State v Tanabo [2015] PGNC 186; N6083 (21 September 2015)

N6083

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 1446 of 2014

THE STATE

V

ELVIS TANABO
Prisoner

Kainantu/Goroka: Polume-Kiele J
2015: 15, 31st July
2015: 21st September

CRIMINAL LAW – Guilty Plea – Murder, Criminal Code Act, Section 300 (1) (a) - The penalty of which subject to Section 19 is imprisonment for life” - Victim cut on the head three times and other parts of her body with a bush knife – Victim and prisoner husband and wife.
CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence – Early guilty plea – First time offender- Incarceration appropriate.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Life imprisonment- Criminal Code, Section 300 (1) (a) - Criminal Code Act and Section 19

The Facts
The relevant facts put to the prisoner during arraignment which were consistent with his instructions to his defence counsel and contained on the depositions for the plea of guilty were that: On the 26th of September 2014 at about 6 p.m., the prisoner and (his wife) the victim were on the road leading to Tombetaka Village. After some argument, the prisoner got a bush knife and cut the victim three times on her head and he also cut the victim on other parts of her body. The victim fell to the ground and died instantly from the injuries sustained and loss of blood. The body was taken to Kainantu Hospital for purposes of a post mortem report.

Held

(1) The maximum penalty for murder subject to s 19 is life imprisonment under Section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code.

(2) The starting point for sentencing for this sort of killing is 13 to 16 years imprisonment, Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 guidelines considered.

(3) Mitigating factors: he is a first-time offender; early guilty plea.

(4) Aggravating factors: a premeditated attack, it was a vicious attack; there was a strong desire to inflict grievous bodily harm; the use of an offensive and lethal weapon, loss of life, and prevalence of the offence.

(5) A sentence of life imprisonment to be served at CIS, Bihute.

Cases Cited

Avia Aihi v The State [1982] 92;
State v Carol Alfred [2009] N3602
Goli Golu v the State [1979] PNGLR 653;
Joseph Ann v State (2004) SC 742
John Kalabus v The State [1988] PNGLR 193
Kepa Wenege v State (2004) SC 738,
State v Komboni [2015] PGNC 63; (17 June 2015) N5991)
Kuri Willie v The State (1987) PNGLR 298
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38;
State v Loangesa [2007] N3187
Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC 789
Mary Bomai Michael vs. the State (2004) SC737)
State v Mavis Uraro (2012) N5164
Max Java v State (2002) SC 701 (unreported)
Paulus Mandatitip and Anor -v- The State [1978] PNGLR 128
SCR No 1. Of 1984: Re Maximum Penalty [1984] PNGLR 418;
Steven Loke Ume & Ors v The State (2006) SC836
State v Taulaola Pakai (2010) N4125
Thress Kumbamong v. the State (2008) SC 1017
Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105;

Counsel:
Ms. Barbara Gore, for the State
Mr. John Biki, for the Accused

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

21st September, 2015

1. POLUME-KIELE J: The prisoner, Elvis Tanabo appeared before me on the 16th of July 2015. The accused pleaded guilty by his own plea to one count of murder contrary to s 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act. The maximum penalty for murder subject to s 19 of the Criminal Code Act, is imprisonment for life.
   

“Section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code provides:

“Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder.

(a) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other person; the penalty of which subject to Section 19 is imprisonment for life”.

2. For the purposes of this present case, Subsection (2) provides that in a case to which Subsection (1) (a) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who was killed”
   

“Section 19 discretionary power provisions as to punishments relevant to this present case are as follows:

“(1) In the construction of this Code, it is to be taken that, except when it is otherwise expressly provided–

(a) a person liable to imprisonment for life or for any other period, may be sentenced to imprisonment for any shorter term”

Committal Court Disposition

3. The Kainantu District Court Deposition were tendered into evidence by consent which comprised of the following:

(i) The Record of interview both the original pidgin and English Version conducted on 29th of September 2014, CB 61 of 2014; marked as Exhibit "A" relating to the defendant Elvis Tanabo during which he admitted to using a bush knife to kill one namely Ruthy Elvis on the 26th of September 2014 at about 6.00 p.m. at Tombetaka Village, Gadsup, Obura-Wonenara.

(ii) The Statements of State witnesses namely Police Constable Agatha Akia dated 10th October 2014, Police Investigator Undo Noba, dated 30th October 2014, Rodney Dapu dated 6th October of Tombetaka Village, Pura Isam dated 6th October 2014 of Tombetaka Village who all respectively confirmed the identity of the prisoner and his demeanour following the commission of the offence. Included in the Court disposition is the Autopsy Report dated 28th September 2014 performed by Dr Thomas Koimbu confirming the death of the victim due the injuries sustained. It should be pointed out that the record of interview indicated that the date of the commission of the crime as the 26th of September 2014 and not the 20th of September 2014.

4. Upon the reading of the Committal Court dispositions and being satisfied that the evidence contained in the dispositions supported the charge, the prisoner’s guilty plea was accepted and the prisoner was convicted on the charge of murder under s 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code.

Pre-Trial Detention

5. The prisoner had been remanded on the 07th of October 2014 and has been held in custody for a period of 11 months 14 days to the date of this judgment on sentence.

Allocutus

6. In administering the allocutus, the prisoner was given an opportunity to speak on the question of penalty. The prisoner said that he was sorry to God and the court for killing his wife. He is sorry for his children aged between 2 and 4 years who he left behind. The prisoner also asked for leniency from the court. The prisoner stated that this is his first time in court and is worried about the welfare of his children and also his aging parents who have no one to take care of them. However prior to sentence, Counsel for the prisoner, Mr. John Biki submitted that this is a case involving family circumstances and thus requested that the Probation Officer, Kainantu be directed to prepare a Pre-Sentence Report on behalf of the prisoner

Pre-Sentence Report

7. The Community Based Corrections Office in this regard was directed by the Court to provide a Pre-Sentence Report which has been made available to this court for consideration. Mr. Bennet Amuino's efforts in putting together a pre-sentence report and means assessment report on the accused is appreciated. This Court will take into consideration these assessments in its determination of the severity of the penalty and decision making process. According to the Pre-Sentence Report, the prisoner is about 27 years old, married with two children and comes from Ayamontenu Village in Kainantu, Eastern Highlands Province. He is educated up to Grade 3 and lives in Kainantu with his parents. The prisoner is a subsistence farmer. However due to the remoteness of the area from which the prisoner comes from including the non-availability of members of his community to interview, the Probation Officer was unable to compiled a balanced assessment on the prisoner in relation to the prisoner’s overall suitability for probation and rehabilitation back into the community. However, in spite of this shortcomings, the Pre-Sentence Report concluded that the prisoner posed real danger to the community. In these circumstances, the prisoner is not a suitable candidate for probation or rehabilitation back into the community. This is a case of a young man who has intentionally caused the death of his wife.

Mitigation factors

8. The mitigating factors are:

• No prior conviction
• Early guilty plea
• Surrendered and o-operated with police
• First time offender
  

Aggravating factors

9. Aggravating factors are:

• Premeditated attack
• Use of dangerous weapon, bush knife used in the attack
• It was a vicious attack
• There was a strong desire to inflict grievous bodily harm
• Loss of life, and
• Prevalence.
  

Issue for determination before the Court

10. The issue to be determined by the court is “Whether or not this case falls within the worst types of offences that warrant the imposition of subject to s 19 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment”

Submissions on sentence

11. Counsel for the prisoner, Mr Biki submitted that the issue before the court was whether the present case is one of the worst types of case under s 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act that attracts a term of life imprisonment. Furthermore, this court has considerable discretion to determine whether this court can impose the maximum penalty of life imprisonment by virtue of s 19 of the Criminal Code Act. Factors in favour of the prisoner is that he is a first time offender and that the actions of the prisoner were unintentional. In addition the prisoner has expressed remorse for what he has done and has co-operated with the police and admitted to the crime in the Record of Interview. Mr. Biki for the prisoner further submitted that the prisoner has been greatly affected by the offence and stated that the mitigating factors in this present case, outweighs the aggravating factors. Mr Biki in further submitted that in these circumstances, this Court consider the other alternative provisions of the Section 19 discretion and determine as to whether or not to impose: (i) a shorter term of imprisonment (s 19 (1) (a); (ii) a fine up to K2, 000.00 instead of or in addition to a term of imprisonment (s 19 (1) (b), (iii) a sentence until the fine is paid (s 19 (1) (c), (iv) a good behaviour bond on a person convicted on indictment of an offence not punishable with death (s 19 (1) (d), (vi) discharging the prisoner and postponing the sentence; s 19 (1) (f) and (vii) suspension of all or portion of the sentence imposed, subject to conditions (s 19 (6). Thus in order to determine the appropriate sentence, this court must consider all the facts and circumstances of the case carefully and in this regard apply the principles set down in the case of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789 in the exercise of its discretionary powers in determining the appropriate sentence, given the relevant circumstances of the present case.

12. Ms Gore in reply submitted that in determining the appropriate sentence, this is a case where the offence falls into the worst case category. Therefore the principles established in Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789 must be applied to determine the severity of sentence. In Manu Kovi v The State (supra), the prisoner pleaded guilty to the wilful murder of his wife. On appeal on the severity of sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and established the sentencing principles for all homicide cases which has been followed and these were:

(i) First category, in a plea to murder where there are mitigating factors with no aggravating factors, no weapons used, little or no planning, minimum force and absence of strong intent to do grievous bodily harm – sentence of 12 to 15 years;

(ii) Second category in a case where it’s a trial or plea where there is no strong intent to do grievous bodily harm, weapons used, some pre-planning, some element of viciousness – sentence of 16 to 20 years;

(iii) Third category, in a case where it’s a trial or plea where there is pre-planning, vicious attack, strong desire to do grievous bodily harm, dangerous or offensive weapons used, e.g. gun or axe. Other offences of violence committed – sentence of 20 to 30 years;

(iv) Fourth category, (worse case), in a case where there is pre-mediated attack, brutal killing, in cold blood. Killing of innocent, harmless person- killing in the course of committing another serious offence. Complete disregard for human life – life imprisonment

13. Whilst it is acknowledged that the mitigating circumstances in favour of the prisoner are important considerations; so too are matters relating to his aggravating factors. The maximum punishment of death is reserved for the worst case of wilful murder. Given the facts and circumstances of this present case, Ms Gore submitted that this offence falls into the worst case category and she relied upon of a number of case law in support of her submission which included the case of Max Java v State (2002) SC 701 (unreported) where the Supreme Court confirmed a sentence of 20 years on a plea for murder where the appellant had chase the deceased and attacked him with a grass knife which resulted in the deceased sustaining severe injuries resulting in his death.

14. In Kepa Wenege v State (2004) SC 738, the appellant in this case had been sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The prisoner appealed against the sentence of 20 years. The deceased in this case had taken some tree branches for firewood from a disputed land and after an argument with the appellant and his father, walked home but the appellant followed the deceased from behind (unaware of the appellant following him) and cut the deceased on the head twice with an axe and hit him all over his body with sticks resulting in his death. The Supreme Court held that the sentence of 20 years was lenient and dismissed his appeal and confirmed the 20 years sentence.

15. Similarly in Joseph Ann v State (2004) SC 742, the appellant was sentenced to 20 years on a guilty plea on a charge of murder. In this case, the offence occurred when the appellant was at a meeting when an argument arose between the deceased, a male and a female which developed into a fight. The fight was halted and the deceased went back to where he was and was seated when the appellant got a bush knife and struck him on the back of his neck resulting in his death. The appellant appealed the excessiveness of sentence. The appeal was dismissed and the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence of 20 years.

16. In a case involving a husband and wife situation such as this present case. Reference was made to the case of State v Carol Alfred [2009] N3602, where the deceased was the husband of the prisoner. After an argument over food, the prisoner stabbed the deceased with a kitchen knife on the left upper thigh and he died due to loss of blood. K15, 000.00 in cash plus 40 pigs were paid as compensation which were considered special mitigating factor. The prisoner was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

17. In the case of State v Loangesa [2007] N3187, this is yet another husband and wife situation where the prisoner who is the husband of the deceased was drinking at a friend’s house. The deceased who was his wife went over to the friend’s house and accused the prisoner of misusing the family’s money and threw a stick at him. The prisoner jumped down from the friend’s house and started assaulting the deceased. During the course of the assault, the prisoner kicked the deceases in the stomach. The deceased however managed to walk away towards their own house and when she reached the front of their house, fell down and died. A medical report showed that she had died from liver injuries and internal bleeding caused by the assault occasioned by the prisoner on her person. The prisoner was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

Guidelines in Sentencing

18. Having heard submissions on sentence from both the Defence Counsel and the Prosecution on relevant issues including the mitigation and aggravating circumstances for and against the prisoner. This Court now has to consider what is to be an appropriate sentence to be imposed. Indeed the death was tragic and unwarranted. For those family and community members affected by the victim's death, they have lost a sister, mother and valuable community member, not to mention the prisoner himself who claimed to be so affected by the death of his wife, the victim. But the point to be made here is that however, remorseful the prisoner appears to be, no amount of amity will bring the victim back to life. This sort of crime is prevalent. Behaviours which do not value and protect sanctity of life must be dealt with. Too often the women, children and vulnerable members of the community are subjected to uncontrollable and physical abuse of their husbands and partners. Thus there has to be stern punitive actions taken to protect the vulnerable from such brutality (Mary Bomai Michael vs. the State (2004) SC737) where the Supreme Court expressed the views that the "The community looks to the Courts for justice and for the protection of its interest...”

19. For this present case, a young life has been taken away with such brutality without any provocation in any manner or form as opposed to the cases of State v Loangesa [2007] N3187 and State v Carol Alfred [2009] N3602 discussed above. Furthermore, there are two young children involved whose future will be uncertain without the protection, love and attention of their mother. A serious crime has been committed and this has occurred within the confines of husband and wife relationship (marriage). This court is minded to think that in such a relationship, there should be understanding between the husband and wife and where circumstances permit, expression of love and protection must prevail. In the prisoner’s case, the prisoner chose to act in such a manner that had resulted in the unlawful killing taking of a person’s life, that of his wife, the victim.

20. According to the autopsy report conducted by Dr. Thomas Koimbu of the Kainantu Rural Hospital on the 28th of September 2014, the victim was brought to the hospital dead on arrival on the 27th of September 2014 with allegations of dying from multiple bush knife wounds on the 26th of September 2014 at around 6.00 p.m. Upon examination, the general presentation was that the deceased a well-nourished female with bush knife wounds to the body. Upon external examination, Dr Koimbu confirmed that the deceased had sustained 3 deep and ragged wounds on the top of the head with involvement of the left parietal bone showing multiple fractures including a deep 15 cm long arched wound exposing maxilla bone. In addition, the deceased had sustained deep wound to the right shoulder, right biceps area with compound fracture of the distal end of the humerus bone, lateral aspect of the right forearm also had 10 cm long and deep wound, dorsal aspect of the inter digital space of the right hand and a 15cm long, deep wound over the right shoulder. The medical examination also revealed that the deceased was about 28 weeks pregnant. This is yet another life taken without regard. No internal examination was conducted due to relatives’ request.

21. Bearing all these observations in mind, this court now asked itself as what utility will incarceration bring to the community at large for such brutality? Particularly when such atrocity occurs within family circumstances. Thus in consideration of the severity of penalty to be imposed, regard is had to the views expressed by the Supreme Court in Thress Kumbamong v. the State (2008) SC 1017, where concerns were expressed in relation to the sufferings that women and children in this country endure at the hands of their spouses or partners, from violence ranging from threats to beatings to sexual assaults. Given those sentiments, it is my considered view that the prisoner here must be placed in incarceration as this is the consequences of his decision to killing his wife and his unborn child. These are persons who the accused is supposedly meant to love and protect. Furthermore, the number and type of wounds and the force within which these wounds are inflicted does indicate that the accused had intended to cause real harm to the deceased and it was a very vicious and cold blooded attack. In that, there was a strong desire to inflict real actual harm which had resulted in the death of the victim.

22. It is settled law in this jurisdiction that the maximum penalty for an offence should ordinarily be reserved for the worst type of cases. For the present case, the prisoner is convicted for the crime of murder, a serious crime for which the maximum penalty prescribed under s 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code subject to s 19 is imprisonment for life. Thus the question for this court to consider is whether this present case falls within the worst type of case that warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment as held in SCR No 1. Of 1984: Re Maximum Penalty [1984] PNGLR 418; Goli Golu v the State [1979] PNGLR 653; Avia Aihi v The State [1982] 92; Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105; Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38; Steven Loke Ume & Ors v The State (2006) SC836 and Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789. Considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is minded to conclude that this is a worst case of murder, and this offence falls into the worst case category; that is, category 4 of the Manu Kovi (supra) sentencing guidelines and thus say that it is a case which attracts the maximum punishment of life imprisonment

23. In cases involving the crime of murder, the courts are guided by the use of a sentencing tariff established in the case of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 when determining the severity of sentences in homicides cases. However, the courts in Manu Kovi v The State (supra) also noted that the use of a sentencing tariff has its limitations because of the exercise of discretion under s 19 of the Criminal Code. This means that the court can impose a lesser penalty. In these circumstances, the determination of an appropriate penalty in a given case must be considered “...on its own set of facts and circumstances; including taking into consideration, the various factors existing in each and every case, such as the gravity of the attack, and the concern of the Court at people who take the law into their own hands” (Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38 at 40). However it is also important at the same time to ensure that when the Court exercise judicial discretion, careful consideration must be taken particularly in situation where there are issues relating to the sanctity and value of human life. Human life is far more precious and valuable than material things and as such no amount of remorse or compensation will restore the life lost. Therefore the unlawful taking of another person’s life is a serious and horrendous crime and the perpetrator must be punished accordingly.

Application of the Law

24. According to law (s 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code, the maximum punishment for murder subject to s 19 is life imprisonment, it is however noted that the maximum punishment is of course reserved for the worst case of homicide. To assist determine what is the worst case of homicide, I have perused the file and evidence in the court disposition regarding the circumstances of the killing, the aggravation or extenuation of the crime or mitigation of the offence. To assist me determine an appropriate penalty, I have taken into consideration all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors including the method as to how this factors are weighed. In that I have to distinguish between ordinary or common mitigating factors including special mitigating factors. For instance, a normal ordinary mitigating factor here consist of the following: (i) the accused’s prior good character, (ii) stable good family background, (iii) education and religious background, (iv) first offender, (v) guilty plea, (vi) remorse and (vii) co-operation with the police. In circumstances where there are special mitigating factors to consider, this would include the offender’s (i) very young or very old age, (ii) poor health and (iii) payment of compensation.

25. The payment of customary compensation is an area which is still evolving although, the practice is commonly used in traditional societies of Papua New Guinea. In addition, the amount or value of compensation also varies and is very much dependent on the special circumstances and values of each and every traditional society. Thus how the court weighs these compensation payments is also subject to the different practices of custom in traditional societies of PNG. However the Courts are guided by the procedure and principles prescribed under the Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1991 which prescribes the maximum amount of compensation payment at K5, 000.00. However there are cases where the amount of compensation have exceeded this amount; just to mention a few cases (State v Komboni [2015] PGNC 63; (17 June 2015) N5991) (K10, 000.00); State v Carol Alfred [2009] N3602 (K15, 000.00) and State v Mavis Uraro (2012) N5164 (K22, 000.00).

26. With regard to aggravating factors, these include whether there was deliberate intention to harm, the use of dangerous or offensive weapon, pre-planning and pre-meditation, duration of the attack, multiplicity of injuries inflicted on vulnerable parts of the body, the high degree of force used, nature and extent of the injury inflicted on vulnerable parts of the body, group involvement and the infliction of other cruel or inhuman acts in effecting the crime, the special position of the victim in the community, whether victim is under disability such as old or young ages. The cases do not distinguish between ordinary and special aggravating factors. However, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, some of these aggravating factors may be regarded as special as or are more grave than others and may warrant the imposition of severe punishment (Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789). For this present case, there was deliberate intention to harm, the use of dangerous or offensive weapon, pre-planning and pre-meditation, duration of the attack, multiplicity of injuries inflicted on vulnerable parts of the body, the high degree of force used, nature and extent of the injury inflicted on vulnerable parts of the body are evidence of a more grave aggravating factors which warrant the imposition of a severe punishment and thus say that this type of crime is categorized to be one of the worst types of homicide and level it as a category 4 case (Manu Kovi v The State (supra).

Determining Severity of Sentence

27. Thus for purposes of determining the severity of sentence, a brief discussion on the following cases will assist me arrive at a penalty that would be fair and just in the circumstances. To determine the head sentence, I will begin on the starting point range of 20 to 30 years and assess the mitigating and aggravating factors. If there are more mitigating factors, it will likely result in the head sentence being placed at the low end of or below the starting point range. However if there are more aggravating factors present and the likely effect is that the head sentence will raised and placed at the top end level or above the starting point range. All these factors are however weighed against the particular circumstances of each case. This present case arose in a family situation, reference is made to the case of the State v Mavis Uraro (2012) N5164 where a 22 year old prisoner stabbed her husband's girl-friend to death. The prisoner here was a young offender with two children between the ages of 1 and 5 years respectively. The prisoner pleaded guilty to murder and had made restitution in the sum of K22, 000.00. Other mitigating factors taken into account by the court was her husband's infidelity, her expression of remorse and her age. The prisoner was consequently sentenced to 12 years imprisonment less the time spent in custody. The court in the discretion of its powers suspended five years eight months and two days of the 12 year sentence. The prisoner was to serve the balance of 6 years 1 month and 8 days in custody.

28. Whilst the circumstances and factors of the case of State v Mavis Uraro (2012) N5164 and this present case do differ, there are similarities in mitigating factors. The prisoner here is a young offender with two children, pleaded guilty to the charge of murder but has not made any restitution to the family of the deceased. In his submission, Mr. Biki also made references to the case of Manu Kovi (supra) and submitted that this court exercise its discretionary powers under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act and consider imposing a lesser sentence since the court is not restricted by the sentencing guidelines established in Manu Kovi. In this regard, I note that the Court still had a wide discretion to go outside Manu Kovi guidelines as decided in Thress Kumbamong vs. State (2008) SC 1017 and whilst this present case may not be the worst type of murder as opposed to Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653); the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence for murder is life imprisonment subject to s 19 of the Code. Thus weight has to be given to both the ordinary mitigating factors and special mitigating factors. Usually less weight will be given to ordinary mitigating factors than special mitigating factors. In this case, the mitigating factors such first time offender, early guilty plea, co-operation with the police are then balanced against the gravity of the killing. Consequently the sentence imposed would then reflect the aggregate effect of this assessment to fit the crime. Because homicide offences like murder is a serious crime of violence, the gravity of the circumstances of the killing in a particular case, may far outweigh the ordinary mitigating factors or even special mitigating factors and render them insignificant (John Kalabus v The State [1988] PNGLR 193. Kidu CJ, Kapi DCJ, Woods J.,).

29. With regard to the prisoner’s pleas for leniency and being a young first time offender in court, this case can be distinguished from the case of Paulus Mandatitip and Anor -v- The State [1978] PNGLR 128 where youth was considered as a mitigating factor and the case of Kuri Willie v The State (1987) PNGLR 298 where Hinchliffe, J (as he was then) discussed the need for courts to investigate alternatives to imprisonment when dealing with youthful first time offenders and the need to consider alternative mode of punishment to imprisonment.

30. However although this prisoner is a first time offender and a young man, the crime of murder which is committed with such impunity must carry with it some serious consequences. Thus I adopt the principle applied by Hartshorne J in the State v Taulaola Pakai (2010) N4125, where he stated that "Court's should not lose sight of its duty to impose what is a just and fair punishment on an offender." A plea for leniency to avoid the suffering of one's family should have little or no weight when an appropriate sentence is being considered."

31. Consequently in consideration of the submission presented for and against the severity of sentence, this court considers that incarceration is an appropriate penalty and thus sentence the prisoner to life imprisonment with hard labour at CIS, Bihute.

Sentenced accordingly.

___________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Prisoner