N9119

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 990 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

AND:
EDITH AGARU

Waigani: Wawun-Kuvi, AJ
2021: 16th, 30th August & 3rd September
CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Guilty Plea- Causing Grievous Bodily Harm, 319 Criminal Code- Domestic Setting- Use of knife to slash de facto husband on abdomen following argument
Cases Cited
State v Suitawa [2021] PGNC 104; N8845 
State v Teine [2021] PGNC 70; N8811 
State v Pombo [2020] PGNC 482; N8741 
State v Kumasi [2020] PGNC 475; N8740 
State v Pihmbou [2020] PGNC 123; N8354 
State v Dirona [2019] PGNC 269; N7985
State v. Hago [2019] PGNC 148; N7870
State v Sylvester [2019] PGNC 15; N7690 
State v Malko [2018] PGNC 486; N7606 
State v Kimai [2017] PGNC 63; N6689 
State v Pakuma [2016] PGNC 351; N6573
State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211 
State v Roy [2015] PGNC 46; N5968 
State v Lawasi [2015] PGNC 40; N5964 
State v Maka [2014] PGNC 173; N5817 
State v Ambi [2014] PGNC 358; N6531 
State v Andrew [2014] Cr No 833 of 2013 (4 April 2014) Unnumbered (published on PNG Sentencing database)
State v Kos [2013] PGNC 221; N5365 
State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723 
State v Minimbi [2013] PGNC 266; N5367 
State v Kulia [2013] PGNC 244; N5403 
State v Busii [2012] PGNC 310; N5267 
State v Sheekiot [2011] PGNC 165; N4454 
State v Konos [2010] PGNC 179; N4157 
Thress Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC 1017
Saperius Yalikabut v The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 
Dambui v The State [2003] PGSC 20; SC724 
Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2003] PGSC 3; SC730 
State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5 
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC 564
The State v. Aruve Waiba [1994] CR1/94
Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 
The State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91 
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412
Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294.
Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653

References
Criminal Code Chapter 262
Probation Act Chapter 381
Counsel
Ms Mercy Tamate and Mr Elsie Kariko, for the State
Ms Carolyn Bomai, for the Offender

SENTENCE

3rd September, 2021

1.	WAWUN-KUVI, AJ:  It is obvious that Edith Agaru and Joe Ori Sepo’s relationship was once a loving relationship. Agaru was only 21 years old when she gave birth to their first child. Sepo was around that age when he became a father. Six years and two children later the relationship ended abruptly. The couple’s trouble stem from a range of issues; from lack of trust to misunderstandings relating to family obligations. A lot of which could have been better managed had the couple first knew each deeper before rushing into marriage.  
 
2.	On the night in question, the victim refused to eat his food because he was drinking with the landlord. The offender found it disrespectful as her mother and brother were present. Words were exchanged and the couple went their separate ways for the evening. The separation was not the least amicable. An undertone of anger, frustration and hurt was left hanging. The victim rejoined his landlord and continued consuming alcohol.  The offender left for the couple’s room and settled in for the night. 

3.	Past unresolved issues and alcohol coupled with the unsettled argument earlier brewed the perfect storm. The victim entered the room and formed a view that the offender was on Facebook. An argument ignited. Some point during the argument, the offender grabbed a knife and slashed the victim on his abdomen. The offender promptly took her mother and left the scene. The victim was eventually taken to the hospital by his landlord. The offender was subsequently arrested and charged by police. She has pleaded guilty to causing him grievous bodily harm.  I am now to decide on penalty.

The Charge

4.	The offender pleaded guilty to the charge of Causing Grievous Bodily Harm pursuant to section 319 of the Criminal Code.
Penalty

5.	The maximum penalty is 7 years.

6.	The maximum is reserved for the worst case: see Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653.

Purpose of Sentencing

7.	In considering the offender’s sentence, I remind myself of the purpose of sentencing which includes but is not limited to, considerations such as punishment of the offender, rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, denounce the conduct of the offender and in cases of violent and serious offences for the protection of the community.
Submissions
Defence submissions

8.	Ms Bomai contends for a term of imprisonment for 3 years. She further submits that the sentence of 3 years be wholly suspended because the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors. Additionally, a peculiar factor exists to justify suspension.  The prisoner was subjected to domestic violence for years.

9.	She provides the following comparative cases:

10.	State v Suitawa [2021] , Numapo, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to striking the victim in the mouth with a stone causing him to lose two front teeth.  Both the prisoner and the victim were drinking alcohol together. The prisoner went to sleep, and the victim went on to disturb the peace in the neighborhood. The prisoner woke up and hit the victim. The victim requested compensation as both men were good friends. The prisoner was sentenced to 2 years. The sentence was wholly suspended on conditions including compensation.

11.	State v Pihmbou [2020], Kirriwom J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to cutting his uncle with a bush knife. The offence happened in the middle of a burial procession. The prisoner was burying his father when the victim argued with him and others over the location of the burial. The prisoner was 19 years old. The pre-sentence report was favourable and the victim avoided being interviewed. The sentence of 3 years was wholly suspended on conditions.

12.	State v Lawasi [2015] , Toliken J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to hitting the victim with a dry stick on the head rendering him unconscious. The prisoner assisted his cousin who was in a confrontation with the victim. He stopped a vehicle and took the victim to the hospital and surrendered himself to police. Prisoner was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months. The sentence was wholly suspended on conditions.

13.	State v Sheekiot [2011], Cannings J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to cutting his cousin on the neck and cheek with a bush knife. The mitigating factors were a plea of guilty, early admissions, paid compensation to and reconciled with victim. The prisoner was sentenced to 4 years. The sentence was wholly suspended based on a favorable pre-sentence report more so that compensation was paid and there was reconciliation.
14.	State v Konos [2010]  Cannings, J: Prisoner pleaded guilty to striking his nephew with a piece of timber, fracturing his knee and causing other superficial injuries. Factors in mitigation were a plea of guilty, first-time offender, the victim was a known troublemaker, de facto provocation for the attack, a blunt object was used on the leg, lessening the risk of a fatal injury, the offender made early admissions. The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years. The sentence was wholly suspended based on the favorable Pre-Sentence Report more so the fact that the victim’s family requested customary reconciliation.
State’s submissions
15.	Ms. Kariko for the State contends for a term of imprisonment between 3 and 5 years. She submits that the prisoner should serve time in prison because the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors; and that the injuries suffered by the victim were serious.

16.	In addition to the case of The State v Sheekiot [2011], Ms Kariko relies on the following comparative cases:

17.	State v Kumasi [2020], Dowa, AJ: the prisoner pleaded guilty to stabbing her de facto husband on his thigh following an argument. She was a first-time offender. There was no permanent injury. The Court found that the offence was prevalent, and a punitive sentence was necessitated not only to deter the offender but also to send a message to the community at large. The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years. Time spent in custody was deducted and part of the sentence was suspended on condition that the prisoner be of good behavior for 2 years. The prisoner was sentenced to serve 7 months and 7 days imprisonment. 

18.	State v Sylvester [2019], Miviri J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to cutting his mother in the neck. He was drunk at the time. There was reconciliation and a favorable pre-sentence report. The prisoner was sentenced to 4 years. The sentence was wholly suspended, and the prisoner was placed on probation.

Comparative cases

19.	Additionally, I have found the following comparable cases. The cases indicate a sentence of 3 years for offences in the domestic settling involving the use of a knife. Where there was a favorable pre-sentence report and presence of reconciliation, the sentences were suspended.  
20.	The sentences also reflect that in cases where the prisoner suffered some form of domestic abuse prior to the attack, the Courts were more inclined to suspend the sentence. The cases are as follows:

21.	State v Teine [2021], Gora J, the offender pleaded guilty to kicking a gate against his elderly relative which caused him to fall down a slope and sustain injuries.  He was angry over the victim calling him names on a previous occasion. The victim suffered serious brain injury. He was a first-time offender. The prisoner was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended on condition that the offender pay compensation.

22.	In State v Pombo [2020], Dowa, AJ: the prisoner pleaded guilty to stabbing his wife multiple times. The victim left him because of his abusive behavior and went to reside with her parents. On the night of the offence, the prisoner armed with a kitchen knife broke into the victim’s parents’ home. The victim ran screaming from the house. The prisoner caught up with her and proceeded to stab her. The victim’s father went to her aid. The victim was rushed to the hospital. She has since recovered from her injuries. The Court rejected defense counsel submission that the offence was not the worst case because had the father of the victim not come to her aid, the attack would have been fatal. The Court found also that offences in the domestic setting were prevalent. The prisoner was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Pre-trial custody period was deducted and part of the sentence was suspended. The balance of the sentence was to be served.

23.	In State v Bonny [2020] Suelip AJ, the prisoner pleaded guilty to cutting his brother-in-law in the hand. The victim was searching for his wife and found her sitting with the offender. He swung a bush knife at the offender. A struggled ensued. The offender obtained the victim’s knife and swung it at him. When the victim raised his hand to defend himself, the knife cut his fingers. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions that included compensation. He was a first-time offender.

24.	In State v Dirona [2019] Toliken, J, the prisoner pleaded guilty to cutting a relative on the hand with a bush knife. The prisoner was young. He was intoxicated and was behaving in a disorderly manner. He was accosted by the victim. He was a first-time offender. The court found that there was de facto provocation. The offence was prevalent. The victim will experience some long-term disability in his hand. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions including the payment of compensation.

25.	In State v. Hago [2019] Anis, J, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the offence of grievous bodily harm. The victim approached the prisoner at the prisoner’s house and cut him with a bush knife on his hand. In his attempt to escape he tripped and fell. The prisoner picked up the victim’s knife and swung it at the victim. The victim blocked it with his hand. The knife cut his hand resulting in loss of function to his left hand. The Court held that the use of bush knives in Papua New Guinea to cause deaths, serious assaults and threats was prevalent. A strong punitive and deterrent sentence was warranted. The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended on conditions. He was a first-time offender and de facto provocation existed.

26.	In State v Kimai [2017], Auka AJ: The prisoner was in a relationship with the victim. The victim was taking care of their sick child when the prisoner came from the back and kicked her on the head. When she fell, he continued to kick and punch her and used an iron bar to hit her all over the body. She suffered various injuries all over her body. The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended with conditions.

27.	In State v Pakuma [2016], Ipang, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to slashing his father with a bush knife. The victim sustained injuries to his hand and a finger was amputated. The prisoner had an argument with his mother and father over the ownership of a pig. The prisoner was a first-time offender. Compensation was paid prior to sentence. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions.

28.	In State v Maka [2014], David J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to hitting the victim with a stone and axe. There was an intimate relationship between the parties. The victim suffered multiple injuries. The prisoner was told to stop but he did not. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment less time spent in custody. No part of the balance was suspended.
29.	In State v Ambi [2014], Batari, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to slashing the victim on her hand with a bush knife twice. She sustained compound fractures to her hand. The prisoner is the older brother of the victim’s husband. They all live on the same block of land. The prisoner was angry over past disputes including an earlier altercation between the offender’s wife and the victim and her husband. The victim demanded compensation. The Court stated that offences involving bush knives was prevalent. The attack was on a defenseless woman. The Court found that the case fell into the range of 4 and 6 years. The prisoner was sentenced to 5 years which was wholly suspended on conditions which included compensation.

30.	In State v Andrew [2014], Kassman, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to fracturing her husband’s hand with a piece of wood. The prisoner and the victim were engaged in an argument in their home which led to a physical altercation. The Court found that there was genuine remorse and the prisoner had paid compensation according to customary rites witnessed by the family prior to her guilty plea. The Court also found based on the prisoner’s evidence that for a considerable time leading up to the offence, the prisoner was a victim of abuse, threats and actual violence. Further it was conceded by the State that the actions of the prisoner stemmed from frustration and anger caused by the disgraceful conduct by the victim on the previous day. The prisoner was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment which was wholly suspended on conditions.

31.	In State v Kos [2013], David J: the prisoner pleaded guilty to chopping his wife’s finger with an axe. The prisoner was away at work when he heard rumors about his wife having extra martial affairs. When he returned on his break, he questioned her and then ordered her to place her hand on a table. He proceeded to chop her fingers off. He was a first-time offender. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Pre-trial custody was deducted, and the balance was suspended with conditions.

32.	In State v Minimbi [2013], David J: the prisoner pleaded guilty to slashing her husband more than once. One of the victim’s fingers was amputated as a result of being cut across the palm and his Achilles tendon was also severed. The prisoner was aggrieved over the victim giving his bank card to the 2nd wife. The prisoner stated in allocutus that she and her children were abandoned by the victim. The prisoner was a first-time offender. She was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended on conditions.
33.	State v Kulia [2013], Kassman, J: The prisoner was found guilty after a trial of causing grievous bodily harm to her husband.  She used a bush knife and cut him on his hand. He suffered fractures which caused disfigurement. The prisoner and the victim were engaged in an argument, and both were armed with bush knives. The prisoner was sentenced to 1-year imprisonment. The pre-sentence custody of 6 months, six days was deducted, and the balance was suspended on conditions.

34.	State v Busii [2012], Batari, J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to hitting the victim with a wood fracturing her right forearm. The prisoner’s wives were fighting, and the prisoner took the side of one of his wives. He was in the process of slashing her with a bush knife when the victim, an elderly woman, intervened. The victim demanded compensation. The Court acknowledged the prevalence of the offence. The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years which was wholly suspended with conditions which included compensation.
Sentencing Factors
35.	Before proceeding on to determine sentence, I again remind myself that sentencing is not an exact science, it is an exercise of discretion which involves the balancing of various factors against the peculiar circumstances of an offender’s case.

36.	Some important factors include the offender’s character, age, education, intellectual capacity, nature and seriousness of the offence, the criminal intent, degree and extent of an offender’s involvement, extent of the injury or harm, the complainant or victim’s views, the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors, prevalence of offence, assistance given to police, pleas of guilty and time spent in custody.
Personal Antecedents
37.	The offender is 27 years and hails from Gomore Village, Rigo, Central Province. She is now a single mother to two sons aged 6 and 4 years. She was in a relationship with the victim at the time of offence. The victim is the father of both her sons.

38.	She is a member of the Jesus Army Pentecostal Church. 

39.	She attended Scared Heart Primary School where she completed Elementary preparatory to Grade 8. She then proceeded to attend Marianville High School from Grade 9 to 12.  She was employed in various organizations until 2017 she joined Vitis Industry. 
Allocutus
40.	The offender’s statement on allocutus was as follows:
“I'm sorry for what I did, my apologies to the State. Secondly, I am sorry for taking your time out here to sit here for my case. Thirdly, to the lawyers that have helped me throughout, for your support and everything you helped me. This is my first time to stand in front of the court but thank you counsels for everything that you did for me. Fourthly, I would like to say sorry also to the complainant, who is my ex-husband and the father of my two sons. I didn't do it intentionally or with purpose he was the one that was belting me up at the time, so I had to do that action to protect myself from whatever was happening at that time. I would like to say sorry to him as well. Lastly to my family for doing such an action that brought shame to them as well. not forgetting my two sons for making them grow up in such a violent…they have been my witnesses and they have been part and parcel of the violent full life that I went through for the past few years that I've had with this the father of the two boys. I want you to know that the life that I've been living with this guy is a very violent full life I have been abused in so many ways emotionally and physically and I've been a victim for these few years but I'm sorry for the actions that I took if I was to be given a chance, I'm willing to compensate him for the sum of money that I have. I've been apart from him for a year now and I'm the only person supporting my sons at the moment. I want to let you know that it wasn't intentional to harm him.”
Nature and Seriousness of the Offence
41.	Is a serious offence. The victim was stabbed in the abdomen. He could have lost in life considering the delay in taking him to the hospital.

Victim Impact Statement

42.	The victim wants the prisoner to be sentenced to imprisonment. He says that he and his family do not want compensation. He says that because of the injuries he has experienced some difficulty.

43.	He agrees that he assaults the victim but says that it is only because she provokes him by questioning him as to his location and his conversations with his colleagues. 
Aggravating Factors

44.	It is not disputed that the victim was hospitalized, that the injury was to a vulnerable part of the body, a weapon was used and that the prisoner did not aid the victim after he was stabbed. 

45.	Whilst the State alleges that there are some residual effects of the injury, there is no recent medical report supporting this position. The benefit is given to the prisoner that the victim has fully recovered: see Saperius Yalikabut v The State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 (27 April 2006)

Mitigating Factors

46.	The offender is a first-time offender who pleaded guilty to the charge. She maintained her plea at the police station and cooperated with police. 

47.	I find her remorse to be genuine because she has not denied the offence and has appreciated her actions. This is considered in light of the fact that she moved away from the victim and went and rented on her own but allowed the victim to return to her and the children. The victim confirms this in his Victim Impact Statement: see Kidu CJ in Kalabus v The State [1988-89] as to genuineness of remorse.
Extenuating Circumstance
48.	There was no pre-planning and intention behind the stabbing. She was already in bed when the victim demanded her face book password. He provoked the argument. He was drunk and forced open the room. He then grabbed the phone off the prisoner. This prompted the prisoner to stand up and demanded her phone. He stood at the door, shouted at her and pushed her in the chest causing her to fall.  The victim stood up and stabbed him in the chest and then walked outside. He then threw a bucket at her. This is from the victim’s own statement to police contained in the depositions. It is apparent that had the prisoner intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm there would have been more than the one stabbing. The benefit is given to the prisoner when she says that she was being assaulted and she took the opportunity to grab the knife and stab the victim.
Deterrence
49.	Domestic killings and domestic assaults are on the rise in Papua New Guinea. This is evident with the public outcry and the spate of domestic cases in all levels of Courts in Papua New Guinea. 

Head Sentence

50.	In considering all the above factors the offender is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Suspension
51.	The principles regarding suspension are as follows:
•	Suspension is not an act of leniency but is in the interest of the community and to promote rehabilitation and prevent recidivism: The State v Kagai [1987].
•	Sentencing is a community response and so the views must be obtained in a pre-sentence report. Without the report, the Court cannot suspend sentence: Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2003], State v Winston [2003] and Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998].
•	The community’s view must be obtained, if is intended that the offender be placed back into the community: Gima v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2003], State v Winston [2003]and Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998]
•	Suspension pursuant to section 19 (6) of the Code should only be exercised in three broad categories, (1) promotes personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the offender, (2) encourages the repayment or restitution of stolen money or goods and (3) imprisonment would cause excessive degree of suffering, for example, because of bad physical and mental health: Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986].
•	The factors that were considered to lower the sentence should not be the same used to suspend sentence. It amounts to double discount in the prisoner’s favor: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981].
•	In cases where the offence is prevalent, only in exceptional cases can the circumstance of the case override imprisonment: Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979].
•	What is exceptional in each case is infinite. Each sentencing court in the exercise of discretion makes that determination: State v Malko [2018].
•	Evidence of good character supports suspension. There must be actual evidence and not based on submissions that the offender has good character: State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320.
•	In violent offences, the views of the victim are important when considering suspending sentence: State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211 (19 February 2016),  and State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723 (20 June 2013)
•	Partial suspension pursuant to section 19 (f) of the Code should be exercised proper basis: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412.
•	The procedure under section 19(f) of the Code is for the prisoner to enter into recognizance first prior to commencing the portion that the prisoner was ordered to serve: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412.
•	For offences with minimum penalty provisions, it is open to the Court to consider suspension after imposing the minimum penalty. This is dependent on the peculiar circumstance of each case: The State v. Aruve Waiba [1994] and Dambui v The State [2003].

52.	I am reminded that only in exceptional circumstances that personal factors may override a term of imprisonment for prevalent offences and that the same factors that were used in mitigation cannot be the same considerations for suspension.

53.	In the present case, I find that the special and exceptional factor is that the offender is a survivor of domestic violence. The State has not negated that the offender is a survivor of domestic violence and has suffered years of abuse perpetrated at the hands of the victim. She has maintained this from arrest and in fact the depositions support that the victim was the initial aggressor. She has been granted a family protection order restraining the victim from having further contact with her. 

54.	In Thress Kumbamong v The State (2008), the Supreme Court stated that a distinction must be made between the real criminals who ought to be incarcerated and from those who pose no risk to society. It said:

"The courts need to re-examine and identify cases that require imprisonment for the protection of the society and the cases that do not warrant imprisonment but correction outside the prison system. This is not a new thing. The courts have been doing that for centuries but have failed to guarantee safer societies. What is new, however, is the question of what should be the primary focus of criminal sentencing and the suggested answer of correction and rehabilitation and not necessarily imprisonment in prisons. Adopting such an approach would enable the courts to address that which matters most, which is the emotional needs of an offender and the society as a whole for a safer society."

55.	Toliken, J in State v Roy [2015], a case involving the killing of a husband by a wife who suffered domestic violence, adopted the statements in Thress Kumbamong v The State and said:

“31. What the Supreme Court said in Kumbamong has a lot sense. Victims of domestic violence as I alluded to above suffer untold physical, humiliating, psychological and sometimes degrading and inhuman treatment from their violent and abusive spouses and partners for years. With a society that largely views women as her husband's property resulting inaction by communities (especially relatives), the cause for the abused and battered woman is not promoted at all. How they endure this, and somehow cling on to a partner and a relationship that is obviously and latently dangerous for their very survival is hard to fathom. But they endure - if they are not killed sooner - until they will snap as you did in this case. So should you, and others like you, then be subjected to the full wrath of the law, whose agents, sad to say, often times do not come to your assistance until it is too late?
32. You are one of those prisoners, who are victims themselves, who do not deserve to be incarcerated for lengthy periods of time but rather as the Supreme Court said in Kumbamong, ought to be corrected outside our prison system.”

56.	In line with the above statement and the factors I have alluded in support of suspension, the sentence of 3 years is wholly suspended, and the prisoner shall be placed on probation for a period of 3 years.

Orders

57.	The Orders of the Court are as follows:

1.	The Defendant is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
2.	Pursuant to section 16(2) of the Probation Act 1979 (Chapter 381), the sentence of 3 years is wholly suspended, and the prisoner is released on probation for a period of three years commencing 3 September 2021. 
3.	The conditions of the Probation are:
3.1.	The probationer shall provide her home address to which she is to go and shall remain until she is contacted by a probation officer. 
3.2.	The probationer shall report to the probation officer as and when required by the probation officer to do so.
3.3.	The probationer shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the period of probation.
3.4.	The probationer shall not change her address, other than the address referred to in Paragraph (3.1), unless she has given to a probation officer reasonable notice of her intention to do so and the reasons for the proposed change; and
3.5.	Where by virtue of the change of address, the probationer has moved to another declared area–she shall, within 48 hours of arrival, report to a probation officer in that area and advise that officer of the nature and place of her employment and of her new address in that area; 
3.6.	The probationer shall give to a probation officer reasonable notice of her intention to change her employment and advise him/her of the nature and place of her proposed employment; and
3.7.	The probationer shall, for the purposes of the Probation, allow a probation officer to enter her home during reasonable hours.
4.	Failure to comply with any of the conditions, the Probationer shall be arrested and shall serve the full sentence.
5.	Bail is refunded.
________________________________________________________________
Office of The Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
Office of The Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Defence