State v Taisa [1999] PGNC 111; N1909 (31 December 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1909

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 586 OF 1999
THE STATE
AGAINST
CATHRINE IWAI TAISA

Goroka

Kirriwom J
5 August 1999
20 August 1999
31 August 1999

Counsel

Mrs C. Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr M. Apie’e for the Prisoner

31 August 1999

SENTENCE

KIRRIWOM J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of the deceased Betty Gavendas on the 26th day of March 1999.

The prisoner’s husband was having an affair with the deceased. She learnt about this somehow and on the day of this trouble she saw them together amongst a gambling crowd at the Kunai Club, Fimito Road, Goroka. She walked up to the deceased and stabbed her in the back once with a kitchen knife. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but she died due to excessive loss of blood. The prisoner’s explanation was that the deceased was ruining her marriage and the well being of her children by fooling around with her husband and she wanted to inflict some pain on her and not cause her death. She said she was sorry that the end result of what she intended to do had turned out to be far more serious than what she had intended or anticipated.

This is a killing that arises from a domestic situation. It is a prevalent crime in this country where the law is flouted indiscriminately by women who are intimately involved with the same man as husband or father of their children who fight and kill each other over petty jealousies or disagreements between them. This case is not entirely in the same vein. This is a clear case of adultery by the husband with the deceased that the prisoner decided to handle it in the way she thought was best which has now landed her in this situation. The law under the Adultery and Enticement Act is in place to deal with husbands and wives who commit adultery outside their marriage. The prisoner cannot claim ignorance of this law as there are ways open to learn about these avenues open to her. The first place to start is to go to the Police or even to the Courts or the Welfare Office. In this modern world, people must learn to resist their emotional urges and act according to what common sense dictates. Younger generations like the prisoner cannot claim unsophistication as excuse for their conduct. Today’s generation must be deemed to be well possessed of the required understanding and knowledge of the rule of law from the many years of Government and Christian influences since colonisation.

The prisoner is aged about 30 years. She is from Kawaina village, Okapa, Eastern Highlands province. She is married with four children, the oldest is 8 years and the youngest is 9 months old. She has not had the benefit of a formal education but she was once employed as a house-girl with the Australian High Commission in Port Moresby.

Her lawyer has urged upon me to take the following mitigating factors in her favour:

1. She had pleaded guilty to the charge thus saving the State and the Court unwarranted expense.

2. She is a first offender.

3. She had expressed remorse.

I received both Pre-Sentence and Means Assessment Reports from the Provincial Probation Officer. Both reports were compiled from information obtained from very restricted sources including the prisoner herself and which makes total reliance on them unsafe. But this is not to say that the prisoner is not suitable for probation supervision.

This killing was unfortunate. I accept that the prisoner only intended to inflict pain on the deceased but the worst resulted. Of course when a lethal weapon such as a knife is used, anything is possible on a mortal being. This is not a worst case of unlawful killing attended by serious aggravating factors. I accept that the prisoner was genuine in her remorse.

In all the circumstances of the case, I sentence the prisoner to six years imprisonment. I suspend two years of the total period and place her on probation if she pays K1,500 cash compensation and one live pig to the family of the deceased before 31st December 1999. That would then leave her four (4) years to serve. I deduct five months she already spent in custody awaiting trial. She will have to serve the balance of 3 years and 7 months. This is only conditional upon her paying K1,500 cash and one live pig compensation to the family of the deceased.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor