State v Susure [1999] PGNC 58; N1880 (17 June 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1880

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 209 OF 1999
THE STATE
-V-
INAPERO SUSURE

Goroka

Kirriwom J
20 May 1999
17 June 1999

Counsel

Mrs C. Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr M. Apie’e for the Accused

17 June 1999

KIRRIWOM J: This prisoner pleaded guilty to a charge under section 315(6) of the Criminal Code that on 15th August 1998 at Goroka, Papua New Guinea, he with intent do grievous bodily harm to one Ken Sokom did grievous bodily harm to Ken Sokom.

The prisoner and the victim were good friends. That evening they had beer together beside a river some distance away from the prisoner’s house. When they finished their beer they departed for their respective homes. After arriving home the prisoner discovered he had no fire to light his smoke so he returned to the riverside to fetch fire. During this brief absence his friend, the victim, stealthily made his way into the house and into the bed-room where his wife was trying to sleep with their baby. There he tried to rape her and a struggle ensued. The prisoner heard the commotion as he got near his house and enquired with his wife who told him of what happened.

The prisoner pursued the would-be rapist with his axe in hand. When he caught him he assaulted him physically. He had no intention of using his axe. The fight was stopped between them and they waited for the Police to get to Kefamo Catholic Mission to take them to the Police Station to solve the problem. The prisoner continued to argue with the victim for breaching the trust he had on him as a friend and someone he had looked after when he was young. During these verbal exchanges the victim said something that hurt the prisoner so badly that this time he attacked the victim with his axe and cut him twice on his head and nose.

This offence carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment subject to section 19 of the Code. The severity of the maximum punishment reflects the seriousness with which the law regards this act of violence. When someone is grievously wounded and left with a permanent disability or scars, that is a life-long misery or pain and suffering that he must live with. It is just as bad as death itself. Whilst I accept that the prisoner initially did not resort to his axe that was in his hand but only after he was provoked by the victim while waiting for the police, there was no need for him to use his axe. The victim was unharmed and it seems he was not even fighting back. It would seem that the victim realised his fault. The prisoner need not have used the axe.

The sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent ranges from 2 years to 4 years depending on the gravity of each case. In 1998 the National Court in one case sent a man to jail for four years on a plea for attacking his wife with an axe on her head and in another case a man was sent to jail for three years for cutting the victim on head and arm for having affair with his daughter. Whilst the victim in this case could be said to have brought this misfortune upon himself, the punishment he receive from the prisoner was excessive. He did not rape the prisoner’s wife and he did not deserve the pain and suffering now inflicted on him and which he must bear. These factors place this case in a more serious category.

The prisoner is a first offender, aged 37 years old, married with two wives and has four children. He had limited primary education up to Grade 6. He lived mostly subsistent lifestyle in the village. I take all these matters into account apart from the prisoner’s plea of guilty, his cooperation with the police and his contrition.

However I must say that this is a serious case although it may not be the worst case. When someone is physically deformed through violent physical attack, it is a serious thing. The Court must be tough and strong in punishing offenders who take the law into their own hands when they are aggrieved. The punishment this Court imposes on the prisoner must be a lesson to the prisoner and must also send a warning to others that those who resort to unlawful weapons to settle disputes or disagreements must expect to go to jail.

The Court therefore sentences the prisoner to three years imprisonment. He will serve only one year and I suspend the remaining two years and place the prisoner on probation on these conditions:

1. &##160;; T60 prie prisoner oner shall compensate the victim Ken Sokon with the following:

a) &##160;; K60; K1,000 ,000 cash money

b) ـ 16cow

c)&#16) &##16rdenafood,

with>within four (4) months from the date of his discharge from prom prisonrison in a conciliatory manner to be supervisedhe SeProvi Probation Officer. Non cance of this Order will resulresult in t in the pthe prisonrisoner returning to prison to complete the balance of his two years.

2. ҈ He shall not consumonsume alcohol while on probation.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor