N9622

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 767 & 1067 OF 2021

THE STATE

V

EKA PATRICK & OIZA KUMITAKERE

Goroka: Miviri J
2022: 04th & 6th May

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Aggravated Armed Robbery Section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) CCA – Trial – Identification – Robbery – Search Act Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 10 – Photographs Mobile Phone – Whether Evidence Lawfully Obtained – Search Evidence Section 10 Search Act – Defence Evidence – Sworn Evidence – Unsworn Statement from Dock – Weight to – Balance discharged– Verdict Both Accused Guilty of Aggravated Armed Robbery S 386 CCA.
Facts
Both Accused were part of a gang armed with a knife and pistols that held up one Christian Lai and made off in a getaway car with K 163,400.00 in cash the property of one Istana Limited.

Held
Identification of the Accused were made out beyond all reasonable doubt by the admissions in the records of interview and the confessional Statement. The two pistols and money with Deposit Slip corroborated the identification of both Accused. Circumstantial as well as direct evidence established their identity in the crime.
Both Accused guilty of aggravated armed robbery.

Cases Cited: 
Alex v Golu [1983] PNGLR 117
Beng v Goi v Bank South Pacific Ltd [2020] PGNC 87; N8271 
Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558.
Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498 
State v Evertius [1985] PNGLR 109
State v Popo [1987] PNGLR 286
The State [1977] PNGLR 115
Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980 

Counsel:

C. Langtry, for the State
V. Agusave, for the Defendant
		
VERDICT
06th May, 2022

1.	MIVIRI J: This is the verdict after the trial of the two accused who both entered not guilty pleas to the Indictment presented against them of aggravated armed robbery pursuant to section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code Act. 

2.	Both were jointly charged on the same indictment with co Accused Robert Paul of Kerohox village, Lufa, and Anthon Gapo of Sakanuka, Bena, all in the Eastern highland Province. And Niavi Lomo, Riverside village, Kairuku Hiri Central Province. The latter three, Robert Paul, Anthon Gapo and Niavi Lomo have each entered guilty pleas to the indictment preferred in their respective cases. Because of the denial of the two Accused, Eka Patrick and Oiza Kumitakere, trial has proceeded in both cases to hear the evidence on their allegations. 

3.	They were jointly charged on the indictment, Robert Paul of Kerohox village, Lufa, Eastern Highlands Province and Anthon Gapi of Sakanuka village, Bena, also in the Eastern Highlands Province and Niavi Lomo of Riverside village, Kairuku Hiri, Central Province, and Eka Patrick of Nalepa village, Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province, and Oiza Kumitakere of Komu village, Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province stand charged that they on the 20th day of November 2020 at Goroka in Papua New Guinea stole from Christian Lai with actual violence one hundred and sixty three thousand four hundred kina (K163, 400.00) in cash the property of Istana Limited. 

4.	And at this time, they the said Robert Paul and Anthon Gapi and Niavi Lomo and Eka Patrick and Oiza Kumitakere were armed with dangerous weapons, namely, guns and a knife and were in company with another person.
5.	The facts upon arraignment were that on the 20th November 2020, between 8.00am and 9.00am, four of the Accused lured one Philip Korul Mone who was driving a green CRV taxi registered number JWK 408-to-8-mile junction. There they forcefully tied his hands and feet up and put him in the boot of the taxi. They then picked up two more accomplices and drove back to Goroka town where five of them got out and waited for Christian Lai who used to take the cash money belonging to Istana Limited to be banked at the Bank of South Pacific Goroka.
6.	She left Istana Limited with a black bag containing the cash in the sum of K 163, 400.00 belonging to Istana Limited. As She did one of the Accused Niavi Lomo approached her in the street and pulled that black bag containing the cash. She resisted him and shouted whereupon he took out a knife and ordered her to let go of the bag. Two of the other accused approached and showed her the pistols that each had concealed within their clothing and told her not to make a noise. Niavi Lomo then cut the strap of the black bag freeing it from Christian Lai. The five accused then took the black bag containing the money and ran back to the green CRV Taxi and took off towards Seigu. There they abandoned it with Philip Korul Mone still in its boot.
7.	They ran away and divided the money amongst themselves. In the evening of that day, they were apprehended by Police where the cash and the three pistols were also discovered and taken back from their possession. Their conduct jointly and severely breached section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code Act. Further they aided and abetted each other and so were covered by section 7 (1) (a) (c) (d) of the Criminal Code Act for the offence of aggravated robbery.
8.	Robert Paul of Kerohox village, Lufa, Eastern Highlands Province and Anthon Gapi of Sakanuka village, Bena, also in the Eastern Highlands Province and Niavi Lomo of Riverside village, Kairuku Hiri, Central Province, all pleaded guilty to the Indictment. Provisional pleas of guilty to aggravated armed robbery pursuant to section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code Act were entered against each of them subject to the reading of the depositions, which was postponed pending this trial of the two accused Eka Patrick and Oiza Kumitakere.

9.	The trial of the two accused started on oath with the evidence of Christian Lai. She testified that she was followed by a man who was armed with a bayonet type knife that he used to cut the strap of her black bag containing the cash of K 163, 400.00 packed by owners of Istana Limited, together with the deposit Slip that was signed in the hands of Mrs Wong, whose writing Christian was familiar with, as she worked with them four to five years, doing their banking for them. She confirmed that the deposit slip was already prepared for her to simply do the banking. And that she was shown a green pistol that was concealed in the clothing of one of two men, the second man also in his clothing concealed, showed her another silver pistol with a black handle.

10.	She was shown MFI 1 photo of the green CRV registered number JWK 408 and MFI 2 photos of the pistols, there were two home-made and one factory made pistol. She said they were two pistols that she identified as being ones concealed in the clothing of the two men. These were the green sticky taped pistol and the silver barrel black handle pistol. She did not recognize the third pistol. The green CRV taxi JWK 408 was also recognized by her as she always used it too. And that it was the vehicle that was used as the getaway vehicle by the robbers, after they had got the money from her contained in a small bag, which she had placed in the black bag that she carried which strap was cut by the robber with the knife, who took it and they ran away with it. She did not recognize all three robbers as they were masked and had hoods covering their head with.

11.	State witness number two, Philip Korul Mone, 37 years old from Simbu strengthened the evidence of the armed robbery further. He was the driver of the green CRV taxi registered number JWK 408 that was stolen by the robbers, who lured him on the pretext to go to Kamaliki to get their bags, where he was directed off the main road into a small road on the side along which he was held up with a factory-made silver, black rubber handle pistol pointed at him. He was told it was a hold up. He thought they wanted money so took out K10.00 that he had made from an earlier passenger. But they said they wanted his vehicle. They told him to get into the boot of the vehicle where they tied both his hands and legs and told him to sleep in the back. As he did, they covered him with newspapers. Which were blown off as they drove back into Goroka town. And they went and parked the taxi at grammar school where Istana Store is. One of them was coordinating as they were stopped there for a while as the door was opened and was going and coming. And then the vehicle was driven at high speed to where the road ended. It was stopped and they ran away. People saw the vehicle and came saw him at the back and wanted to untie him. But he said Police will come and see it and then untie him. He identified MFI 2 as the black pistol which was factory made that he saw when it was produced to him.

12.	Both his evidence and that of Christian Lai proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that five armed men committed the armed robbery upon Christian Lai. They were armed with a bayonet type knife and two pistols, one green sticky taped, and another black handle with a silver barrel. They had lured him to Kamaliki where he was held up with that silver barrel pistol with the black handle. Then he was told to get into the boot of the taxi where his hand and feet were tied. After which he was told to sleep at the back of the green CRV taxi registered number JWT 408. And K163, 400.00 in cash in a black bag carried by Christian Lai who was on her way to bank when it was stolen off her, when one of the robbers armed with the bayonet type knife cut off the strap, who snatched it, and they drove off with it in the CRV taxi JWT 408. That vehicle was used by the robbers as getaway vehicle, driven and left at Seigu with him still tied in its boot.

13.	The robbery was committed by persons that needed to be identified. There were three accused who had pleaded guilty who were pending and awaiting the outcome of this trial. But it remained as to the identity of both Eka Patrick and Oiza Kumitakere to be connected to the allegation without which they were not obligated the consequence of the Indictment laid. The relevant law on identification was set out in Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115.

14.	 Here the evidence of Christian Lai and Philip Korul Mone did not fit out. Because both could not identify both accused in their evidence at the scene of the robbery. But the evidence led was circumstantial and here the law was set out in Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498, that there must be no other reasonable hypothesis open on the evidence, other than the guilt of the Accused.
15.	In this regard the State endeavoured with the sworn evidence of one Richard Mark 38 years old, Auto Technician graduate of Hagen Technical College. He testified that on the night of the 20th November 2020 he was called on his phone by Eka Patrick to pick him up. It was between 7.00pm to 8.00pm at night. He was accompanied by David Andy who had worked on it and was being dropped off. He picked him in the white Toyota land cruiser registered number BED 551, and together they drove to Napa Mogoua. At the coffee Plantation they turned and the boys came out from it. With Eka Patrick they got on the vehicle and asked to be dropped off in Goroka at first Street Seigu. He picked them up. He did not see them but drove to where he was to drop them off, when two ten seaters at high speed came up to them forcing him to stop. And when that happened Eka said, “Stop yumi stap long hevi”, and surrendered to the Police who were in both ten seaters.
16.	Together with Eka Patrick and David Andy they were taken back to the Police Station in the other ten-seater used by the Police. The rest of the others were taken in the other ten-seater. He identified MFI 4 as being his car the white Toyota Land cruiser registered BED 551. He also identified Eka Patrick in court as his cousin. But did not of the defendant Oiza Kumitakere.
17.	His evidence did not identify the robbers involved except that he transported Eka Patrick and others who were pursued and apprehended by Police that night. It remained as to the connection to the offence for both Eka Patrick and Oiza Kumitakere. 
18.	The next witness for the State was the Investigation Officer David Yaplin, who was a policeman in the CID section, Officer in Charge of Criminal Intelligent, a position that he held since 2016. Initially he joined the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary in 1990. Four years later he was in Criminal Investigation Department and has been serving there since. He compiled the investigation file in the matter against all Accused. And knew Eka Patrick and Oiza Kumitakere identifying both in court. They were brought in by Police task force on the night of the 20th November 2020 who had arrested them, which was the date of the robbery. He saw them in the morning at the police station 21st November 2020. And he charged them. They had escaped on a getaway vehicle that had gone Seigu way and Komu village about 7 to 9 kilometres. And were picked up on a white ten-seater Landcruiser near Seigu. 
19.	Which information he was reliably informed by the driver of the ten-seater Landcruiser who had picked up the suspects. And at Seigu the Police Task Force apprehended them with K110, 000.00 in their possession together with the firearms, three pistols, one factory made, and two homemade pistols. The three pistols were handed over to me and I photographed them and also the K110, 000.00 all of which I photographed, including the getaway vehicle and the pickup vehicle. I returned the K 110, 000.00 back to Istana Limited. I also photographed the deposit Slip of the subject money, which was in the sum of K 163, 400.00.
20.	I was also handed a phone of the defendant Oiza Kumitakere which was obtained by Police Task Force members when they searched him at the time he was arrested. It was his phone because on the screen cover his face appeared and he had a password to access it. I accessed his phone with that password that he gave me. In it were photographs, selfie that was taken to confirm them. And there were ten (10) of them arrested, two (2) were not a party of the gang make up. This were the driver of the pickup ten-seater Landcruiser and his passenger David Andy. So, there were eight (8) arrested out of which two escaped from the Police Lockup. One was Yohannes David and the other I cannot recall his name now.
21.	I brought altogether and spoke to them. They admitted so I separated them and interviewed them separately in records of interviews. I recorded these records of interviews. I also obtained confessional statements when they made the admissions. In the case of Eka Patrick I conducted the record of interview with him in Pidgin on the 03rd of December 2020, and then translated it into English. Both had six (6) pages in all. Which was marked as State Exhibit P1 the pidgin version, and the English version was Exhibit P1(a).
22.	In it I signed on the far right, the Accused Eka Patrick signed in the middle and in the left-hand corner was my corroborator, Paul Awak. Examining Exhibit P1 and P1(a) the arresting officer gave the accused the election of what language to use. Accused elected to use pidgin. Arresting Officer introduced himself together with his corroborating officer and informed the reason for the interview which was that a female employee of Instana Supermarket was held up with actual violence by you the Accused with six accomplices making off with K 200, 000.00. Accused understood, then was accorded the short caution that he was not obliged to speak if he chose not to, but anything he said would be taken down as evidence and would be used in a court of law against him.
23.	He was then accorded his Constitutional Rights under section 42 (2) to see a Lawyer of his choice in the matter. Or speak to a public Solicitor, or a friend and if he so sought arrangements would be made for them to see him before hand at the place where he was detained. He understood and his particulars were obtained. He was 43 years old and resided at Nalepa, Goroka Eastern Highlands Province. He recalls that on that day 20th November 2020, he was in front of the Istana Supermarket Goroka town. He was alone and was, “keeping my eyes on the movement of the Police while watching a coca cola promotion in front of the Istana Supermarket.
24.	Asked at question 12, “Eka, why did you keep your eyes on the movement of the Police from in front of Istana supermarket? He replied at A12, “Oiza advised me keep my eyes on the Police as the boys will pick up some money from Istana Supermarket” He did not know which boys were to pick up that money but only saw Oiza moving around there within the vicinity of Istana Supermarket. At question 15 he was asked whether he saw any movement of Oiza Jere and his boys? He replied, “A15. Yes, I was watching when Oiza and his boys put the Female employee on gun point and remove the money Bag.” He enlightens further at A16, “I did not see them putting the lady on gun point but I only saw them running with the money bag towards a green CRV taxi being parked towards the town authority gate. Q29. Eka what was your role during the robbery? A29. Yes, my part in the robbery was to spy on the Police. Q31. Eka, Do you understand that your part in the robbery was not correct? A31. First of all, I did not realize anything wrong but while in the hands of the Police I noticed what I did was not right.”
25.	He details in the record of interview that he later met up with them and then he was asked by Oiza to arrange for transport which he did by calling his cousin Richard Mark who came in the white ten-seater Toyota Land cruiser who picked him and the others and were on their way back when Police came in two Ten seaters and apprehended them.
26.	In my view this evidence identifies the role Eka Patrick played in the robbery. He was a watchman keeping a look out for the police at the time leading up and in the robbery. And he continues further by following to the scene where the money was divided and he was accorded his share. And he continued with the arrangement of the pickup vehicle that he secured from his brother Richard Mark when police got them. He knew there would be a robbery and assisted by being the watchman in the robbery. I find his identity has been made out and the role he played in the robbery is clear, he was a watchman by his own admissions in the record of interview. And even circumstantially his identification as the watchman participant in the robbery is the only rational inference which affirms his guilt in the offence, Pawa (supra). I return a guilty verdict on the indictment against him Eka Patrick guilty of aggravated armed robbery pursuant to section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code Act. And further he aided and abetted and therefore is covered by section 7 of the criminal code as an active participant in the crime. He is guilty as charged and I convict him accordingly. I order consequently that his bail money is refunded forthwith and that he is remanded forthwith to await sentence.
27.	The next evidence that was tendered through this witness was Exhibit P2 which was the three pages confessional Statement that was obtained on the 10th March 2021 from the defendant Oiza Kumitakere. In it he makes very detailed admissions to the commission of the robbery. He received a call two weeks earlier before the 20th November 2020, from a gang member known as Bandi Rango that there would be movement of large amount of money belonging to Istana Supermarket at Town. After receiving this information accused met one Yuanis David, Paul Robert, Anthon Gapo and Bandi Rango and all went to Istana supermarket to conduct surveillance on the movement of the money. And this happened on Monday 16th November 2020 as early as 9.00am all positioned themselves at different locations near and observed. They confirmed that at 10.30am Christian Lai walking out of Istana Supermarket with the money bag and walked to BSP Bank. He opinioned that it was very simple to rob the lady as she walked with the money to the Bank of South Pacific.
28.	And on Friday 20th November 2020 at about 7.30am they proceeded to outside Sengda Supermarket almost towards Kakaruk Buai market where they were going to delegate responsibilities for the execution of the robbery. “We had four (4) firearms in our possession for the execution of the Robbery. 2x factory made side arm and 2x homemade pistols. Bandi Rango had his own factory-made magnum pistol; I was with a point 22 revolver pistol while Yanis David and Robert had a homemade pistol each. The information on the movement of the money from the Supermarket to the bank was apparently sourced from Bandi Rango. With the information I did all the planning to execute the operation. At that time Robert and Yaunis were assigned to put the lady with the money on gun point giving way for Niavi Lomo to pull the money bag off from that lady. Anthon Gapo was assigned to go and wait for us at Seigu near a timber yard who could lead us out towards Komu village for our safety.
29.	After a short while we went onto the Sengda Car and jumped into a parked taxi and directed the driver to Kamaliki near Tim Asitore’s coffee plantation. At that plantation we forced the driver out and tied him with cable tie and dumped him in the taxi booth and Mai Dama took over the driving. Everything went out according to plan. From Kamaliki straight into town along the airport road. In town we drove towards Goroka Grammar School and picked up Niavi Lomo the man who could actually cause the damage. After picking  Niavi Lomo near Goroka Grammar School we drove towards Goroka Town authority office and parked the taxi at the gate. With careful consideration we picked up our position in front of Istana supermarket, along Papindo fence opposite the Bena bush stop and Hot Spot store towards BSP Bank.
30.	Myself, Yuanis and Robert were task to put the lady with the money bag on gun point as soon as she crosses the road towards the bank. Upon sighting the lady with the money bag, Myself, Yuanis David, and Niavi Lomo closed in towards the lady for action. She may have sense us when She made an attempt to turn back into Istana supermarket. Before she take another step we chased her when Niavi Lomo grabbed the money bag. The Lady resisted abit but to no avail as we closed the gap with our guns pointing at her. Myself, Yuanis and Robert pointed our pistols threatening to shoot at her. Not long Niavi Lomo managed to cut the bag handle and the lady let go the money bag free. Niavi Lomo grabbed the money bag and we ran to the waiting taxi and the rest of the boys jumped into the taxi and I was late to jump into the taxi and they drove down towards Seigu along the Bena Road. I and Bandi Rango were left behind as we were slow and to get into the taxi. I walked towards Seigu in anticipation to catch up with the boys living Bandi Rango. Later I was informed that Bandi Rango escaped into Genoka Settlement.
31.	At Seigu along the Bena Road I caught up a PMV Bus to Lame Station. Along the way, I dropped off near Seigu Timber yard and walked towards Komu. Eventually I caught up with the boys at Komu village and we counted the money together. The total money was K 163, 400.00 and also the amount was verified on a deposit slip found in the money bag. We divided the money among the six (6) of us and ended up with almost K 27, 000.00 each. After sharing the money we waited for darkness to arrive. It was about 6.30pm towards 7pm we started walking towards Sioke Primary School. We arrived at the coffee Plantation near Sioke Primary School and met with Eka Patrick who was waiting for us. During the actual cause of the robbery Eka Patrick played his role to scout for the Police. Later I called Eka Patrick to go and wait for us at the Coffee Plantation. We were at Sioke coffee Plantation when Eka Patrick called for a vehicle to pick us up to town.
 
32.	We waited for a little while when Eka Patrick called again for the same vehicle and not long a white ten sitter arrived. We jumped into the vehicle and drove into town. We had all our share in our possessions when we drove into Town. We arrived at Seigu when Police chased us and blocked us off, held us on gun point and asked us to surrender. We listen to the Police gracefully surrender to them. The police searched us through and retrieved all the money plus our weapons. One of the Policeman physically searched me and removed my phone and my share of money (about K 27, 000.00) from the robbery. After removing everything we were escorted to Goroka Police Station when we were interrogated and formally arrested and charged.”

33.	The statement is made by the accused Oiza Kumitakere certifying that it is the truth to the best of his knowledge and belief, and conscientiously made knowing that if it is tendered into evidence, he will be liable to be prosecuted if he has knowingly stated anything false or misleading in any particular. He signs it. It is coupled with the interpretation clause made by Detective Senior Constable David Yaplin of translating the statement from pidgin into English. And he signs at the end. It is evidence that is lawfully obtained and confirmed by the record of interview of the same accused. Its veracity as the truth of what happened is consistent and corroborated by the evidence of the state witnesses. It is reliable evidence of the offence as it happened and will not be ignored. Its admission is without any faulter State v Evertius [1985] PNGLR 109 and sets beyond all reasonable doubt his role in the offence. He was the leader in the commission of the offence.

34.	In the record of interview of Oiza Kumitakere admitted into evidence as Exhibits P3 Pidgin version dated the 18th June 2021, and the English version exhibit P3(a) accused admits the offence. He materially gives the same recount as he does in the confessional statement that he made set out above to police. He places himself as an active participant of the robbery. He names all the participants in the robbery and details their roles as he recounts in his earlier confessional statement to police set out above. And he acknowledges it by signing it.

35.	And which are word for word account for account as set out by the State witnesses Christian Lai, Philip Korul Mone and Richard Mark. As if that is not enough, money that is taken off him of K 27, 000.00 that he details out with pistols is echoed by this three witnesses individually. Especially the victims Christian Lai and Philip Korul Mone. And for Richard Mark it is clear all as detailed are picked out and his own mobile phone speaks even louder with the photos Exhibit P9 and P10 and P10(a) depicting all the participants in the robbery. Defence raised objections to the use of this photographs printed by the Arresting Officer contending that the subject telephone of the accused was unlawfully obtained. There was no warrant to seize this evidence in accordance with the Search Act. As such it was illegal to rely on it.

36.	That argument does not stand in my view because pursuant to section 3 there was reasonable basis for the policeman who were on hot pursuit chasing the accused who had committed an aggravated armed robbery and were in the subject white ten-seater registered number BED 551 being chased and caught. The section allowed for the confiscation of, on the basis that it was being used and to be used in the commission of an indictable offence. And there was clear evidence here of the money that was stolen and the pistols that were used in the robbery that were recovered as a result. There was no need for a warrant to search given. And this is clear by sections 4 and 5 both of the Search Act given the facts here. There was therefore no need given the dictate of this provisions for a search warrant to obtain the phone. Sure enough it disclosed the photographs Exhibit P9 and P10 and P10(a) depicting all the participants in the robbery with the weapons and the money stolen from the robbery. It is evidence that is lawfully obtained and becomes part of the evidence against the accused. When viewed in total there can be only one reasonable hypothesis the guilt of the defendant Oiza Kumitakere of the aggravated robbery committed on the 20th November 2020 upon Christian Lai with actual violence and K 163, 400.00 was stolen from her the property of Istana Limited. It is not the same case and circumstances as observed in Alex v Golu  [1983] PNGLR 117. The facts here distinguish clearly that here was clear hot pursuit immediately after the commission of the aggravated armed robbery, therefore the evidence was properly seized by Police. There was no need for a search warrant in accordance with the Search Act 1977 as amended, Goi v Bank South Pacific Ltd [2020] PGNC 87; N8271.
37.	And in any case in accordance with section 10 of the Search Act 1977 the phone was seized as it was used in the commission of the offence of aggravated robbery here. It provided evidence of the offence section 10 (1) (c) and that is clearly depicted out by the photographs Exhibit P9 and P10 and P10(a) depicting the participants in the robbery and what role they played. There is therefore no breach of the law which view is compatible that there was immediate pursuit here unlike State v Popo [1987] PNGLR 286 where there was no immediate pursuit or hot pursuit. If this is not enough both witnesses and accused agree on the getaway vehicle and the pickup vehicle Exhibits P4 and P4(a) green CRV taxi JWK 408 and pickup Exhibit P5 and P5(a). And also, the pistols described by witnesses are retrieved on the possession of the Accused when they are apprehended. And both witnesses identify the pistols with the description in their evidence set out above consistent with the accused confession and record of interview. These evidence draw the State witnesses and both accused to the robbery, there can be one rational conclusion, the guilt of both accused to the robbery.
38.	A ring of truth spirals through the evidence on either sides of the case so much so that the version credible is that of the state which I prefer over and above that of the accused that they were not involved in the robbery. Because assessment of logic and common sense and consistency in evidence are important tests for credibility of witnesses and their testimony: Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558 (7 July 1998); Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980 (8 July 2009). Because it follows that any serious unexplained inconsistency in evidence and evidence not in keeping with logic and common sense are basis for rejection of such evidence. That is not the case against witnesses of the State but is the case for the defence as Here Oiza Kumitakere has placed himself as the leader and active participant in the aggravated robbery because his evidence is corroborated by the State witnesses Christian Lai, and Philip Korul Mone. Which is the same in the case of the defendant Eka Patrick. For Oiza Kumitakere his unsworn evidence from the Dock does not alleviate his role in the offence. It corroborates his admission and ties in with all State evidence. And that is the same with the evidence of Eka Patrick sworn in defence. In both instances establishing beyond all reasonable doubt their roles in the commission of the offence.
39.	So, there can be no doubt that Oiza Kumitakere was the leader in the aggravated robbery of Christian Lai with the money K163, 400.00. And Eka Patrick was the watchman. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt on direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, Pawa (supra) that the identification of Oiza Kumitakere has been established by all the evidence set out above. There is no better evidence other than his own admissions firstly in the confessional Statement, and then in his record of interview. Accordingly, I return a guilty verdict of aggravated armed robbery pursuant to section 386 (1) (2) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code against the defendant Oiza Kumitakere and I convict him accordingly. The same follows suit in the case of Eka Patrick as a watchman by section 7 of the Criminal Code, I return a guilty verdict of aggravated armed robbery against him pursuant and convict him accordingly. His bail is refunded forthwith and he is remanded pending sentence.
Orders Accordingly
__________________________________________________________________Public Prosecutor:  Lawyer for the State	
Public Solicitor   : Lawyer for the Defendant