Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Wanda [1997] PGNC 78; N1600 (27 June 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1600

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 458 OF 1997
THE STATE
v
PAUL WANDA

Wewak

Batari AJ
27 June 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Abduction of girl under age of 18 years - Girl few months short of 18 years - Boy-girl relationship - Mitigating factors - Plea of guilty - Sentenced to rising of Court.

Cases Cited:

No cases were cited.

Sentence:

On a plea of guilty to one count of abduction, the following sentence was delivered.

Counsel:

J Wala for the State

F Pitpit for the Accused

27 June 1997

BATARI AJ: Paul Wanda, following your conviction on abduction, you now appear before me for sentence.

I have heard that on 16 January, 1997 at Kaup Village in the Angoram Sub District of East Sepik Province, you arranged with Lilian Wanda, a girl under the age of 18 years to meet you at a designated location where she would be collecting coconuts with two other female companions. You took her away against her parents knowledge or consent. She stayed at your place until the parents located her after some two weeks.

This case had features of aggravation. Your lawyer was therefore at pains to dissuade me from those factors and urged that I accept your offence as non-violent and involved two young adults with mutual interests and love for each in a relationship which had existed for some time. That, when you took her away on 16 January, 1997 it followed your mutual arrangement and that she came voluntarily. You have also tendered a letter purportedly sent to you by the victim. In the letter, the victim spoke of her affectionate feelings towards a ‘Patrick’. I do not know whether you are also known as Patrick. I give you the benefit of doubt on this and also on those other matters raised by your lawyer because prosecution did not object when the question was raised.

You are aged 25 years, unmarried and a villager. This is your first offence. You were said to be the younger brother of the victim’s father. If so, then you are the paternal uncle of the victim. You would be more or less her blood relative. It was however, revealed by your Lawyer that you were adopted into the victim’s father’s family and you grew up as part of them.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. For their love, care and support they gave for your upbringing and welfare, you repaid them by courting the victim at their back. What you did is commonly referred to as “tanim plet” in the pidgin language and by its very implications is disgraceful and humiliating. Anyone who commits such offence within a close family relationship brings shame and causes much grief and anger within the family because the trust and respect is broken.

I note on the other hand that the victim was only short of 18 years at the time of the offence and your fault apparently was your failure to get approval from the victim’s parents when you took her away. Under s. 220 of the Criminal Code, you are liable to be sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. You have spent five (5) months in pre-trial custody. I think that is sufficient penalty for your offence in all the circumstances.

You are sentenced to the rising of the Court.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutors

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitors