State v Erne [1999] PGNC 98; N1939 (10 November 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1939

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 761 OF 1999
THE STATE
-VS-
PETER ERNE

Lae

Sakora J
3 November 1999
10 November 1999

Counsel

Mr M Peter for the State

Mr L Siminji for the Defence

SENTENCE

10 November 1999

SAKORA J: The State presented an indictment against you, charging you with one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to another person, a man by the name of Stanley Yange. It was alleged that this offence was committed at Erap, outside Lae, on 10 January 1999. Upon the charge being formally put to you by the Court, you pleaded guilty to the charge.

The agreed facts for your plea of guilty demonstrate the following circumstances. On the day in question about 12:30 pm., you and four other men were drinking beer under the Erap bridge. The victim and a friend, on their way back to Lae from Ramu in a motor vehicle, stopped at the bridge and went down to the river to collect some stones to build a “mumu”. It was then that an argument started between you and your four friends and the victim and his friend.

It would appear that you and your friends, in your drunken state, suspected the victim and his friend to have fought with you earlier, and, therefore, you were demanding compensation from them. The arguments developed into physical confrontation between the two groups. The State’s case was that it was during this confrontation that the victim received multiple knife wounds to his scalp, and also other injuries to the head.

The victim was then left unconscious at the scene, you and your friends departing. Later the same day, the victim was taken to and admitted at the ANGAU Memorial Hospital, Lae. He was in hospital for medical attention and treatment to his injuries for 10 days. It was the State’s case that you were in this group with four others who argued with and attacked the victim, Stanley Yange, and that your role involved aiding and abetting those four.

On the serious question of punishment for your part in this offence, I have had the benefit of hearing your lawyer on your behalf. He put before me and urged certain matters for consideration in your favour. I have noted these and considered some as pertinent. I have also noted what the lawyer for the State has had to say about this offence and your role.

You are a 22 year old married man with two young children, 12 months and 2 years old. Your father died when you were a small boy, and mother is alive but old. You are last in a family of 4 children (3 sisters). From Rodbung village, Minj, in the Western Highlands Province, you were visiting one of your married sisters at 14-mile at the time of the offence. You had been there for only 2 weeks, and had intended returning to your village. But, as your lawyer put, “unfortunately you ended up in this trouble.”

It would appear also that you have had no formal education, nor any formal full-time employment. The visit with your sister was also to enable you to buy some betelnuts to take back to your village.

The time spent in custody awaiting trial is about 10 months, you having been arrested the same day of the offence. As noted earlier your lawyer urged certain matters for favourable consideration. And these have been, and I list them hereunder as follows:-

· ټ&##60;&< Y60; You pleaded guilty t the charge, your plea being consistent with your free admissions to the police from the outset. It is also consistent with your (s 96) statement in the District Court. And this has had the bcial effect on the State inte in saving time, effort and expense in bringing witnesses to Court to prove the case against you.

· & Yeu arirs foffe offender, der, not having any prior convictions recorded against you.

Your lawyer submitted that your pleading guilty was a genuine expression of your remorse for what happened to the victim on that day. You have been likened to a “Mangi bilong ples” who was with the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Be that as it may, I agree with the lawyer for the State that this was a very serious assault necessitating hospitalisation for some 10 days. The victim was very fortunate to have recovered well from those multiple injuries. I would add that you are indeed very fortunate that Stanley did not die. Otherwise you would have been in more serious trouble than you already are.

As it is, the offence of grievous bodily harm attracts the maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment. And I would agree further with the lawyer for the State that the circumstances here call for the imposition of a custodial sentence in the first instance.

It is the judgment of this Court that you be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 2 years. The period of 10 months spent in custody awaiting Court is hereby deducted, leaving the balance period of 14 months. In the further exercise of my sentencing discretion, I suspend this period of 14 months on the condition that you be placed on GBB for a period of 2 years.

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor