State v Paul [1997] PGNC 106; N1613 (2 September 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1613

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 610 OF 1997
THE STATE
v
PIAM PAUL
Waigani

Batari AJ
1-2 September 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Murder - Accused stabbed deceased with knife - Domestic killing - Welfare of children - Not considered - Personal and deterrence sentence called for.

Cases Cited:

Lawrence Simbe v The State (Unreported Supreme Court Judgment) No SC 455

The accused was convicted on the alternate verdict of murder. The follojudgment was deli delivered on sentence.

Counsel:

L Maru for the State

Kari for the Accused

SENTENCE

2 Sept 1997

BATARI AJ: Yo0; You weruitted yesterdsterday following a five (5) day trial on the charge of wilful murder. The Court er found you guiu guilty and convicted you of the murder ofta Wagim. You will now be sentenced on that alternaternate verdict.

The facts show that on 15 December, 1996 you stabbedta Wagim at the junction ofon of Okari Street and Hubert Murray Highway, at Boroko with a knife. Shobefore the stabbing, yog, you were engrossed in a heated argument with your husband when the deceased who had also been having marital affairs with your husbandrvened. This led to the stabbin hend her subsequent dent death.

That is the brief facts of what is a very serious crime for which Parliament has prescribed life imprisonment. It is noresponsibility to y to apply that penalty or impose a lesser term under a discretionary power vested in the Court to avoid the maximum penalty where the circumstances of the case warrants or wthe purpose of punishment ient is served by imposing a sentence that is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. In Lae Simbe v. The State,tate, (unreported Supreme Court Judgment No. SC455) the principle in sentencing murder cases is re-stated turder should not be sentenced on the tariff principle but that each case must be decided uped upon its own facts. That case affthe proper aper approach in murder sentence which I am bound to follow.

Murder is homicide which result from malicious inof one human being to cause grievous bodily harm against another. In this case, when when you stabbed the deceased, the knife penetrated the left lung and pierced the heart. This showed a dened use ofse of the weapon. As ult the deceased #160; She diedently at your your hands. When ieu wielded the knifeknife at her you no doubt knew the tragic consequences that foll160; ad no o no or little regard for Marata Wagim̵’s life. You also undeterdeterred bred by the presence of your husband and other members of the public who might happened to be at the scene. Your senseless resort to a dangerous weapon against your nd’s partner has now now left her dead. Needless to say, by yonduconduct you caused her and her relatives pain and permaloss while you continue to enjoy and hopefully live out yout your full life.

You are aged 37 years with five (5) children.&#16o (2) of the children are yare young adults at 20 years of age and two (2) are in their teens while the fifth born child has yet to reach school-age at 6 years. The older children have left school because you could no longer support them on your own. Bot and your lawyer have uave urged that I consider the children’s welfare when imposing your sentence. I agree th a ret faco cons consiconsider on sentencing. However, there is no evidence before me rega regarding the children’s welfare an extent to which they might experience difficulties if their mother were incacerated. #160; The childtill have thve their fatherI think it is fair to say tsay that in Papua New Guinea, occasions where a child is left without support, be it from the same family,nded families, village clan or tribe, would be rare, if notf not unheard of. I am not convincedwelfare fare of the children is a significant mitigating factor on its own in this case.

I have had regard however to the particular circumstances of theing and accept that it was domestic related as it arose froe from discrepancies in the marriage. I also perceive some elements of de facto provocation prevailing prior to and at the time of the stabbing. You are without pronvictioiction and appear fntence from a generally good background.

In consideration of all the matters I have have alluded to, I conclude that a custodirm is appropriate. The sentencepose should brld bringbring home to you at personal level the realisation of the gravity of your conduct. It should also serve warniwarning to others who might be like-minded that unjustified killings will be punished by the law.

I sentence you to seven (7) years imprisonment IHL. I deduct eight (8) months two (2) weeks for the time spent in custody. You will serve six (6rs, trs, three (3) months and two (2) weeks imprisonment IHL.

Lawyer for the State: c Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: A/Public Soliciolicitor