJ,Lenalia&Lay JJ 
The State v Raka Benson (2006) CR 447&450
Saperus Yalibakut vs. The State SCRA No 52 of 2005; 27.04.06(Jalina J; Mogish J Cannings.J )
Police v Gideon Francis DCR 513/2011
Police v Numan Kanai DCR 517/2011

Reference

 'Sentences passed on Dangerous Drug Offenders', Magistrates Bi-Annual Judicial Conference in Lae, May 2009, Martin Ipang 

Legislation

Constitution of PNG
District Court Act, Chapter 40
Dangerous Drug Act Chapter 228

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear in the judgment
CHT		Chapter
DCA		District Courts Act
DDA		Dangerous Drug 1952 Act Chapter 228
J		Justice
M Magistrate
NC		National Court
PNGLR	Papua New Guinea Law Reports
S C		Supreme Court
SCR		Supreme Court Reference
SECT		Section
CONST Constable	
ST		State
SUBS		Subsection
V		Versus

Counsel

Constable Wanai for the Police Prosecution.
Defendant in person.

INTRODUCTION

1. Kaumi. M. Ronald Bunap, you will now be sentenced for an offence contrary to Section 3. 1. (d) of the Dangerous Drug Act ( Hereinafter referred to as DDA)

ARRAIGNMENT

2. When I arraigned you, you pleaded guilty and after confirming the brief facts with you I found you guilty as charged and entered a conviction against you.

FACTS

3. That on Wednesday 15th of May 2011, at about 10:30am, the defendant now before the Court was at the Botanical Gardens in Madang town, Madang Province. 

4. On the mentioned date, time and place the defendant was sighted by the Police Foot Beat Patrol Unit sitting by himself. 

5. Police approached and searched the defendant.

6. Upon searching the defendant, Police confiscated three rolls of Ten kina packed Cannabis (marijuana) inside the defendant's string bag (bilum) hidden in a black wool cap

7. Upon questioning by Police personal about the said cannabis the defendant told them that he had bought it from another person at Mildas Market in Madang.

8. So Police took the defendant to the Police Station where he was further subject to further questioning where he admitted having the said cannabis in his possession and that this was his first time

9. The defendant was then formally cautioned, arrested, charged, told of constitutional rights and placed in the cells. 

ANTECEDENTS

10. Your Antecedent Report provided to Court is as follows;-

a. You are a 23 year old man from Mirkuk village, Madang District, Madang Province.

 b. You are a single man and have no formal employment.

c. You reside at Mirkuk village near Beon CI and have no prior convictions. 

ALLOCATUS

11. In your address on sentence you stated the followed:

 (a) Mi no klia tumas long displa drugs;

 (b) Long Monday mi kam sanap long Mildas na oli salim 10 packs long mi;

 (c ) Mi guria long baim long salim long peles;

 (d) Oli mangi exchangim wantem buai;

 (e) Mi painim busfare long go long peles olsem na mi exchangim displa buai long displa drug.

 12. I take into consideration these above matters when I deliberate your sentence

SUBMISSION BY STATE

13. Constable Wanai made a short verbal submission and a paraphrased summary of his response follows:-

(a.)	 The conveying, selling and consumption of dangerous drugs in the urban and rural areas of this province is frequently happening and is a prevalent offence;

(b.)	The reason or excuse given by the defendant for having the drug in his possession is not good enough; 

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

14. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocatus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State , (Jalina J; Mogish J Cannings.J )

ISSUE

15. These submissions give rise to only one issue for this Court to determine and that is, what the appropriate sentences are in your case.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS 

16. To determine the appropriate sentence I will adopt Canning's. J's decision making process in The St v Raka Benson  and that is;-

Step 1: what is the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament?

Step 2: what is a proper starting point?

Step 3: what are the type of sentencing guidelines and trends per judgments for this type of offence?

Step 4: what are the particular circumstances in which you committed this offence from which come the factors in your aggravation as well as those in your mitigation?

Step 5: what is the starting point for the Head sentence for the offence?

Step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY PARLIAMENT?
17. The offender has been found guilty of an offence contrary to sect 3(1) (d) of the Dangerous Drug Act.

Section 3. PRODUCTION, ETC., OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.

(1) A person who knowingly–

(d) is in possession of or conveys a dangerous drug or a plant or part of a plant from which a dangerous drug can be made,

is guilty of an offence unless he is authorized to do so by or under some other Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and not exceeding two years.

STEP 2: WHAT IS THE PROPER STARTING POINT?

18. Sentencing guidelines are handed down by the Supreme Court occasionally whilst in the process of deliberating the on criminal appeals or reviews. These guidelines are often coined as a starting point for various types of cases. The National Court then applies those starting point in the course of looking at each case on its merits and identifying the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

19. In the present case I have been unable to locate a suitable precedent so I will use the mandatory minimum penalty of 3 months as the starting point for the offence.

STEP 3: WHAT ARE THE TYPE OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND TRENDS PER JUDGEMENT FOR THIS TYPE OF OFFENCE?
SENTENCING TRENDS

20. Ipang.M (as he then was) in his paper 'Sentences passed on Dangerous Drug Offenders' which he presented at the Magistrates Bi-Annual Judicial Conference in Lae in May 2009 obtained statistics from three District Courts for the period 2005 to 2009 and that of the Madang District Court in 2009 which show that the sentencing trend has been more towards imprisonment with a total of 222. This has been followed by Community work with 30, Fines with 14, Probation with 12, Discharge with 6 and GBB with 4.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

21. In my decision in Police v Numan Kanai  I referred to comments I made in Police v Gideon Francis  where I reviewed the statistics provided by Ipang.M (as he then was ) of four District Courts and their sentencing trends, observed and said as follows:-

"I am grateful to Ipang.M (as he then was) for the data he collated however with due respect as enlightening as these statistics might appear to be they do not set out guidelines as to what are appropriate considerations to be taken on board in arriving at these sentences for this type of offence and there is need for such guidelines for purposes of uniformity and consistency of sentence.

 There is a need as well for cases to be published so the sentences and guidelines can be reviewed by the courts to assess the effectiveness of current sentences to see whether they are relevant to the ever increasing magnitude and sophistication of crimes of this nature today, and more importantly whether there is a need for an increase in sentencing".

22. In the immediate matter I adopt the sentencing guidelines that I suggested and the reasons for them in Police v Numan Kanai  in which I followed Kovi v The State  and State v Micheal Kamban  and are as follows:-

 as follows:-

"… (a).After confirming the guilt of a defendant, either on a plea or after a trial, the Court should consider sentence with the maximum prescribed penalty in mind first;

(b). Then the defendant must be allowed to make out a case for a lesser sentence in allocatus; (A defendant could easily do that by pointing out to the factors in his mitigation with appropriate evidence where evidence is required)

(c ). Once the defendant has been able to do that only then should the Court carefully consider the factors both for and against an imposition of the maximum penalty. (At this stage, the categorization of the kind of offence under consideration could become relevant and useful)

24. With these qualifications in mind then the following be applied:-

(a). In an uncontested case with ordinary mitigating factors and no aggravating factors and if any two of the seven factors in section 132 (1) are present i.e. student with no priors, 1 to 10 rolls, a starting point of three months and suspension of the said term pursuant to section 132 (1); 

(b). In a contested or uncontested case, with mitigating and aggravating factors, 1 up to 70 rolls of cannabis sativa, drug pusher, repeat offender a sentence of 3-8 months imprisonment with no suspension;

( c). In a contested case or uncontested case, with special aggravating factors and special mitigating factors whose weight is reduced or rendered insignificant by gravity of the offence, drug pusher, repeat offender and possession of 70 to 150 rolls 7-18 months imprisonment;

(d). In contested or uncontested cases, the imposition of severe punishment or the maximum of 2 years imprisonment should be reserved for the worst case of its kind such as the blatant attempt to illegally traffic large quantities of cannabis in a transnational situation, repeat offender with history of selling large quantities of cannabis or a drug lord etc.

(e). The quantity of drugs should not be the only factor relied upon to determine sentence but should be considered with other factors as well".

STEP 4: WHAT ARE THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU COMMITED THE OFFENCE FROM WHICH COME THE FACTORS IN YOUR AGGRAVATION AS WELL AS THOSE IN YOUR MITIGATION?

23. Going by Cannings.J in Raka Benson  I have adopted his technique which I consider not only relevant but also pertinent in giving effect to the guidelines I have suggested above given the lack or absence of relevant guidelines in our jurisdiction

24. These considerations are as follows:

Considerations

(i). Was only a small amount of dangerous drug involved? No, there were ten rolls of cannabis.

(ii). Did the offender's actions have only a small adverse effect on other persons eg: the members of his family and his community? No, as he indicated in his allocatus that he was exchanging betel nut for marijuana at the Mildas Market to sell to youths at his Mirkuk, he exchanged betel nut which commands a good price for a dangerous drug, was caught and consequently his family lost out on a potential income had he sold the betel nut to the many betel nut consumers who frequent the Mildas Market. 

(iii). Did the offence take place over a short period and not involved a pre-meditated, cunning plan of deceit? No, the offence took place over a long period and involved a pre-meditated, cunning plan of deceit

(iv). Did the offender give himself up before being detected? No, he was detected by the police who searched him. 

(v). Has the defendant pleaded guilty? Yes, he pleaded guilty 

(vi). Has the offender genuinely expressed remorse? No, his comments were all self centered and he never any expressed genuine remorse when given the opportunity to do so. 

(vii). Is this the defendant's first offence? Yes.

(viii). Has the defendant been a good member of his school and the community in which he lives? Neutral, there is no evidence of whether or not he is a good member of his community.

 (ix). Is the defendant a person of good health both physically and mentally? Yes, he was of good health both physically and mentally when he appeared in court on all five occasions. 

(x). Has the offender and his family already paid a heavy price for his actions? Neutral, there is no evidence that his family suffered hardship as a result of his action.

(xi). Can the defendant be regarded as a youthful offender? No, he can be regarded as an adult offender.

(xii). Are there any other circumstances of this particular offence or the offender that warrant mitigation of the head sentence? No, as it can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the defendant exchanged the family's betelnut for cannabis at Mildas Market and instead of going home to Mirkuk village, travelled 2km in the opposite direction to the Botanical Gardens in the heart of Madang Town where a lot of illegal marijuana trafficking takes place and where he was obviously trying to offload the drugs for a price when he was caught. 

(xiii). Is this offence not a prevalent one? No, it is a most prevalent one in Madang.

(xiv). Do these types of offences not have an adverse effect on the community at large? No, they do have an adverse effect on the community at large.

Rationale

25. The rational behind the above considerations is as follows:-

(i). an affirmative (yes) answer = mitigating factor;

(ii). a negative (no) answer = an aggravating factor;

(iii). a neutral answer = be a neutral factor;

(iv). more mitigating factors = likely reduction of head sentence;

(v). more aggravating factors = likely lifting of head sentence above starting point.

(vi). sentencing is not an exact science rather it is a discretionary process;

(vii). Mitigating factors may be mild or strong and weighed accordingly;

(viii). Aggravating factors may be mild or strong and weighed accordingly. The St v Raka Benson.

Categorization of the listed considerations

27. There are three sorts of considerations listed:

(a). Numbers 1 to 3 focuses on the circumstances of the possession of the cannabis.

(b). Number 4 to 7 focus on what the offender has done since he committed the crime and how he has conducted himself.

(c). Number 8 to 12 look at the personal circumstances of the offender and give an opportunity to take into account any other factors not previously considered.

STEP 5: WHAT IS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE HEAD SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE?

28. The mandatory minimum penalty for possession of cannabis is 3 months Imprisonment. State v Inema Yawok 

29. After weighing all these factors and bearing in mind that there are three mitigating factors compared to nine aggravating factors and two neutral factors, and going by State v Inema Yawok  the head sentence should be an increase on the starting point and its starting point is 7 months.

30. The total potential sentence is seven months.

STEP 6: SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THE HEAD SENTENCE BE SUSPENDED?

31. In consideration of whether or not all or part of the head sentence should be suspended I consider some principles of sentencing that are relevant to this issue in the following paragraphs.

32. In Acting Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale , the S C said sentencing is a community responsibility. For the courts exercise a power that belongs to the people by virtue of s. 158 (1) of the Constitution. The S C in that case said ".…The Courts are bound under the philosophy of the Constitution to be in touch with the aspirations and attitudes of the people of PNG and the punishment of criminals definitely has an effect on the ordinary people". 

33. Weighing the factors for and against you, I note that the aggravating factors out weigh those in your mitigation.

34. The abuse and prevalence of cannabis in the communities of Papua New Guinea (both urban and rural), leave neither unscathed in its wake as it wrecks its havoc upon innocent citizens and non-citizens alike when abused by the youth of this nation giving a whole new meaning to the word 'intoxication', therefore it is incumbent upon the courts to react in kind. 

35. One way of arresting the scourge of marijuana is to mete out deterrent sentences and the circumstances of this particular matter demand that this Court exercise the people's sentencing power vested in it by the Constitution and impose a sentence that is in touch with their aspirations and attitudes.

36. Drug pushers or sellers are a totally different breed and worst type of offenders from consumers and as such deserve to be treated in a manner befitting their status and I certainly subscribe to this view that has been stated by the courts and this defendant being no different will be treated as such.

37. Section 132 subsection (1) is a provision gives a District Court magistrate discretionary dispositive powers where a person is charged with a simple offence, and if the charge is proven in certain circumstances, without proceeding to conviction, to dismiss the charge or give a conditional discharge; 

38. I see no plausible reason why I should invoke the discretionary dispositive powers of a District Court available to me under section 132 (1) of the District Courts Act in this matter given the peculiar circumstances of this matter.

39. The head sentence should not be suspended in whole or in part as the offence involved a ten kina pack of cannabis which was destined for consumption thru sale by the defendant as he admitted in his allocatus fortunately he was apprehended by alert law enforcement agents and therefore cannot be categorized as being in the less serious end of the scale.

SENTENCE

40. Ronald Bunap having been found guilty of knowingly being in possession of a dangerous drug, Cannabis Sativa, you are sentenced in the following manner:

(a.) You are sentenced to seven months imprisonment with hard labour;

Police Prosecution for the State 
Defendant in Person