DC3063
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the District Court of Justice]
[Sitting in its Criminal Jurisdiction]

SOA 540-542 of 2015

Between:

POLICE INFORMANT
-Complainant-

And:

JOE BLOW TEINE, PASINDIA TEMIN & PETER ARRE
- Defendants-

Kundiawa:  B. Tanewan– Magistrate

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT – Part II -Section 6 (3) Unlawful Assault –multiple Defendants and multiple victims – Sentence on Plea of Guilty.

PRACTISE & PROCEDURES – Ruling on Sentence - Principles of sentences- mitigating factors as well as aggravating factors considered – Guilty plea - defacto provocation – non custodial sentence good behaviour of 12 months – compensation ordered.

Legislation cited:
Summary Offences Act

Cases cited:

GoliGolu - v – The State [1979] PNGLR 653.
State - v –Daniel N2890 of 2005,

Appearances:

Informant (Police)		Sgt Clement John

Defendants:			Joe Blow, Pasindia Temin & Peter Arre - In Person

RULING ON SENTENCE
1. 	Introduction
B. Tanewan: The defendants are all co-workers as security Guards at Greenland Entertainment Centre. The defendants were charged with three (3) counts of Unlawful Assault and one (1) count of Stealing.

2.	Background Facts

The defendants were at their duty location at Greenland on 19th June, 2015 guarding pokies machines and gamblers.

At about 7:00 or 8:00 the victim Robert Romongi, a Policeman based in Kundiawa walked into the pokies area and started gambling. After couple of games the victim went over to the operator and placed a K50.00 and came back playing. Sometimes later a conversation ensued between the operator and the victim. The victim walked back to the pokies machine with a bottle of beer smashed the poker machine.

At that instant the security guards including the defendant manhandled and assaulted him and others who try to assist in one way or the other. It was alleged that they assaulted all three (3) victims and closed the pokies house.

All defendants pleaded not guilty raising provocation as defence and trial was conducted. The court however, found all defendants guilty of unlawful assault of the three (3) victims but acquitted them all of stealing.
This is the Court’s ruling on sentence.

3.	The Law

Sentencing is an exercise of discretion on penalty provided by law. In this particular case, Section 6 (3) of the Summary Offences Act is relevant.

4. 	Application of the Law

In applying the law as stipulated above, the court is also mindful of the sentencing trends and precedents in unlawful assault case. On the same token the court also considers both the mitigating and the aggravating factors in this particular case which are set out below. 

a)	Mitigating factors:

-  	Defector provocation – the smashing of a very expensive poker machine by the victim.
- 	Defendants are all first time offenders.
-	the defendants willingness to pay compensation to the victims.
- 	supporting or standing by, another person who has caused a problem,ie; damage to property of another.

b)	Aggravating factors:
-	finding of guilt after trial which costs a lot of time.
-	no show of remorse to what had happened.
-	absence of any apologies
-	extend or injuries and assault on victims very excessive.

The court in using its discretion also is bound by the underlying penalties principle that “the highest penalties are reserved for the worse kinds of offences as stated in GoliGolu - v – The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

In, State - v –Daniel N2890 of 2005, Justice Cannings in an endeavour to arrive at an appropriate sentence posed the following questions:
i)	Did the defendant not directly assault the victim?
ii)	Was he the only person involved in the attack?
iii)	Did the defendant set out to hurt anyone?
iv)	Did the victim provoke the defendant in a non-legal sense?
v)	Did the victim have trouble with the defendant making him susceptible to be attacked by the defendant?
vi)	Can the attack on victim regarded as vicious?
vii)	Did the defendant co-operated with the Police during investigations?
viii)	Has the defendant done anything tangible towards repairing his wrong?
ix)	Has the defendant pleaded guilty?
x)	Is this his first time offence?

His Honour Cannings J, then went on to say that “if any answers to the above questions are in the affirmative or yes that can be regarded as a mitigating factor and if the answer is in the negative or no then that is an aggravating factor.” 

6.Application of considerations in this case.

In applying the above consideration to this particular case, the court answers the questions as follows:

a)	Did the defendants directly assault the victims? Yes
b)	Did the defendants set out to hurt anyone? No
c)	Did the victims provoke the defendants in a non-legal sense? Yes
d)	Did the victims have trouble with the defendants making them susceptible to attack? Yes

e)	Can the attack on the victims regarded as vicious? Yes, to Robert Romongi and, No, to the other two (2) victims.
f)	Did the defendants co-operated with Police during investigations? Yes 
g)	 Has the defendants done anything tangible?
h)	Did the defendants pleaded guilty? No 
i)	Are the defendants first time offenders? Yes

In considering the above the mitigations outweigh the aggravations and so this case in my view falls within the mid-range of such offences.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, in summary, given the circumstances of this case the court orders that;

1.	All defendants are sentenced to 12 months each, which is wholly suspended and all defendants placed on Good Behaviour for the duration.

2.	The defendant shall pay compensation to the victims in the following manner;
a)	Robert Romongi – K1, 500.00
b)	Tolbert Fuksep – K 500.00
c)	JohnJerico – K500.00

3.	All compensation shall be made within two (2) months from today, in default 12 months IHL.

4.	Defendants bail shall be refunded forthwith.

Orders Accordingly