State v E.T (No.2) [2012] PGNC 351; N5177 (14 September 2012)

N5177

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 302 OF 2010

BETWEEN

THE STATE

V

E. T
(No. 2)

Alotau: P. Toliken AJ
2012: 04th, 05th, 06th, 07th, 14thSeptember

CRIMINAL LAW – Particular offence – Wilful murder – Trial – Juvenile – State's case rest on offender's confession – Confession freely given, not unfair on accused despite his status – Confession corroborated - Accused version of facts in confessional statement preferred to version given at trial – Accused telling untruths – A lie cannot provide proof but may provide corroboration - hypothesis suggesting innocence of the accused was not apparent so as to alert the police who conducted a separate interview -Verdict of guilty returned – Criminal Code Act Ch. 262, s 299.

Cases Cited
Papua New Guinea cases

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

R v Namiropa Koinbondi [1969-1970] PNGLR 194
The State v. Ungun Ovohe (1980) N245
John Jaminan –v- The StateNo.2 [1983] PNGLR 318
Allan Oa Koroka & ANOR –-v- State (1988-89) PNGLR 13
Onoma Andrew v The State (2009) SC 997
The State v Henry Toliu (2011) N4237

Overseas Cases

R-v- Ping [2005] QCA 472

Counsel

D Kuvi, for the State
G Pipike, for the accused

JUDGMENT ON VERDICT

14th September, 2012

1. TOLIKEN, AJ: The accused stands charged with the wilful murder of one Nekeda Seweina on 24th of November 2009 at Wadalei, Ferguson Island, Milne Bay Province.
   
2. The accused denied the charge. During the trial the defence objected to the accused's Record of interview being tendered into evidence by the State on grounds of unfairness as the accused was a juvenile at the time of his arrest and breach of his constitutional right to communicate with his relatives.
   
3. I conducted a voir dire and ruled that while the accused was indeed a juvenile of approximately 16 years of age, he was treated and processed as an adult based on the information then available to the arresting officer – that the accused was 19 years old. Therefore interview was not unfair in the circumstances. Hence I accepted the Record of Interview into evidence. Trial continued after that.
   

THE ISSUES

4. The issues for my determination in this trial are:
   
   1. Did the accused kill Nekeda Seweina?
   2. If he did, did he intend to cause death?
      

THE EVIDENCE

The State's Case

5. The State case consisted of the evidence of Simon Kawakita, Henry Kaisese, the arresting officer Sergeant John Labidi and a medical report that was tendered through Dr. Perista Mamadi.The accused gave sworn evidence.
   
6. The evidence of Simon Kawakita really is of no probative value. The witness merely testified to having come across the deceased lying dead on a track to a river and then of reporting this to others who later reported the matter to the Ward Councillor.
   
7. Henry Kaisese is the Ward Councillor for Wadalei. He testified to having proceeded to the crime scene after the matter was reported to him and viewing the body. He instructed that the body be taken home but not to be buried until the police arrive. He then relayed a radio call to the Police through a Health Division radio.
   
8. He testified that the accused confessed the crime to him and further that the accused brother Manua Tayamina had told him that the accused had confessed to killing the deceased because of what she did to their mother. This part of his evidence is, however, inadmissible hearsay.
   
9. He testified that he told the police that the accused was responsible but that the accused was not immediately apprehended. He was apprehended on 16th of December 2009 and taken to Esa'ala Station. He told the police that accused was 19 years of age as he was born on the same week as his own son in 1984.
   
10. The witness also told the court that the deceased was the accused's aunt – the elder sister of his mother. Finally, he testified that when he visited the accused in prison in 2011 the accused told him that he was advised by his lawyers to compensate the deceased's family. In January 2012 a peace ceremony was held between the two families. The accused's family paid K5000 cash and two clay pots of cooked food and fish. He said he told the parties to share to food.
    
11. Sergeant John Labidi is the arresting officer. He testified – both at the main trial and at the voir dire - that a message was relayed to him through the Health Radio informing him of a murder at Wadalei late on the afternoon of 24th November 2009. He proceeded to Wadalei the next day, the 25th of November with Reserve Constable Morioga.
    
12. On arrival at Wadalei he viewed the deceased's body which was laid out on a table in the village and took statements from witnesses. They were, however, unable to make any arrests as the Ward councillor informed him that the suspect had gone into hiding. They then returned to Esa'ala.
    
13. Sometime later he received a radio message from the Councillor that a suspect had surrendered himself. He then returned to Wadalei on 16th of December 2009. The suspect now the accused, was handed over to Sergeant Labidi and he voluntarily went with him back to Esa'ala Station. They arrived back at Esa'ala at about 4.30p.m. and it took them another 10 minutes to get to the Station.
    
14. Once at the Station, Sergeant Labidi testified that he commenced the interview – admitted into evidence after voir dire - by cautioning the accused and informing him of his Constitutional rights. In the interview was Reserve Constable Graham Moriogo who acted as both Corroborator and Interpreter. The interview was conducted in English and translated into Dobu, the language understood by the accused.
    
15. When asked if he wanted to speak to a relative the accused said that he wanted to send a message to his brother Sopai through the Ward Councillor, who, at that time was attending a meeting at Epepewa (Esa'ala). As it was getting late, the interview was suspended at 5.40p.m.
    
16. Sergeant Labidi conceded that the accused never got to speak to the Ward Councillor who was still in their meeting or to his brother Sopai back at Wadalei who could not be reached due to logistical problems. Sergeant Laubidi accommodated the accused at his house and fed him as there is no holding cell at the Esa'ala Station.
    
17. The Interview recommenced the next day at 8.10a.m wherein the accused confessed to the killing of the deceased. I quote verbatim from the pertinent parts of the Record of Interview.
    

Q19. For what reason,your Ward Member have to bring you to Esa'ala Police?

Ans. For murder.

Q20. You are already telling me that you murdered somebody?

Ans. Yes

Q21. Can you tell me what is the name of the person that you murdered?

Ans. Nekeda.

Q22. Is Nekeda a male or female?

Ans. Female.

Q23. Is she a young or old lady?

Ans. Old lady.

Q24. For what reason and you murdered the old lady?

Ans. She swolled my hands. (sic.)

Q25. How did she swollowed your hand? (sic)

Ans. It was in One (1) of the nights while I was sleeping when Nekeda came to me in a form of witch and swollowed my left hand were I struggled until I pulled my hand out of her mouth.

... ...

Q27. How do you know that it was Nekeda who swollowed your hand?

Ans. When I pulled out my hand from Nekeda's mouth, I started praying to the Lord and the picture of Nekeda was shown to me that night.

Q28. Can you tell how you killed Nekeda?

Ans. I, was going to look for mango when I caught up with Nekeda in the bush and when seen me she change her appearance into a witch and was trying to do something to me. When I looked around could see nobody and I know that I will be killed today so I pulled out my knife and started stabbing her. After stabbing her and when she fell to the ground I also fell to the groung unconscious. When I woke up again I ran away into the bush.

Q29. For how long did you stay in the bush after killing Nekeda?

Ans. I stay for the day till night were I slept in the bush then on the next day I came to my father and told him what I did.

Q30. When you inform your father that you killed Nekeda, what did he do to you?

Ans. My father did not do anything but he that we have to go and report to the Villager Councillor (Ward Member).

Q31. What happened after reporting the Ward Member?

Ans. When we reported the matter to the ward member this is what he said " you have took the life of somebody and that you have poured blood on my table and the Church members table as well." Now I will hand you over to the Police.

Q32. I will now show a knife and I want you to look at it and tell me whose knife is it?

Ans. Yes.

[Knife was handed over to the accused to have a look at it.]

Q33. Did you have a look at the knife?

Ans. Yes.

Q34. Can you tell me whoes knife is it?

Ans. My own knife.

Q35. Is it true that this is the knife that you used to kill Nekeda?

Ans. Yes, it is true.

... ...

... ...

Q40. Do you wish to the content of the interview?

Ans. You read it and let it be translated to me.

Reading starts at 9.15 a.m. 17-12-09

Reading completed at 9.30am same day.

Q41. Do you wish to change or remove anything that is on this paper?

Ans. Everything is alright.

Q42. During the interview did myself or the other Policeman assault you or promise you anything in order to obtain your story?

Ans. No.

18. The Record of Interview was accepted into evidence through Sergeant Labidi after the voir dire and marked "Exhibit A" for the State.
    
19. Sergeant Labidi conceded under cross-examination that he did not conduct any further independent investigation into the matter.
    
20. The State's final witness was Dr. Perista Mamadi, a medical officer of 14 years practice, the last 5 of which as a Surgeon. He is attached to the Alotau General Hospital. He has a Bachelors degree in Medicine and Surgery and a Masters in Medicine specializing in Surgery from the University of Papua New Guinea.
    
21. Dr. Mamadi was called to give his opinion on a medical report by Nurse Aide Meriba Dale and Community health Worker (CHW) Ken Mataio on the body of the deceased soon after it was found. The original hand-written Report was tendered and accepted into evidence by consent and marked Exhibit B.
    
22. For completeness I reproduce the report verbatim except for the two drawings of human figures indicating the various wounds that were found on the deceased's body.
    

REPORT ON ADAULT NEKWEDA

DATE	TIME	REMARKS
24/11/2009	11am 5pm	Nekeda attended Aidpost Outpatient at Wadalei for her Treatment for sores on her head and hand. Patient felt better and was well. She was supplied with medicine andleft for home at 11.15am. On her way up the river between Alexis house (aunty) and the river. There she was murdered. Time not known. Who did it not known. Why it was done not known. We were asked to do examination. Nurse Aide – Meriba Dale and CHW - Ken Mataio. Dead body seen with blood which was sticky hard over shirt she wore and skirt with red ants all over the body. We reaped off shirt and all the marks of knife (sharp). These are the examinations. Trachea – cut off the mediastinal vessel which cut off cardiac. Obstruction Lungs speared twice Heart was speared Heart was speared Cut on epidemic (skin) Cut on epidemic (skin) Cut to the heart It went to the lungs too. The cut to trachea on neck,cut off the blood circulation to the heart caused obstruction so cannot call out. To the lungs 3 injuries, to the heart 2 injuries caused shock and instantly died. Others contributed pain altogether 7 main wounds and 2 minor cuts on skin only. After this 5.30pm made bush stretcher carried home to wash with warm water and stay overnight for your arrival to see the murder case. Thank you Nurse Aide – Meriba Dale CHW – Ken Mataio

23. Dr. Mamadi interpreted the observations of the health workers and gave his professional opinion on the severity and effects of the wounds described in the report on the deceased.
    
24. When asked in examination in-chief what the significant facts the report revealed, Dr. Mamadi said that it showed multiple penetrating wounds or injuries to the body, inflicted by a sharp object, possibly a knife.
    
25. He was able to infer from the report that injuries were serious and in his professional opinion the probable cause of death could have been from severe or massive blood loss because of penetrating wounds to the neck, heart and lungs. In regard to the cut to the trachea (windpipe) the object used cut the trachea itself and the blood vessels that run next to it.
    
26. When asked in cross-examination if he could tell from the report how deep the wounds could have been, the witness said of the cuts to the heart and lungs that these were deep enough to reach those vital organs. As to the trachea the blood vessels there are not deep. As to how the wounds were made he said that the diagrams indicated cuts which could have been inflicted by stabbing. Having not physically examined the body the witness was, however, not able to say if different objects or weapons were used to inflict the fatal injuries.
    
27. Questions were also put to Dr. Mamadi in cross-examination if he had dealt with issues of mental health and the issue of fainting and its possible causes in his time as a general practitioner. He answered that he would refer such cases to specialist doctors. He conceded it was possible for people to faint out of fear but would not be drawn into saying if people can have a black out of fear because we are different and the situation itself will determine whether one fainted or blacked out.
    

Accused's Evidence

28. The accused testified on oath that on the date in question he had taken his knife and went into the bush to look for mango. On his way back he followed a creek down until he came to a track that led back to the village. He was following the track through the thick bush when from afar he suddenly saw something coming. He could not tell what it was but only saw a figure. At that instance he blacked out and fell down. He did not know what happened after that. When he regained consciousness he took his knife and went to a yam house. He later went home and reported to his father that he saw a figure. His father immediately took him to the councillor and told that his nephew saw something. The councillor immediately suspected him for the death of Nekeda. He denied knowledge of the crime or that he was responsible for it.
    
29. In examination in- chief the accused said he could not describe the figure he saw as he just fleetingly saw it running before he blacked out and fell down. He said he could not remember talking to the police and denied knowing or having seen Nekeda. He even denied that his own family knew Nekeda. He, however, remembers that the sun was going down at the time he saw that figure in the bush.
    
30. On cross-examination the accused vehemently denied knowing the deceased and the Ward Councillor Henry Kasese. He denied knowledge of the record of interview and the confessions he allegedly made in the interview. In fact he denied all suggestions that he was involved in the deceased's murder at all.
    
31. The following are some of his answers to questions put to him in cross examination on these matters.
    

Q. Do you know Nekeda Seweida?

A. No.

Q. Do you know the Ward Councillor?

A. No.

Q. So when the Ward Councillor said he knew you he'd be lying?

A. No.

Q. That's the same Ward Councillor that you said you and your father went and saw and now you say you don't know him?

A. No.

Q. Are you lying?

A. No.

Q. So you don't know Nekeda Seweina?

A. No I don't.

Q. But she is your aunty?

A. No.

Q. What if I told you that Nekeda is your mother's elder sister?

A. No.

Q. That's what Henry Kaises said?

A. No.

Q. Are you saying all that Henry said is a lie?

A. Yes it's a lie.

... ...

... ...

Q. Do you remember your statement to the police at Esa'ala which now before the court?

A. I don't know

Q. In your statement you told police that you know Nekeda?

A. No, I didn't.

... ...

Q. You told police that this Nekeida is an old lady?

A. No I didn't say that.

Q. You also told the police one night Nekeida came and swallowed your hand?

A. Not true.

Q. You also told police that you went to look for Mangoes and you caught up with Nekeida?

A. No.

Q. You looked around, nobody but yourself and Nekeda?

A. No.

Q. Seeing her you thought to yourself that you were going to be killed by her because she was a witch, you took out knife and you said you stabbed he?

A. No.

Q. After stabbing her she fell down and you also fell down?

A. That time I only saw a figure and fell down, didn't know what happened.

Q. You said in this document you told the police you killed her, now you're saying you didn't so you're either lying to the Court or you were lying to the police?

A. I honestly tell court that I didn't do this.

Q. So why would your own father take you to the Councillor who in turn brought you to the police?

A. I just saw a figure and reported to my father who said we'll go and see my uncle the councillor.

Q. So you know the Councillor.

A. No.

Q. You just said you the Councillor is your uncle, do you know him?

A. No.

... ...

... ...

Q. When you say your uncle who are you referring to?

A. The Councillor

Q. That same councillor who handed you to the police?

A. He only suspected me.

... ...

... ...

Q. What if I told you that you knew Nekeda and she is suspected of being a sorceress?

A. Yes she is a sorceress.

Q. So you know her?

A. No.

Q. So how do you know her as sorceress?

A. From what people tell me.

Q. So you know her from what people tell you?

A. No.

... ...

... ...

32. The accused maintained his denial of the material facts alleged against him even in the face of suggestions that he was lying.
    

SUBMISSIONS

Defence

33. Mr. Pipike of counsel for the accused submitted that their defence was one of general denial in that while the accused was around the vicinity of the crime scene he did not take part or was involved in the alleged murder of the deceased.
    
34. Counsel submitted that the State must discharge the burden of proving that the accused who killed the deceased with intent.
    
35. He submitted that the State's case rests entirely on the Record of Interview and its alleged confession. Therefore there is no need to refer to other evidence such as the Councillor's as this was inadmissible hearsay while the evidence of the other witness (Kawakita) does not prove anything at all.
    
36. The medical evidence, he argued, is from a secondary witness and it is hard to ascertain the necessary details of the examination of the deceased's body.
    
37. He asked the Court to take note of the absence of the murder weapon which makes the medical report inconclusive. Further the report does not exclude the possibility that more than one person was involved.
    
38. As to the Record of Interview counsel argues that whilst it does contain confessions it was challenged and was done through an interpreter.
    
39. Because the State relied entirely on the alleged confession in the Record of interview counsel referred the Court to several cases in the point.
    
40. Counsel relied firstly on R v Namiropa Koinbondi [1969-1970] PNGLR 194 where the court said that:
    

"It is now established that a court, taking proper safeguards may, even on a charge of wilful murder, act on a confession which is uncorroborated but it will only do after the closest scrutiny and testing of the confession and only after an examination of the considerations, if any, supplying hypotheses by which the making of a confession may be explained more or less consistent with innocence."

41. Counsel submitted that this case has been consistently applied in subsequent cases up to and including the Supreme Court cases of Onoma Andrew v The State (2009) SC 997 where the court quashed the appellant's conviction which was based on a confession. At the trial Mogish J. sought to distinguish the matter from Namiropa on the grounds, among other things, that the confession was corroborated. The Supreme Court, however, said that while the facts were different the appellant had distanced himself from the confession, hence, the conviction was unsafe.
    
42. He also referred to The State v. Ungun Ovohe (1980) N245. There the accused was acquitted of a charge wilful murder despite confessing to the crime as the evidence suggested that the accused was forced into taking responsibility for a crime that was committed by a clan elder and that the police did not conduct an independent investigation into the matter.
    
43. Counsel also relied on The State v Henry Toliu (2011) N4237. There Sawong J. acquitted the accused of a charge of wilful murder because of inconsistencies in the State's evidence and because an alleged confession was not corroborated.
    
44. In the current case, counsel basically submitted that the police should have conducted a separate investigation. There was no such investigation, no murder weapon tendered into evidence, no evidence from the crime scene, or other evidence that the accused may have been telling the truth.
    
45. Counsel submitted also that not only did the accused distance himself from the crime, he also gave strong evidence that he did not know what happened in the bush that afternoon.
    
46. Finally there is another hypothesis available, counsel submitted. The deceased was a sorceress and the accused did see something in the bush that afternoon. The Police had not investigated the possibility that because of the deceased's reputation her murder could have been perpetrated by anyone in the village.
    
47. Counsel submitted therefore that the State has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be acquitted.
    

State

48. Mr. Kuvi submitted that the State has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    
49. The police had not conducted any further investigation as to the death of the deceased because there was no other explanation. The only explanation was that the deceased confessed to killing the deceased because he believed her to be a sorceress. The only other hypothesis is just now being put forward by the accused himself.
    
50. As to the defences argument that there was no other evidence to show that the accused was telling the truth, Mr. Kuvi conceded that there is none because the accused is lying and it was apparent that he was blatantly lying. He questions why the accused's father would take him to the councillor for seeing a figure and have him arrested for that. This is against logic and common sense, counsel argued. So the only reason why he was arrested was because he killed the deceased.
    
51. Counsel submitted also that there is nothing wrong in law in convicting on a confession alone providing that the confession is not admitted against principle of fairness.
    
52. As to cases referred to by the defence, Mr. Kuvi submitted that some of those cases were thrown out because the Record of Interview were not corroborated. In this case, the Record of Interview was corroborated.
    
53. Mr. Kuvi submits that the Medical Report showed a cold blooded killing, a brutal and horrific wilful murder. The report is not secondary as alleged to the defence. It is in evidence and the wounds show intentions, that is that the accused intend to kill the deceased.
    

FINDINGS OF FACT

(a) Undisputed Facts

54. It is not disputed that the accused was around the vicinity of the scene of the crime around the time and date of the demise of the deceased.
    
55. I accept that he had gone to the bush that afternoon to look for mangoes.
    
56. I accept that he was on his way back to the village having followed the week down and up to the bush track that led down o the village.
    
57. What happened immediately after that is disputed and I will return to that shortly.
    
58. However, I accept that the accused after spending the night in the bush went home the next day and told something to his father who then immediately took him to the Village Councillor. I accept that at that point, the accused father told the councillor of the accused involvement in the death of the deceased. I also accept Henry Kaiseses' evidence that the accused told him that "he fed it" that is killed Nekeda Seweina.
    
59. I also accept that an interview was conducted at Esa'ala by Sergeant Labidi which I had found on Voir Dire to have not been unfair on the accused despite my finding that he would have been around 16 years of age.
    
60. In the interview, the accused is alleged to have confessed to the crime but that confession is now challenged.
    
61. As to the Report by the Health Workers who examined the deceased's body, I accept the facts stated at their report that:-
    
    • The deceased trachea or windpipe was cut.
    • 3 penetrating wounds to the heart
    • 2 superficial wounds to the skin.
    • 3 wounds to the lungs
      
62. I also accept Dr Mamadi's professional assessment that these wounds were serious and that the deceased died from massive blood loss.
    

Disputed Facts

63. Now much of the State's case as to what happened in the bush on that fateful day is derived from the accused alleged confession.
    
64. The first thing to note here is that in this matter, the Record of Interview was corroborated by Reserved Constable Graham Morioga who acted as both corroborator and interpreter.
    
65. The accused vehemently denied confessing to killing the deceased let alone seeing her in the bush that afternoon. The only thing he said he saw was the running figure before he blacked out.
    
66. It is important to note, however, that the confession itself was corroborated by Reserve Constable Graham Morioga. And apart from the fact that he may have been a juvenile, there is no suggestion that he was over-borne by threats, undue pressure or inducements by the arresting officer. On the contrary, the accused was treated very politely by Sgt Labidi.
    
67. I, therefore accept that the accused made the confessions that are now before me in the form of the Record of Interview.
    
68. Despite his insistent denials and his claim of not having any knowledge about what happened in the bush when he blacked out and interestingly his denial of having been interviewed by police at Esa'ala, I find that the accused conveniently seemed to forget only the crucial facts –the actual killing of the deceased and of being interviewed by police.
    
69. I find also that he was clearly lying when on the stand on simple things like knowing the deceased and the Ward Councillor. I find though that he implicated himself on a couple of occasions their cross-examination.
    

THE LAW

70. He offence of wilful murder is provided by Section 299 of the Code in the following terms:
    

299. Wilful murder.

(1) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder.

(2) A person who commits wilful murder shall be liable to be sentenced to death.

71. The element of the name of wilful killer are:-
    
    1. The accused killed the deceased.
    2. The killing was unlawful
    3. The accused intended to cause the death of the deceased.
       
72. Let me now turn to the issues.
    

ISSUE1. Did the accused kill the deceased?

73. From the accused confessions in the record of interview which was corroborated, yes I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed the deceased by stabbing her multiple times on her body by a bush knife which unfortunately was not tendered into evidence.
    
74. I am satisfied that the accused inflicted major penetrating wounds to the deceased's body – a cut to the trachea, 3 wounds to the heart and three to the lungs – resulting in massive blood loss from which she died.
    
75. I make these findings fully aware of the heavy burden that is placed on me to be completely satisfied that it is safe to assign guilt on the accused based only on his corroborated confessional statement.
    
76. I am also fully aware that I am dealing with somebody who was at the time of his arrest and confession a juvenile. I take full recognizance of the principles of law stated in Namiropa; and Onama Andrew –v- State (supra) and other cases in the point but I am of the firm view that any hypothesis suggesting innocence of the accused was not apparent so as to alert the police who conducted a separate interview. In any case, there is evidence on the record that the arresting officer did take statements from witnesses when he went to the village.
    
77. This case ought therefore to be distinguished on its facts from Namiropa, Onama Andrew (supra) and other cases cited.
    
78. There is one final matter that must weigh heavily against the credibility of the accused. And that is that he was blatantly telling untruths as earlier indicated.
    
79. I accept the general proposition that a lie cannot prove guilt (Allan Oa Koroka & ANOR -v- State (1988-89) PNGLR 13 but conversely I do also accept that a lie may provide evidence of corroboration (John Jaminan –v- The State No.2 [1983] PNGLR 318 per Amet J at 336.
    
80. Now the only persons who knew what happened that fateful afternoon, are the accused and deceased. Unfortunately, the deceased is not here to tell her story.
    
81. So given the untruths and contradictions in the evidence of the accused – and I am not suggesting for a moment that the burden is been shifted to him to prove his innocence – the only logical and reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that he killed the deceased in the manner he confessed.
    
82. To that end his confession must be preferred to the evidence that he gave at his trial.
    
83. Yes, I find that the accused killed the deceased and it can be added without too much argument that the killing was unlawful.
    

ISSUE 2: Did he intend to cause the death of the deceased?

84. Now the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt an actual and subjective intention or the part of the accused to kill the deceased (R-v- Ping [2005] QCA 472 – persuasive only but which is entirely applicable to the circumstance of this country).
    
85. Intention is a state of the mind and is hard to ascertain. However, it can be ascertained or proven by-
    
    • Admission as in this case
    • Inference from the accused's conduct before, during or after the commission of the offence which may include circumstantial evidence
    • Inferred from the degree of force use to justify that death was intended.
    • Inferred from the nature of the injuries and the location on the deceased body.
      
86. So does the evidence show and intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased?
    
87. The intensity of the attack, the nature, degree and locations of the mortal wounds on the body of the deceased clearly indicate an intention to kill or to cause death.
    
88. There is therefore no reasonable doubt in my mind that the accused intend to kill the deceased.
    
89. For the foregoing reasons I, therefore return a verdict of guilty against the accused for the wilful murder of Nekeda Seweida.
    

Orders accordingly.

________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor : Lawyers for the State
Paraka Lawyers : Lawyers for the accused