State v Patikien [1999] PGNC 14; N1835 (5 March 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1835

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 370 OF 1999
THE STATE
-V-
TITUS PATIKIEN

Wewak

Sawong J
2 March 1999
5 March 1999

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Plea - Manslaughter - Accused used dangerous weapon to kill - Deceased close relative - Prisoner aged between late 50s to early 60 - Custodial Sentence - Partial Suspension - 6 years IHL.

Cases Cited

Rex Lialu v The State

Counsel

M. Ruarri for the State.

P. Tusais for the Accused.

5 March 1999

SAWONG J: The accused pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of his late wife, Susana Kityambu.

The circumstances of this unfortunate killing is as follows:

Earlier during the day on Friday 15 January 1999, you and the deceased had some argument. Up to that time they were living as husband and wife. After the argument, the deceased went away, but in the evening, she came back to their house at the village. She did not come into the house and sleep in it that night, choosing instead to sleep outside at the back of their house. During the night a fire started from the area where she was sleeping and it burnt down their house. The fire also burnt down the accused’s personal effects.

And so on the 18 January 1999, the accused questioned his late wife about the cause of the fire because you suspected her of setting up the fire. You were angry by her responses to your questions and because you had lost all your possessions. Her responses to your questions that day suggested to you that she had indeed set fire to the house and which burnt down the house together with all your possessions.

In these circumstances you were quite angry with the deceased that morning and your anger was such that you picked up your bushknife and cut the deceased on the back of her head inflicting a serious and deep wound. The wound was 11½ cm long, 1cm wide and 1cm deep. In addition you also cut her two times on the right shoulder. The deceased lost a lot of blood and she died soon after the incident.

THE PRISONER

You are an old man. I estimate your age to be between the late 50s to early 60s. Your first wife died from natural causes some time before you married your late wife. The deceased was his second wife. Out of those marriages, there were no children. You are a first offender.

The crime of manslaughter is serious crime. It is also a crime of violence because it involves the use of violence and it is also a prevalent crime. That is why you could be sent to jail for the rest of your life. However, this crime is the least of the homicide crimes, because it does not involve the intention to kill nor the intention to cause any grievous bodily harm. Nevertheless it is still a serious crime because someone’s life has been unexpectedly and prematurely taken away by the violent conduct of an offender.

Your case has given me considerable concern as to what type of sentence should be imposed on you. In deciding this issue, I take into account in your favour the following mitigating factors.

The first is that you have pleaded guilty to crime which attracts a heavy custodial sentence. Your plea of guilty before the Court is consistent with your surrender to the police and making admissions to them soon after the incident occurred. Thus I consider your plea before me to be a genuine one.

Secondly, you are an old man. Your age has given me great concern as to what to do with you for taking the life of your wife.

Thirdly, you are a first offender. You have no criminal records against you. This indicates to me that you have been a good law abiding citizen, up until the circumstances leading up to the morning when you killed your wife. In that regard, I note that you come from a very remote part of East Sepik Province and that you are an unsophisticated and illiterate villager who had very few personal possessions of great value to you and which were burnt down in suspicious circumstances.

Fourthly, you killed your own wife, a close relative. You will live with that for the rest of your life. I am sure that this had caused you great pain and loss, but that is a matter you will have to live with and deal with. I note you were sorry for taking your wife’s life.

I note the uncontested submission that your brother has given away as compensation to the relatives of the deceased a large sum of money (K10,000), 7 pieces of land for gardening, 3 pieces of land cutting sago palms. All in all a substantial compensation have been paid.

Whilst I accept that traditional compensation is valid and should be encouraged, it cannot be used as a substitute for the penalty prescribed by the Law. It is nevertheless a factor to be taken into account in an offender’s favour.

Finally, there is some evidence suggesting the existence of provocation in the non legal sense.

And so in those circumstances, what should be the appropriate sentence I think that one must start with the provisions of the Code. Section 302 of the Code provides the penalty as;

“Subject Section 19, a term of imprisonment for life”

And so one can see that the Parliament has considered this crime to be so serious as to warrant the imposition of penal servitude for life.

However, this does not mean that in every case of manslaughter cases, an offender is to be sentenced to life imprisonment. The law doesn’t say that. The law gives considerable discretion to the Court to impose some other sentence, other than the maximum sentence. There are many various categories of manslaughter cases that it is not possible to categories these. However, the case of Rex Lialu v The State offers some helpful guidelines in determining the appropriate sentence. I would accept and apply the principles set out there in to the facts of the present case.

In so doing, I found that you used a dangerous weapon namely a bushknife to cut your wife. You cut her several time but only one of the injuries is severe than the other two. The cut was repeated. The victim died as a result of these wounds.

In all these circumstances, I consider that a partial custodial sentence is quite appropriate. In the circumstance of your case, and taking into accounts the time you spent in custody, you are sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in light labour.

However, I suspend three of years on the condition that after you serve 2 years, you are to be released upon your promise to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, without any surety for a period of 3 years.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor