State v Miti [2003] PGNC 53; N2449 (18 March 2003)

N2449

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 322 of 2003

THE STATE

-V-

PAT MITI

Mt. Hagen: Jalina J
2003: 11th and 18th March.

CRIMINAL LAW – Unlawful killing – Sentence – Death from vicious attack with bushknife by prisoner upon victim - Sentence for unlawful killing from use of dangerous weapons should be higher than Sentence for unlawful killing from rupture of spleen from single punch or kick – Sentence in this case should be at higher end of sentences for Unlawful killing – Criminal Code s 302.

Cases cited:
Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487
The State v Samuel Benimo, Unreported Judgment No. N2203 (2002)
The State v Robin Donumb, Unreported Judgment in CR 282/03 (Mount Hagen) and dated 27 February 2003.

Counsel:
J. Be’soer for the State
B. Aipe for the Prisoner

18 March, 2003

SENTENCE

JALINA J: You have pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing one Noki Kliu Miti at Muglamp Village in the Dei Council area of the Western Highland Province on 1st November 2002.

You committed the offence over a dispute you have been having with the deceased over a piece of land. The deceased was your father’s sister’s son so he was a first cousin to you but was more like a brother to you by reason of your father having brought him up as one of his own sons.

On the day of the incident the deceased and his wife had gone to the garden. You later followed them there with your father and brother. The deceased was then attacked and cut on several parts of his body with axe and bushknife. You have stated during your plea that you attacked the deceased yourself. Your father and brother were not involved so you would be treated as such on sentence. Your father and brother are awaiting separate trials.

The Medical Report of Dr. Peter Bamne reveals the following injuries on the deceased body.

(a) Head - Right parietal scalp sliced off – 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.
Left zygomatic arch laceration – 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm.

(b) Back - Deep would with fracture to T7, T8 and T9 of the left
back.

(c) Shoulder - Daltoid region 10 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm laceration.

(d) Right Thigh - Deep wound to lateral aspect proximal to knee and
fractured femur proximal to the condyles.

(e) Right – Leg - Completely severed proximal to the ankle joint with
the skin of the medial aspect holding the foot.

(f) Left Foot - Deep cut through posterior aspect splitting the
calcaneus through the middle.

(g) Left Leg - Completely severed tendone-calcaneum.

(h) Left Thigh - Deep wound to the quadratus femoris – lateral aspect
10 cm x 8 cm x 4 cm.

From your statement during your plea that you were the only one who attacked the deceased, it would appear from the nature and extent of the above injuries that the attack was vicious and without mercy. In carrying out such vicious attack and inflicting severe injuries the fact that he was a close relative was no deterrent to you.

This offence carries a penalty of life imprisonment under s 302 of the Criminal Code Act subject to the Courts discretion to impose a lesser sentence under s 19 of the Code. In Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487 the Supreme Court in which I was a member said that in sentencing an accused person for manslaughter the court should have careful regard to what it was that the accused did in bringing about the death of the deceased including the number of attacks and the weapons used if any. In recent times I have expressed the view that sentences for manslaughter where dangerous weapons are used against the deceased should be higher then sentences for manslaughter where a deceased dies from ruptured spleen from a single kick or punch to the abdominal area. (See The State v Samuel Benemo Unreported Judgment N2203 and The State v Robin Donumb Unreported Judgment in CR 282/03 dated 27th February 2003 in (Mt. Hagen).

In The State v Robin Donumb I sentenced the prisoner to 12 years imprisonment for inflicting serious injuries to the deceased through a single but very deep cut with a bushknife to the area close to the deceased’s knee.

In John Kapil Tapi v The State the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a sentence of 16 years imprisonment imposed upon the prisoner for viciously attacking the deceased and inflicting serious injuries from which the deceased died.

When I consider the nature and extent of the injuries which were inflicted by you upon the deceased, it seems that the sentence that should be considered to adequately punish you should be towards the top end of the sentences for unlawful killing. When a close relative is viciously attacked in the manner you have done without the slightest hesitation, the submission by your lawyer that it was done within the family and that you would live with the stigma of having done that falls into insignificance. One just does not attack a close relative like that. Even in this court, you have expressed no remorse at all. It also appears that no compensation has been paid. The other mitigating factors such as your plea of guilty, your lack of prior convictions and provocation in the non-legal sense have been taken into account.

I consider for purposes of the Criminal Law (Compensation) Act that compensation is not an appropriate punishment in view of the seriousness of this offence. A custodial sentence would be more appropriate.

In all the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind the aggravating as well the mitigating factors I have referred to, the sentence I consider appropriate is a period of 15 years imprisonment in hard labour which I so impose.

I deduct from that sentence the 3 months 2 weeks and 4 days you have spent in custody which leaves 14 years 8 months 1 week and 3 days you have to serve in hard labour.
______________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor