State v Kurimo [1999] PGNC 37; N1879 (20 May 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1879

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1114 OF 1998
STATE
VS
BALISE KURIMO

Goroka

Kirriwom J
5 May 1999
20 May 1999

Case Cited

State v Dora Thomas - Cr No. 862 of 1998 (Unreported)

Counsel

Mr M. Apie’e for the Accused

Ms R. Johnson for the State

SENTENCE

20 May 1999

KIRRIWOM J: Prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of murder. State alleged that on or about 17th April 1998 the prisoner was with his family at West Goroka shopping area when he saw a woman whom he recognized. That woman was once married to someone in his village. When he approached the woman he asked her if the man with her was her husband or brother. The husband who heard this was offended by his question so he assaulted the prisoner. The prisoner was humiliated by this assault so he went away and returned a while later with reinforcement. They started attacking the woman’s husband. This time the deceased, the elder brother of the man, intervened to help his brother. During this second confrontation the prisoner stabbed the deceased several times and he was pronounced dead on arrival at the Goroka Base Hospital.

A factor that weighs against the prisoner is that he wanted to mind other people’s business. What right did he have to concern himself with that woman’s affairs. Even his approach was insulting and quite provocative to say the least. He should have accepted the error of his judgement and disappeared from the scene for good. But instead he returned with more men to cause trouble which aggravates this unnecessary killing. He created the problem and brought about the death of a person who was merely minding his own business.

The punishment for murder is imprisonment for life as the maximum. But the maximum has been rarely imposed because the law says that the maximum sentence must be reserved for the worst case of murder. So the Court has often applied the tariff approach to sentencing. The tariff for murder as been set within the range of 8 years to life imprisonment. An examination of the tariff by going back some years shows that in 1996 two life sentences were imposed and the highest determinate sentence was 25 years imprisonment. Otherwise the sentence averaged between 7 and 12 years. In 1997 there was one life sentence imposed and the average term was between 7 and 15 years with the highest determinate term of 21 years being imposed. And in 1998 there was a life sentence and the highest determinate sentence was 23 years while the average settled between 8 years to 15 years. This killing was quite unnecessary and the deceased who was at the bus stop waiting for PMV with his brother and his wife did not expect that he was going to die in such tragic circumstances. Whatever explanation the prisoner may have for this attack will mean nothing as far as I am concerned because the prisoner started the trouble. This case is not too dissimilar to the case of the State v Dora Thomas - Cr. No. 862 of 1998 (Unreported) that I dealt with here only a month or so ago. That was a case of assault causing bodily harm which coincidentally happened in the same area of West Goroka but some 100 metres away. The prisoner Dora Thomas an elderly married woman employed by Haus Kago was waiting outside the shop for the doors to open when a couple of young girls hurried past her, and maybe too close to her. One of them, the victim, was wearing a baggy dress that probably flew into the prisoner’s face and she got angry and scolded the girls by shouting abuses. The girls responded to the abusive words saying ‘you too you useless’. The prisoner did not leave the matter there but she pursued them with few other women and accosted the girls in a bakery shop nearby where a fight erupted between her and the victim. In the fight she bit off the victim’s index finger. The prisoner relied on self-defence and provocation but both defences were ruled unavailable. The Court found that she was the initiator and instigator of the whole incident and convicted. This case is identical in my view and in my view the prisoner cannot claim any benefit of de facto provocation.

Courts have repeatedly warned time and again that one must not take the law into his own hands. This was a case where an innocent greeting had turned sour and developed into a physical confrontation. The prisoner, if he had any sense in him, should have disappeared from the scene altogether after creating an hostile and potentially dangerous situation. But he still hung around and consequently tempers flared up again, that is if I accept his story. However as I said earlier it is immaterial which story I accept the blame still falls back on him.

The prisoner is a matured man aged 38, from Yagasa village, Lufa, Eastern Highlands Province, married with children ages ranging from 19 years down to 6 years. He has had no formal education but is a very productive person in the village with 13 coffee gardens and a poultry project. The income he derived from these projects helped him to sustain his 3 children in school two of whom are in high schools. Of course his predicament is a serious blow to the future of these children.

There is no doubt that the prisoner realises the foolishness of his actions and I accept that his remorse was genuine which I bear in mind. A factor I give credit for is that the prisoner pleaded guilty to a serious charge and that an enormous amount of compensation was paid by him and his line comprising K15,000 in cash and 2 large pigs. The prisoner is a first offender and I also give him some concession for his cooperation with the police from the beginning of this case to sentence.

I note that the prisoner had spent 1 year 2 weeks in custody awaiting trial. In all the circumstances of the case I sentence the prisoner to 8 years imprisonment in hard labour and deduct pre-trial custody period. He shall serve the balance of 6 years 11 months.

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor