Kursi v Munaira [2009] PGDC 112; DC972 (8 December 2009)

DC972

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL (COMMITTAL) JURISDICTION

COM 194 of 2009

BETWEEN:

EDWARD KURSI
Informant

AND:

ROBIN MUNAIRA
Defendant

Madang: E Wilmot

2009: 08 DECEMBER

CRIMINAL - hand up brief – Accused is charged with one count murder contrary to Section 300; Question as to sufficiency of evidence to commit Accused to stand trial for the charges mention.

Cases Cited

List of Cases in Chronological Order

References

List of Legislation in Alphabetical Order

Counsel

Sgt Patrick Nanao, for the Informant
Agnes Meten (Public Solicitors) for the Accused

08 December 2009

E Wilmot DCM:

INTRODUCTION:

1. The Accused Robin Munaira has been charged with one count of murder contrary to Section 300.
   

BRIEF FACTS:

2. It is alleged that on the afternoon of 21st day of May 2009 the accused assaulted his small sister. He proceeded to belt her and gave her a black eye.
   
3. When the accused father came home and found his daughter had been assaulted an argument erupted.
   
4. The accused during the course of this argument picked up a grass knife and approached his father. He then swang the knife in the direction of his father. The father lifted his hand to shield himself from the blow but the grass knife sliced off his fathers left arm.
   
5. From the injuries sustained the accused father was taken to the Daigul Helath Centre for treatment but died a few hours later.
   

ISSUE:

6. Whether there is sufficient evidence to put the Accused on trial for the offences to which the Accused is charged.
   

THE LAW:

Section 300 WILFUL MURDER of the code states:

(1)[103] [104] Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder:–

(a) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other person;

(b) if death was caused by means of an act–

done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose; and

of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating–

(i) the commission of a crime other than a crime specified by a law (including this Code) to be a crime for which a person may only be arrested by virtue of a warrant; or

(ii) the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit an offence referred to in Subparagraph (i);

(d) if death was caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c);

(e) if death was caused by wilfully stopping the breath of a person for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c).

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

(2) In a case to which Subsection (1)(a) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who was killed.

(3) In a case to which Subsection (1)(b) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) In a case to which Subsection (1)(c), (d) or (e) applies, it is immaterial that the offender–

(a) did not intend to cause death; or

(b) did not know that death was likely to result.

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTAL COURT

7. The committal proceeding is not intended to determine the innocence or the guilt of a Accused and cannot result in an acquittal: SCR No. 34 of 2005 – Review Pursuant to the Constitution Section 155(20(b) the Application of Herman Leahy.
   
8. The question that is posed in committal process is whether or not a prima facie case is established against the Accused. In other words it is the strength of the evidence put forward by the prosecution (Bukoya -v- State SC 887 (17 October 2007).
   
9. The standard of proof in committal proceedings is stated in Regina –v- McEachern [1967-68] PNGLR 48 (24 May 1967)where it held:
   

To decide that the evidence offered by the prosecution in committal proceedings is sufficient to put the Accused to trial ...... the court has only to form a bona fide opinion that there is sufficient prima facie case against the Accused.

10. This measure of this standard is much less then the standard in trial where it must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
    

CONSIDERATION OF COURT

11. In order to consider whether there is a prima facie case against the accused this court must weight the elements of the charges against the facts on this case. And this can only be done by looking at the set of facts and the charge.
    
    • (a) On the information of the charge of Murder the elements are a person
      
      1. who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder:–
         
         1. if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other person;
            
         2. if death was caused by means of an act–
            

(i) done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose; and

(ii) of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

3. if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating –
   

(i) the commission of a crime other than a crime specified by a law (including this Code) to be a crime for which a person may only be arrested by virtue of a warrant; or

(ii) the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit an offence referred to in Subparagraph (i);

(d) if death was caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c);

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

(2) In a case to which Subsection (1)(a) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who was killed.

(3) In a case to which Subsection (1)(b) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) In a case to which Subsection (1)(c), (d) or (e) applies, it is immaterial that the offender–

(a) did not intend to cause death; or

(b) did not know that death was likely to result.

13. It is allege that the Accused committed willful murder on one Daga nanas. The evidence provided by the witnesses show the Accused did actually take part in the beating of the deceased that lead to his death.

Evidence

14. There are witnesses to the events that led to the death of John Munaira. Ruth Duiu and Regina Munaira. The statements of these people identify the accused and what he did. The saw the accused swung the grass knife and cut his fathers arm.

15. They saw what the accused and accomplices did to one Daga Namas and what led to his death.

16. On this the court find there is prima facie evidence on this count.

CONSIDERATION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS:

17. The case relies on the witness statements of 2 witness statement. This court has gone through and studied each statement. It has only mentioned a few in its consideration to make a finding. It has weight the statement and finds that in all statements provided there is corroboration by other witnesses.

THIS COURTS FINDINGS:

18. This court finds that there is sufficient evidence or prima facie evidence on all.

19. The standard to which this court has applied is that below the standard in a criminal trial on each of the charges laid. This court has considered the evidence in its totality and commits the accused to stand trial at the National court.

20. The court will now administer section 96 of the district court act.

E Wilmot (DCM)

Patrick Nanao for the Informant
Agnes Meten (Public Solicitors Lawyers) for the Accused