State v Nickman [2017] PGNC 152; N6822 (21 April 2017)

N6822

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 1404 of 2016

THE STATE

V

WILLIE NICKMAN

Kiunga: Koeget, AJ
2017 : 19^th & 21^st April.

CRIMINAL LAW - Indictable offence – unlawful killing under section 302 of the Criminal Code Act – Accused pleaded guilty – maximum sentence –discretionary powers of Court under section 19 of the Criminal Code Act.

FACTS:

On 29^th of April 2016 at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon the accused went into the Niugini Pride Supermarket located at Tabubil in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea.

He walked to the hardware section of the Supermarket and took a tramontina bush knife and walked to the grocery section of the Supermarket and used the bush knife to slash the neck of the deceased from behind. The deceased cried out and fell to the floor of the Supermarket.

The accused then proceeded to threaten other shoppers with the bush knife and then walked out of the Supermarket. He proceeded to swing the bush knife at a street vendor but the bush knife slipped from his hand and fell to the ground. The bystanders chased and apprehended him. He was then taken to the police station and charged with the offence.

The deceased died due to heavy loss of blood from the injury inflicted by the accused with the bush knife.

Cases Cited:

Manu Kovi –v- The State (2005) SC789
State –v- Peter Noah (2005) N2833
State –v- Tikau (2008) N3938
State –v- Ulul (2007) N5493

Counsel:

J. Aihi, for the State
G. Tine, for the Accused

21^st April, 2017

1. KOEGET AJ: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged with one count of Unlawful Killing pursuant to section 302 of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 262.

ARRAIGNMENT:

2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge so he was convicted accordingly.

ISSUE:

3. The issue for the court to determine in this case is what is the appropriate sentence the court should impose on the prisoner.

LAW:

4. The law on a charge of manslaughter is in the following terms:

“302. Manslaughter.

A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute wilful murder, murder or infanticide is guilty of manslaughter.

Penalty: subjection section 19, imprisonment for life.”

ALLOCATUS:

5. The prisoner said the following on allocatus:

“People told me some of my people were killed. Some people said I was insane but I am sane and I was worried so went and killed the deceased”.

PERSONAL PARTICULARS

6. The prisoner is 22 years of age and is a bachelor. He resided at Tabubil in the Western Province with relatives for 15 years prior to the commission of the offence.

7. He attended Finalbin Primary school and completed Grade 8. Then he proceeded to attend Tabubil High school and completed Grade 9 in 2010. He returned to reside with relatives at Tabubil until the date of commission of the offence.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

8. The prisoner used a weapon to commit the offence within the view of the public. The attack was on an unsuspecting and unarmed shopper.

9. This was a vicious attack and the death was instantaneous. Such offence committed in public places within public view are prevalent now in the country.

MITIGATING FACTORS:

10. The prisoner is a first time youthful offender. He cooperated well with the police and in court he pleaded guilty to the charge so valuable time of the court was saved.

11. He was worried that some relatives in the village were killed and others died in a plane crash in 2016 at Kiunga airstrip. He was depressed when some people called him insane, when he believed he was not. So he became angry and went to the Supermarket got the bush knife and committed the offence.

12. He has been held in custody for 11 months 2 weeks and 2 days.

SENTENCE:

13. The killing of human beings with weapon within the view of the public is prevalent in the country so such offenders must be punished severely to demonstrate to other would be offenders that Courts will not tolerate their animalistic behaviours.

14. The previous decided cases referred to by counsels are useful guidelines and the pattern demonstrates by the sentences in those cases is that the sentences are within 10 years.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 set out the guidelines for such offences so the Courts in this country apply those tariffs to determine the appropriate sentences in cases before them.

16. In the instant case, I apply the suggested tariff of sentences in that case and I note that the offence committed by the prisoner falls within category 2 of the tariff of sentences.

17. In view of the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sentence to impose upon the prisoner is 13 years in hard labour.

18. So the prisoner is sentenced to be imprisoned for 13 years in hard labour. He has been in custody for 11 months 2 weeks and 2 days. The balance of 12 years 2 weeks and 5 days are to be served at Ningrum Corrective Institution Services.

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