State v Madiroto [1997] PGNC 29; N1554 (20 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1554

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1490 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
ELIESA KOPEIA MADIROTO
Alotau

Sevua J
14 March 1997
20 March 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Wilful Murder - Maximum penalty, death - Whether death penalty should be imposed.

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Wilful Murder - Plea of guilty -Serious case - Whether death penalty should be imposed - State not demanded death penalty - Sentenced to life imprisonment.

Cases Cited:

Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653

Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105

Counsel:

C Manek for State

P Tusais for Accused

20 March 1997

SEVUA J: You have pleaded guilty to a charge that on 11th June, 1996 at Gadovisu village, Rabaraba District, Milne Bay Province, you wilfully murdered Besi Wagus.

The facts which you admitted were these: Between, 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm that day, you were cooking bananas near your mother’s garden when the deceased approached and said something to the effect that, you should not be cooking bananas there as it was not your area. She then left for her garden house. Then approximately 10 o&;c217;clock in the night, you went to the deceased’s garden house with the intention of burning her with her house, however, when you reached her, you didn’t carry out your intenti160; Instead, you dragged hged her out of her house by her hands then burnt her house.

You then commenced to assault the deceased with your hands. Laterdragged her to a near nearby creek and threw her face down against the stones with her forehead hitting the stones. After that,took stones fros from the creek and began stoning the deceased on her head. Later you squeezed hroat aoat and at the same time pushed her head into the water in the creek. You kept her head e the wahe water until she then you released her.

There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that this was a as a very serious case of wilful murder, aom the outset, let me make it clear to you that I take the the most serious view of this case, particularly the manner in which you carried out repeated assaults against the deceased leading to her death, a death, if I may add, she did not deserve.

You are approximately 25 years old and married with a child. Yve been a villager since ince leaving school at the completion of Grade 6 and you have a prior conviction for break, enter and stealing in which you were sentenced to one year eight months impment. Apart from thes these per onal antecedent matters, your counsel has also submitted that the Court considers the following matters in mitigation: your pl guilty and your cour co-operation with police investigations by readily admitting your guilt; compensation in the sum of K500.00 plus two pigs paid and peace restored; your unsophistication and that you come from a backward area of this province; remorse; and, your prior conviction is not related to this crime, although it has potential for violence.

Since this case involves the imposition of the death penalty, your counsel has referred me to two cases; Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 and Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105 and adopted the rulings therein, that in dealing with wilful murder, the maximum penalty should be reserved for the most serious cases. I will revert to thimissioission later.

At this juncture, let me address the reason for killing the deceased. You have referred to a land dispute as the cause of this tional homicide. You said there was d dispudispute whte which was subsequently resolved in your favour and after you discovereddeceased had uprooted your betelnut seedlings, you became aame angry and decided to kill her. This wferred to in your alur allocutus.

Since this case involves the death penalty and as I felt that you were revealing your reason for the first time before thought it was important to get more information on this ahis aspect therefore I directed counsels to obtain full instructions and if necessary file affidavits. Both counsels have done this and I have perused all the affidavits filed herein. I do not wi deal with this this aspect in any great length, so I will try to be brief.

Your own affidavit filed on 18th March, corrted your statementement in allocutus in relation to the destruction of betelnut seedlings angs and the land dispute. However, wou said, both inth in allocutus and in your affidavit, have been refuted by a number of people, one of whom is your uncle, Newmaeia, who said in his affidavit that there was never a land dispute between yourself and thed the deceased. He also said, you di have have a betelnut garden or plantation because you were always running away from Village Court officials including the villalice. He further said that ther was no compensation paid at all.

The investigestigating officer, Kingsford Isari in his affidavit, confirmed what your uncle has deposed to in his affidavit. This is supported by theaseceased’s two children, Terence and Sandra Gonobuyawa who have also filed affidavits on this issue.

These affidavit evidence make it quite difficor me to accept the reason you advanced for killing the dece deceased. One other reason I find rd hard to believe you is that, you did not mention this when you were interviewed by police on 29th July, 1996. Even when give opportunityunity to speak e Committal Court, you did not raise it and I am left with with the conclusion that this story is of recent invention. In any cit dot exonerate yate you from criminal culpability.

Before I return to counsel’s submission on sentence, let me quome of what you told the police investigator when interviewed. sider it importanortant bent because, at the end of the day, it would reflect the enormity of the crime you committed and the commitment made for the perpetration of this crime.

You sai8220;between 5 and 6 pm, shm, she came and got angry with me, this is your place so you came burning bananas. I was very angry.; I was vwas very angry when I heard this and I murdered her. I to my garden house and sand stayed there but kept thinkinghat this old lady said and it made me more angry so I went back and murdered her. At ; At about 10 pthe even evening, I starteding to her garden houseRe”.

From question 22, you said the following: “she was just sitting down in the house shought of burning her whilst she was in the house together ther with the garden house but I just went in and dragged her by the hand and pulled her out of the house and I later burnt down the house. I held her by one hand arn burnt the garden house. Aftening the house, I star started belting the old lady (Besi Wagus) with my hand and later pulled her down to the creek. rew hwn tostones and she buhe bumped her forehead on t on the stones and I further took stones fnes from the creek and kept stoning her onhead and later held her by the throat squeezing it, at the same time to suffocate her, push pushed her head into the pool of water and held it until she died”.

You conducted a litany of terror against this helpless and defenceless old woman. is no doubt in my mind thnd that you committed a vicious crime. You took the law into your own hands and administered you justice. In my view, if the death penalty is not imposed, life sentence should be imbe imposed, as I consider it appropriate fis very grave crime. The manner in wyou carriedrried ried out a series of grievous assaults against the deceased does not entitle you to any leniency and frankly, I think, the enormity of this crime outweighs your plea of guilty and expression of remorse.

In revisiting counsel’s submission on sentence with particular reference to the cases he has cited, I wish to say that, the maximum penalty for wilful murder then was life imprisonment, but this was at the discretion of Judges, since the mandatory life sentence for wilful murder had been abolished in 1976 by an amendment to s. 309 of the Code, now, s.2 99. Of course, the um penalty alty for wilful murder now is death, following an amendment to s. 299 in 1991.

In the case of Ure Hane, BredmeJ categorised different types of the more serious cases of wilful murder, however, with resh respect, these have changed since this decision was made some thirteen years ago. There are now, iview, cert certain classes of wilful murder that fall into the most serious categories of wilful murder that are not mentioned in that judgment. I consider thee that, that that decision to be reviewed in the ligh light of some of the most serious homiciccurrinurring in the country recently and at the present tip>

I consider that all wilful murder cases are very seri serious because they involve intention or are intentional homicides.&#160the present case, there is e is no doubt about the prisoner’s intention. He tried to raisacto provoprovocation, however, there had been a time lapse of four to five hours from the alleged defacto provocation, before he set out in a murderous rage to the deceased. His intention waifested ined in the mahe manner in which he brutally attacked the deceased, which in my view, warrants the maximum death penalty, if not life imprisonment.

I have seriously considered imposing the death penalty in this case. Initially, I thought I d fuld further adjourn this matter for a few more months so I could have more time to consider and evaluate whether the death sentence should be passed. Howevee prisoner has alreaalready been convicted and is entitled to a pronouncement of sentence without further delays. His couhas uthed the CourtCourt not to impose the death penalty an State has not demanded it.d it. I have cered all these ande and other matters I have not referred to in my reasons.

In he citances, the judgmjudgment oent of this Court is that, the prisoner, Eliesa Kopeia Madiroto, is sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for life.

Lawyer for State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for Accused: Acting Public Solicitor