State v Tang Lu Guang [2005] FJHC 716; HAC016.2004S (14 January 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC016 OF 2004S

THE STATE

V

TANG LU GUANG

Gates J

Mr W. Kurisaqila for the State
Ms B. Malimali for the Accused

13, 14 January 2005

SENTENCE

Murder s.199, s.200 (as amended) Penal Code; whether need for fixing of minimum period of imprisonment to be served s.33 PC (as amended by Act No. 7 of 2003); not a case of unusual gravity.

[1] On 24 December 2004 the Accused changed his plea to guilty. He is charged with one count of murder. The trial was scheduled to commence on 11 January 2005.

[2] He is a Chinese national and a sailor. He is 21 years of age. It is said he refused to go back on board his ship on 19 May 2004 when it was due to sail saying he was sick. He was awaiting repatriation to China. Ms Malimali informs me that he was awaiting his identification card renewal.

[3] Whilst waiting around in May 2004 he got to know the deceased Wang Guiying and an intimate relationship developed. He turned up unexpectedly one night at the deceased’s flat in Rewa Street and found her with another man. This was on 23 June 2004. There was a heated argument, which was overheard by others including her two female flatmates.

[4] The Accused slept on the couch that night. After the other man had left the next morning, a further argument developed between the Accused and the deceased. This turned into a pushing scuffle in the bedroom, in the course of which the Accused put his hands around the deceased’s neck and throttled her. The deceased fell to the floor appearing to the Accused to be unconscious.

[5] He says he became frightened and tried to waken her up. He then put a piece of cloth around her neck. He tightened the cloth and it is clear from the pathologist’s report this resulted in her death by asphyxiation. He confirmed this action on his part under questioning by the police.

[6] He acted out of fright thereafter he says and put her body into a suitcase. He said he did not intend to kill her and he did not know how to report her death. He walked out of the flat and threw the keys into Suva harbour. Eventually the bad odour that developed led to the discovery of the body.

[7] The Accused admitted his part in the matter to the police. I convict him on his own plea of guilty to murder, he having accepted the facts as outlined by the prosecution, including his explanation to the police of what had happened.

[8] He has no previous convictions. He was educated up to class 8. He says his father was disabled and his family poor. He sent back a monthly remittance to them from his work for the fishing company. He said work on the boat was very hard and he could hardly bear it.

[9] I accept that he has had a hard and difficult upbringing, and that life for him and his parents has been one of deprivation.

[10] Putting the most favourable slant on the evidence as to how the deceased met her death, I accept the Accused, as he said to the police, lost his temper with the deceased. He fought with the deceased whilst both were standing on the bed. He said he pressed her neck with both of his hands tightly. She fell on the floor motionless.

[11] The forensic pathologist found evidence of haemorrhage of the left temporal muscle to the deceased’s head and a scalp haemorrhage on the left side with haematoma but no fracture. He concluded that the head injury was associated with the direct cause of death, namely asphyxiation by strangulation.

[12] After she fell to the floor, the Accused put the cloth around the deceased’s neck and tightened it. This caused the deceased’s death. The Accused through his counsel does not explain why he put the cloth around her neck in this way, other than through fright. He admits in his own statement prepared and translated for the court that he has “committed an unpardonable crime.” He seeks leniency because of his immaturity and for the sake of his “pitiable elderly, disabled, and sick parents.”

[13] Though this is a sorry business for both parties, the law obliges me to pass a term of life imprisonment which I now do pursuant to section 200 of the Penal Code.

[14] This is not a case which by reason of unusual gravity demands that I fix a minimum term for the prisoner to serve prior to release. The Accused is therefore sentenced simply to life imprisonment.

A.H.C.T. GATES
JUDGE

Solicitors for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Suva
Solicitors for the Accused: Legal Aid Commission, Suva