State v Reinbubu [1997] PGNC 76; N1591 (25 June 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1591

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1561 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
BRIAN REINBUBU

Wewak

Batari AJ
25 June 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Manslaughter - Mitigating factors - Plea of Guilty.

CRIMINAL LAW - Manslaughter - Spleen Killing - Range of Sentences - Consideration of - Sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

Cases Cited

Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487

Annettes Nawen Bulongal v The State (SCRA No.36 of 1994) (Unumbered) Supreme Court Judgment dated 8 May 1997

Maria Peld Pung v The State (SCR No. 56 of 1995) (Unumbered) Supreme Court Judgment dated November 1996

Samuel Sapaure v The State SCRA No 12 of 1997(Unumbered) Supreme Court Judgment

Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605

Sentence

On a plea of guilty to one count of manslaughter, the following judgment was delivered on sentence.

Counsel:

J Wala for the State

F Pitpit for the Accused

25 June 1997

BATARI AJ: Brian Reinbubu, you have pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of your wife, Margaret Reinbubu. It is now my responsibility to pass sentence on your crime.

The brief facts upon which I shall proceed for the purpose of sentencing are that, on 2 May, 1996 both you and your wife wer0; teachers at St. Anna Community School, West Sepik Provinrovince. You were Deputy Headmaster of the school while your wife held a teaching post in Mathematics. On the evening of that day, your wife and two other female members of the school staff waiting outside the class-rooms for transport home. Y60; You spoke by with theh them and proceeded to your classroom where a feteacher had waited. Your wiur wife called after you and made disapproval remarks about your acquaintance with that female teacher.&#1ou returned after sometime time and confronted your wife over what she had uttered in the presence of your fellow teachers. Youhed and kicked her on t on the back and side. You also grappledby her haer hair and she fell to the ground. Your wifd within hof that that attack from ruptured spleen. It is not known whethe sple spleespleen was normal or enlarged. I giv the it of doub60&#160 I do however, infer botm trom the medical report that the injury rery resulted from “extreme force&#822pliedhe deceased’#8217;s body. I noto that you were descrdescribed as wearing stockmaockman boots at the time you kicked your wife.

That is the background to what is sadly a tragic and untimely termination of a life at its prime. The deceased was 31 yeld aold and by your senseless disregard to her well-being, you caused her life to end prematurely. You have pleaded that yll lose your teaching career if your are sent to jail for a long time. I will have reve regard to that fact. But I bear id also thar puur punishment will be nothing like the permanent termination of life and teac teaching career you inflicted on your wif>

e into account your co-operation with the police lice and your plea of guilty. I acce accept yomorse, sup, supported by your general good background. You havet 11 months in cusn custody. I deduct that period from from the head sentence I impos60; I have had regard also to the fact that your wife’#8217;s open disagreement and especially in front of your professional peay haue caused you grave inve insult and humiliation. Her instantaneeaction was was quite natural but unfortunately at the wrome and place. The domestic nature ofdisa disagreement meant the place and time for dior discussion and resolve should be at theines of your home and not inot in public. I accept also that in the circumstances, there were elements of de facto provocation whicl explained, rather than excuse your crime.

When I pondered your sentence, I bear in mind on the one hand, that the of yife was spleen-reen-related. Onother hand, you punched ched and kicked her a number ober of times. I do not however consider that your conduct, though serious, was vicious.

In lawful killings generally, I think it is fair to say the range is from nded sentences to six (6) years as suggested in the case of Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR NGLR 487. A recent Supreme Court case of Annette Nawen Bulongal v The State SCRA No 36 OF 1994 (unumbered) dated 28 May, 1997 imposed a sentence of seven (7) years anslaughter after over-turning the conviction and sentence of ten (10) years for murder.&#1r. It case, the appellant uset used a tapioca stick to assault an eighteen (18) month old child of her sister-in-law. She was then oster mother ther while theral mother was expecting another child. The assault wult with the tapioca stick caused the child to fall back on the cement andlted in head injuries which led to the death of the child.&ild. That is distinguished from from this case on the facts.

alu’s case, (supra) tra) the appellant punched the deceased on the head following an argument during a chance meeting. Bon had drinking at diff diff different places. The impact caused the sed ased to fall backwards onto the ground and the deceasedained injury to his head from which he died. He was convicted of manhteughter and recd received a sentence of six (6) years.&#1he Supreme Court reduced thed the sentence to four (4) years and six (6) months. In Maria Peld Pung State tate SCR No 56 of 19n-numbered) Supreme Court Jurt Judgment dated November, 1996 a sentence of eight (8) years was confirmed where the case involved a vi attack on an unarmed unsuspecting victim. Unlike thee the caseialu (alu (supra) where there was only a fist fight, a dangerous weapon, namely a knife was used to inflict numerous stab wounds on various parts of the victim’s body.

In Samuel Se v The State SCRA No 12 of12 of 1997 (un-numbered) Supreme Court Judgment, the appellant punched and kicked his wife before she died. He pleaded guilty to manhtaughter and a sentence of (4) years imposed. In dismissing theal againsgainst severity of sentence, the Supreme Court held:

“The range of sentences for these types of killing is between four 4 years to 6 year we are of the view that the sentence he received is withinithin the range for these types of killing. We will not interfere wie the sentence.”

It was not apparent on the judgment of the Court whether this was a spleen case and what the natu the injury that caused death, was.

I am guided by these cases in considering the prhe prisoner’s sentence. In the of Norris v The Stae State [1979] PNGLR 605 and the case of Lialu (supra) and it would appear that a death caused by a single funch would attract sentence at the lower range whereas death caused by vicious attack or caor caused by use of an object would fall into the higher category of sentence.

This approach in manslaughter sentence is inherent in the recent Supreme Court cases I have cited. I have alsoidered sentencetences imposed by Judges on manslaughter killings in the last two (2) years. It my view fair to say, tay, the sentences have ranged from suspended sentence to six (6) years in cases where the deceased died fuptured spleen caused by assault. Where the victim was attacked by fists and legs sevs several times or where the victim was literally beaten to death in that manner, a sentence in the higher bracket has been imposed.

Considering that this was a pl guilty which followed your your early admissions to the police and your open expressions of remorse and taking into account the circumstances of your crime, tpropriate penalty should ould be three (3) years imprisonment. tence you to three (3) yea) years imprisonment with hard labour. Eleven (11) months is deducted for the time spent in custody. You are to serve two ears and one (1) month.

I recommend that you serve yrve your term at the Corrective Institution at your Provincial Headquartering V.

Lawyer fyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: A/Publ/Public Solicitor