National Court of Papua New Guinea

The offence, constituted by 187 separate acts of dishonesty, took place over a twelve month period. This is quite a long-time. It goesnst tisonecause it shows shws she adoe adopted pted a totally dishonest attitude towards her relationship with her employer and her employer’s property.

3. &##160;; < < THE USE TO WTHEH ONEY WAS WAS PUT

The pre-sentence report showed that the prisoner was well-regarded in her village as a kind, helpful and generous person. The money was used to support hed mo imprer fami family lily life, tfe, to please her relatives, and to live-up to her reputation in the village as a generous and helpful person.

4. ҈& < < THE EFFECT OFLOHE ON THE VTHE VICTIM

K9000 is a lot of money, even to a Provincial Government. It is a significant sum, but it will not bankrupt the Government, although it could mean that roviny havforgo srgo somethomething, ing, like the salary of a teacher or an extension officer.

5. TPE IMUPCT PUBN C COIFIDENFIDENCE

The public have become all too familiar with stories of public servicezzleand rfs. Type oence tes csm.6. < &1160  & E60;CT ON FELLOW-EMPLOYEESOYEES

Fellow employees are likely to think that in the short-term this type of offence would not be detected, but that in the long-term the chances are offendell beht, loose their jeir jobs, obs, and have to face the Courts. The fall of a relatively long-serving and respected fellow employee does have a salutory impact institutionally. The fact that Auto Kamuta was caught, probably outweighs the fact that she was dishonest, as far as fellow employees are concerned.

As a cashier she was a low empl who d have been been subjesubject toct to supervision, internal audit, and independent audit. The fact that she was able to get away with her crime for so long, in my view reflects as much on the employer, as it does on the prisoner. Papua New Guinean workers are not highly paid in relation to the high cost structure of the society in which they live. Consequently, lowly paid workers, in positions of trust, with access to cash, but with little or no supervision, or no regular spot checks, or audits, are more open to temptation, than they would be if they were subjected to a rigorous system of supervision and audit. Subjectively they are trusted - objectively little is done to ensure trust.

THE SENTENCE

This is a moderately bad case of dishonesty. It is not amongst the worst cases. The 187 separate acts of dishonesty, and the long period of time over which the offences were committed calls for a prison sentence to be imposed. But there are matters which run in favour of the prisoner. The lack of adequate supervision and auditing, her family background, her work-record, her standing in the village community point towards other options than imprisonment.

Sentencing is not just a matter of a straight choice between custodial and non-custodial options. The options, are not “either”, “or”. That approach completely misconstrues the Criminal Code s19 and the Probation Act. The custodial and non-custodial options are in fact integrated into a whole legislative package which together amount to a sentence, or to punishment. To impose a sentence of imprisonment on its own is just one of the options available to a Court, and in my view it is the last option.

Papua New Guinea, in the past has been too willing to put people into jail. As a country it has one of the highest, if not the highest propensity to imprisonment in Asia or the Pacific, with more people in jail per 100,000 persons than any other country in the region. This is a reflection on colonial history, sentencing practices, and community attitudes. Imprisonment is a punishment and it is oppressive. The resources available within the Corrective Institutions are so meagre that the chances of rehabilitation are not good, even though rehabilitation is the dominant philosophy of the system. It is more realistic to look at immediate imprisonment as a punishment rather than to rationalise it in terms of rehabilitation, and to keep it for those cases in which there really is no viable non-custodial alternative. This view is in the public interest because socially, non-custodial treatment is likely to be a more effective way of dealing with first offenders, and it is also less of an impact on the public purse. In many cases the Court is dealing with first offenders, where violence has not been a crucial part of the offence, here the Court needs to examine the non-custodial options first.

Accordingly in this case, I will proceed by way of the Probation Act s16(2)(a).

The prisoner is sentenced to two years in light labour, less the five days she has spent on remand since she pleaded guilty. She is placed on probation for two years. Under s17(1) of the Probation Act she is to

(a) &#1emain in custody until ctil contacted by her Probation Officer;

(b) ټ to repo report to her Probation Officer once a fortnight;

(c) ; t pand be of good beod beod behaviohaviour for a period of two years;

(d) &#160 not to alter her placabodeabode without givinsonabtice r Pron Officer;

(e) ʔ&160; #160;&#160&#160 &#comp y with s17(1)(e) of ) of the Probation Act;

(f);ټ&##160; allow her Probatrobation Oion Officer to enter her home at reasonable times.

Under section 18on 18 of the Probation Act, the following additional conditions are imposed on her.

She is:-

(a) o t tve eae Gohoka Districstrict without the permission of her Probation Officer;

(b) &#160pay o the Eastern Hign Highlands Provi Govet K30rtnig compion, for the next text two yewo years;

(c)p>(c) & to perform community work work under the dion ofmedicperintendentndent of t of the Gohe Goroka Base Hospital, Dr Kaupa, or his successor, for a period of two years, on every Saturday and Sundnd ony puboliday betwebetween then the houe hours of 7.45am and 4.06pm, or such other normal shift hours as are in accordance with the normal running of the hospital. Her work-sheets are to be signed by the Medical Superintendent once a month and collected by the Probation Officer, who will show them to the State Prosecutor in Goroka.

If she defaults on any of these conditions she will have to serve two years in jail.

Lawyer for the State: The Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the prisoner: The Public Solicitor