State v Araba [2000] PGNC 43; N2015 (16 March 2000)

N2015

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1098/99

THE STATE

v.

GIU ARABA

LAE: INJIA, J.
2000: March 3, 16

Criminal law - Sentence - plea - Wilful murder - 9 month old baby

thrown into river - Punitive and deterrent sentence - 12 years IHL

No cases are cited in the judgment

Counsel:
L. Rangan for the State
A. Raymond for the accused

18 August 2000

INJIA, J.: The accused pleaded guilty to a charge that on 7/4/99, she wilfully murdered her own male child, one Saul Araba, thereby contravening to S.299 of the Criminal Code (Ch. No. 262). The deceased was aged 19 months old and was illegitimate. She took the child to the banks of the Markham River, and according to her, she "dressed him up, prey (prayed) for him before throwing him into the Markham River" and threw the child into the river. She says the child "came ontp (ontop) of the river loghed (laughed) at me and then gone". The child’s body was found floating in the Markham River one week later. She killed him because she was angry when the child was rejected by her parents. Her parents also refused to approve of her attempts to find other young men of her choice to marry her.

The crime of wilful murder is a serious crime and carries the maximum sentence of death. The maximum sentence of course is reserved from the worst offence of its kind. In the present case, I am not satisfied that the facts of this murder represent the worst category of wilful murder cases to warrant the death or life sentences. This is because the balance of the accused’s mind was disturbed by the rejection of her and her child and her attempts to find a suitable husband, by her parents. She was only 16 years old when she conceived this illegitimate child and the pressure brought to bear upon her by the parents was so great that she thought of disposing of the child permanently so she could go out on her own to find suitable husband. The fact that her parents had separated did not help her pursuit of happiness and lasting marriage. And she disposed of the child without inflicting any injuries or torturing the child.

The circumstances of this killing show that the accused planned the killing, to dispose of the child secretly. She knew that what she was doing was wrong but was prepared to give the child a decent death by dressing him up and praying for him before she dumped him in the river. In her imagination she saw the child laughed at her and was pleased with what she did, and she was at peace with herself. Such is a very dangerous and cruel way of taking away the life of someone so close.

In her favour, I take into account those factors. In addition, I take into account the fact that she pleaded guilty, co-operated with police in readily admitting the offence and was genuinely remorseful. She is largely a village girl with limited formal education. She is a girl of prior good character.

The life of an innocent child, irrespective of the child’s social and moral status background is previous as of any human life. Once born, they ought to be treated with respect and dignity and properly brought up like any other ordinary child. It is an act of cruelty to pre-maturely terminate the child’s life by parents who cannot help but blame other people for their misgivings and unfortunate situations in life they find themselves in. The interest of the society to preserve and protect the sanctity of innocent young human life is paramount and it should be respected and reflected in the sentencing of offenders by the Courts. A punitive and deterrent sentence is called for.

In all the circumstances, I consider that a sentence of 12 years imprisonment is appropriate and impose the same. From this, I deduct the period of some 11 months she has spent in custody. She will serve the balance of 11 years and 1 month.
__________________________________________________________

Lawyer for the State : Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the accused : Public Solicitor