State v Benny [2018] PGNC 620; N9243 (19 September 2018)

N9243

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 150 OF 2015

THE STATE

V

BAINA BENNY

CR NO. 151 OF 2015

THE STATE

V

PETER GOMUNA

CR 152 OF 2015

THE STATE

V

LUKE WILLIE

CR NO. 153 OF 2015

THE STATE

V

JACOB GERALD

CR 885 OF 2015

THE STATE

V

RICHARD RIPUNA

Alotau: Toliken J
2017: 19^th, 25^th May
2018: 19^th September

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Wilful murder – Sorcery related killing – Guilty Plea – Multiple offenders – Deceased, a reputed sorcerer - Community leaders and relatives of deceased counselled to kill deceased – Prisoners selected to kill deceased & willingly killed deceased - Prisoners all related to deceased – Gun used to kill deceased supplied by his uncle – Bullets supplied by Reserve Policeman - Deceased shot twice with gun and cut with axe.

CRIMINAL LAW – State calls for death sentence – Whether appropriate case for imposition of death penalty – Not appropriate case - Mitigating factors considered – Remorse not genuine – Compensation served no utility when deceased’s immediate family condoned the killing – Killing of relative as mitigating factor – No real sense of loss as prisoners killed deceased purportedly for good of community – Aggravating factors considered – Multiple offenders – Pre-planning – Extra-judicial & execution type killing - Use of dangerous weapons – Cold-blooded killing – Strong desire to kill – Prevalence of sorcery-related killings – Appropriate sentences – Need for deterrence and exclusion from society – Prisoners’ individual culpability & degree of participation considered – Sentences of 40 years & 35 years according to degree of participation less pre-sentence detention period – Nil suspension – Criminal Code Ch. 262, ss 7, 299.
Cases Cited:
Papua New Guinea Cases

Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Avia Aihi v The State (No. 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105
Steven Loke Ume v The State (2006) SC836
Joseph Nimagi & 2 Ors v State (2004) SC741
Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789
The State v Avana Latuve (No.2) (2013) N5406
The State v Aiya (2013) N5198
The State v Gladwin Balik Niaka (2014) N5581
John Baipu v The State (2005) SC796
Irai Thomas v The State (2007) SC867
The State v Baika Martin & Ors (2008) N3312
The State v Wilfred Opu Yamande N'danabet (2004) N2728
The State v John Kanua Siune & Kenneth Kunda Siune (2006) N5014
The State v Sedoki Lota and Fred Abenko (2007) N3183
The State vs. Maraka Jackson (2006) N3237
The State v Toropo (No.2) (2015) N6013
Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182
The State v Boat Yokum & Ors. (2002) N2337
Acting Public Prosecutor vs. Uname Aumane & Others [1980] PNGLR 510
The State v Naba (2013) N5308
Utieng v The State; SCR 15 of 2000 (Unnumbered judgment dated 23rd November 2000)

Overseas Cases

Profitt v Florida 428 US 249

Counsel:

H. Roalakona and J. Apo, for the State
P. Palek, for the Prisoners

SENTENCE

19^th September, 2018

1. TOLIKEN J: On 19^th May 2017, the prisoners Baina Benny, Peter Gomuna, Luke Willie, Jacob Gerald and Richard Ripuna all pleaded guilty to an indictment charging them with the wilful murder of one Alex Kapen on 20^th June 2012, thus contravening Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code Ch. 262 (the Code).
   

FACTS

2. The brief supporting facts are that on Wednesday 20^th June 2012 at about 2.00p.m, the deceased and his wife were at one Peter Mamuki’s residence at Bonara Primary School in Rabaraba when the prisoners approached them, armed with two shotguns.
   
3. Baina Benny, who was armed with one of the two guns, called out saying “Shoot him! Shoot him!” Luke Willie, who had the other gun, then shot the deceased on his chest. All this was done in the presence of the other co-prisoners. Despite being shot the deceased grabbed a bush knife and chased the prisoners out of the house and down to the school playing field where he was again shot by one of them. The prisoners then escaped the scene. The prisoners had suspected the deceased of practising sorcery. So, they all went together to the house where the deceased was, armed with guns, with the intention of killing him, and in each other’s presence shot and killed him. The State also invoked Section 7 of the Code.
   
4. I administered the allocutus and heard submissions from defence counsel Mr. Palek. The State was not ready hence the matter was adjourned to 24^th May 2017 for the State to prepare its reply. The State was not ready, though, so the matter was stood over to the next morning on 25^th May 2017. I heard submissions from the State and reserved. This is my judgment on sentence.
   

THE OFFENCE

5. The offence of wilful murder is provided by Section 299 of the Code as follows –

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.

ISSUE

6. The State called for the death penalty and so the issue for my determination is whether this is an appropriate case for the imposition of the maximum penalty.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

7. While the prisoners may be liable to be sentenced to death, it is trite that the maximum penalty – for any offence – is reserved for the worst instances of offending. It is also trite that an offender must be served a sentence that is proportionate to his crime according to its seriousness, the circumstances under which he committed the crime and his personal circumstances. (Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653; Avia Aihi v The State (No. 3) [1982] PNGLR 92; Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105)
   
8. The wilful and unlawful taking of a human life is a seriously grave offence which historically has always attracted the ultimate penalty in almost all societies.
   
9. The Mosaic Law for instance, prescribed the death penalty for the killing of another person, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Manslayers were required to seek refuge in one of six Levite cities of refuge where they will await their trial. To prevent wilful murderers from taking advantage of this provision, the asylum seeker will have to be returned and tried in the city in which the killing took place. If he was found innocent he will be returned to the city of refuge, where he will remain within its boundaries for the rest of his life, or until the death of the incumbent high priest, whichever first occurs. If he were to venture out of the city of refuge before the death of the incumbent high priest, he will be killed by the avengers of blood. For the unintentional killer this arrangement tempered justice with mercy. Wilful murderers were of course executed when found guilty. (Numbers 35:6, 11-15, 22-29; Deuteronomy 19:21; Joshua 20:2-8) Contrary to common belief, the Mosaic Law did not promote “jungle justice” let alone retributive justice without a trial. Life was avenged with life only after a fair trial before elders.
   
10. And until the advent and advancement of human rights by modern democracies most governments similarly prescribed the death penalty in their Criminal Laws.
    
11. The modern Papua New Guinea position has changed several times from the original position at the time of adoption of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 to the territories of Papua and New Guinea where the death penalty was prescribed. A subsequent post -independence amendment to the Code saw the repeal of the death penalty and its replacement with life imprisonment. (Act No. 2 of 1976). However, owing to the escalation of the offence, Parliament reinstated the death penalty in 1991. (Act No. 25 of 1991, s2) See Steven Loke Ume v The State (2006) SC 836 for an informative history of the death penalty in Papua New Guinea.
    
12. However, Parliament has again amended the Code by creating a new offence – Wilful murder of a person on account of accusation of sorcery –for which the penalty is prescribed in mandatory terms as death. This was a direct response to the sudden escalation of sorcery related killings (s 299A, Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2013, s1).
    
13. The amendment is remarkable, because unlike Section 299 (Wilful Murder) where an offender “shall be liable to be sentenced to death”, thus giving the sentencing court a discretion to impose a lesser sentence (Steven Loke Ume v The State (supra), Section 229A prescribes, what appears unambiguously to be a mandatory sentence when it says that an offender “shall be sentenced to death.”
    
14. Fortunately for the prisoners in this case, they committed their offence prior to the most recent amendments hence they will escape what could potentially be mandatory sentences, and we are also saved time from considering whether it is in fact mandatory - at least for the time being.
    
15. Be that as it may, the State has sought the death penalty. Hence, the prisoners may still repay their crime with their own lives.
    
16. The Supreme Court over the years has set guideline principles and tariffs for wilful murder and has categorized what it considered to be the most serious types of murder. In Ure Hane v The State (supra) the Supreme Court (Bredmeyer, McDermott, Woods JJ) held that “when considering whether or not the maximum penalty of life imprisonment should be imposed for wilful murder, the court should, insofar as the law allows, categorise those “worst type” cases for which the penalty of life imprisonment should be reserved and then determine whether the particular offender comes within that category: the crime must warrant the penalty not the offender.”
    
17. Bredmeyer J at p. 107 said that -

“... we should distil from our own experience ... what are the most serious categories of wilful murder which merit the most severe punishment. ... New situations will arise, new kinds of murders will be committed; certain kinds of murders may become more or less prevalent or more or less serious. Papua New Guinea has not hitherto had many murders caused by firearms or explosives for example. Social values are changing and will change in Papua New Guinea and the judges’ values change and will change. I hope, on matters of sentence, that judges’ attitudes will change with and reflect the best of society’s changing values.”

18. His Honour’s reference to new kinds of murders being committed and changing social values, and his Honour’s desire for judges to change their attitudes on matters of sentencing, has materialized in the creation by Parliament of a new category, if not, a new form of wilful murder in Section 299A of the Code, in response to a new trend of behaviour that has the potential of causing untold devastation in our communities and the extra-judicial torture and execution of countless innocent victims given the pervasiveness of the belief in sorcery.
    
19. His Honour then enumerated 8 types of wilful murder which he said could be regarded as the most serious. These are –

(1) A wilful murder done in the course of committing a theft, a robbery, a break and enter, or a rape.

(2) A wilful murder of a policeman or a prison warder acting in the execution of his duty.

(3) A wilful murder done in the course of or for the purpose of resisting, avoiding or preventing lawful arrest or in effecting or assisting in an escape from lawful custody.

(5) A payback killing of a completely innocent man.

(6) Any second or third murder.

(7) Any murder where the offender has a long record of violence such that he is likely to commit such offences in the future.

(8) A wilful murder of the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of National Parliament, the Chief Justice, a Bishop, a visiting Prime Minister, the Pope, or other V.I.Ps.

20. This classification of different types of murder was, however, roundly criticized by another bench of Supreme Court in Joseph Nimagi & 2 Ors v State ( 2004) SC 741 (Sevua, Kandakasi, Lenalia JJ). The bench there said –

The Supreme Court and even the National Court have always been inundated with references to Goli Golu v. The State, [1979] PNGLR 653; Ure Hane v. The State, [1984] PNGLR 105; and The State v. Laura No 2, [1988-89] PNGLR 193, in particular the categorization of the types of murders and the sentencing tariffs established by those and other cases. We believe that the time has come to depart from some of those principles because they are no longer suitable to the situation in the country at this time, especially when one looks at the escalating and seemingly uncontrollable criminal conduct by young offenders. The complexity of criminal behaviour and frequency of these violent crimes have transcended new heights that the Courts must seriously be addressing new trends of sentencing principles to fit the crimes instead of labouring under a false illusion that the tariffs decided more than 10 years ago are still good law. The principles may still be good and applicable, however where they set tariffs or guidelines for sentencing, those must be changed to reflect the degree, enormity and frequency of these violent crimes.

The Supreme Court, in appropriate cases, must now review those precedents with the view of setting new principles on sentencing to fit violent crimes, and with the greatest respect to the Courts which decided those cases then, the circumstances have changed dramatically that violent crimes nowadays know no boundary, and in homicide cases, offenders armed with dangerous weapons do not stop to think whether they should or should not kill another person. In relation to Ure Hane (supra), the Parliament has already legislated the different types of homicide by classifying them into manslaughter, murder and wilful murder. In our view, it serves no purpose when Courts start to classify these killings by degree and classes and say one is more serious than the other. When we do this we forget the values of lives that have been prematurely terminated. The notion of sanctity of life and constitutional protection of lives therefore become meaningless and mere judicial rhetoric.

21. Those concerns may have been partially addressed by the Supreme Court in Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789 (Injia DCJ, Lenalia, Lay JJ). There the Court reviewed the prevailing sentencing trend and principles and promulgated guidelines for manslaughter, murder and wilful murder. It provided 4 categories for each offence and provided the sentencing range for each category according to the seriousness of the offending. For wilful murder Manu Kovi provided the following tariffs -

Category One – On plea where there are mitigating factors with no aggravating factors i.e. No weapons used, little or no planning, minimal force used and absence of strong intent to kill - 15 to 20 years.

Category Two – On trial or plea where there are mitigating factors as well as aggravating factors. Where there was preplanning, vicious attack, weapons used and strong desire to kill - 20 to 30 years

Category Three – On trial or plea where there is special aggravating factor and the mitigating factors are reduced in weight or rendered insignificant by gravity of offence. Brutal killing in cold blood, killing of innocent defenceless and harmless person, dangerous or offensive weapons used, killing accompanied by other serious offence, victim young or old, pre-planned and pre-meditated killing - Life imprisonment.

22. A year later, in Steven Loke Ume (supra, per Kapi CJ, Injia DCJ (as he then was), Los, Hinchliffe, Davani JJ.)), the Supreme Court again had the occasion to review the existing guidelines for wilful murder and held the death penalty may be imposed in the following circumstances –
    
    1. The killing of a child, a young or old person, or a person under some disability needing protection.
    2. The killing of a person in authority or responsibility in the community providing invaluable community service, whether for free or for fee who are killed in the course of carrying out their duties or for reasons to do with the performance of their duties e.g. policeman, correctional officer, government officer, school teacher, church worker, company director or manager.
    3. Killing of a leader in government or the community, for political reasons.
       
    4. Killing of person in the course of committing other crimes perpetrated on the victim or other persons such as rape, robbery, theft, etc.
       
    5. Killing for hire.
       
    6. Killing of two or more persons in the single act or series of acts.
       
    7. Offence is committed by a prisoner in detention or custody serving sentence for another serious offence of violence.
       
    8. The prisoner has prior conviction(s) for murder offences.
       
23. This, however, does not mean that the death penalty will be imposed every time one of these considerations features in a case. That is because the death penalty for wilful murder is not mandatory. Hence, the sentencing court still retains its discretion under the Code (s 19) to impose a life sentence or a term of years as dictated by the facts and circumstances of the case before it. More is therefore needed than the mere presence of one or more of the above considerations.
    
24. The Supreme Court there also said that the death penalty is “qualitatively” different from other types of punishment and may only imposed in the most exceptional cases were the aggravating features are exceptionally grave. At paragraph 66 of its judgment the court said –

66. It is difficult to lay down any universal principle of general application as to the kind of intentional killing which may warrant the death penalty. Each case will depend on its own facts. In general, considering that the death penalty is “qualitatively different” from any other penalties for wilful murder and that in our Criminal Code the death penalty is limited to only three crimes considered to be the most serious crimes, we consider the death penalty may be considered appropriate in a wilful murder case which is pre-meditated, vicious and brutal killing in cold blood of an innocent and defenceless or harmless person, or a person in authority or position of responsibility in the community, with complete and blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life and for which there is no motive or lawful motive for taking away the life of another person. The killing is unthinkable, consciousless [conscienceless?], “senseless”, “pitiless” and “unnecessarily torturous”: see Profitt v Florida 428 US 249 at 255. The crime is committed “by persistent, violent, wicked-tempered man with the utmost ferocity and with cunning”. Regina v Peter Ivoro, per Prentice J, at p.388-389. The offender’s culpability is so grave that the offender deserves execution. Whatever the extenuating and mitigating circumstances may be, the degree of moral and criminal culpability and the degree of cruelty exhibited by the offender is so grave and reprehensible that the offender is undeserving of a chance to live his own life, and instead, it is only just and fair that the prisoner should pay for the crime with his own life. His banishment from the community is the only just and appropriate punishment for his crime in all the circumstances.”

25. Hence, for the death penalty to be imposed the killing must have also been pre-meditated, vicious and brutal and done in cold blood, the victim was innocent and defenceless or harmless, or a person in authority or position of responsibility in the community, there was complete and blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life and there was no motive or lawful motive for the killing. The killing must also be “unthinkable, conscienceless, senseless, pitiless and unnecessarily tortuous” and perhaps if I might add, gruesome or barbaric.

SENTENCING TREND

26. The Law Reports are replete with cases of wilful murder and other homicide offences. Both counsel in this case cited several cases to assist the Court in determining appropriate sentences for the prisoners. I have no intention on relying on all those cases but will only cite those that are sorcery related to show what the sentencing trend had been.

27. The State v Avana Latuve (No.2) (2013) N5406: This was a trial for wilful murder I heard in Popondetta where I sentenced the prisoner to 20 years imprisonment. There the deceased was also a reputed sorcerer. He was suspected by his village community of killing 34 people through sorcery among other wrongs. He was chased and attacked by the whole village who eventually stoned him to death. The attack was instigated by the prisoner and even though there was no evidence showing what he actually did to the deceased, I found that he took the leading role in the death of the deceased and that he had a very strong intention to kill among other aggravating factors.

28. The State v Aiya (2013) N5198 (Gauli AJ): The offender there was found guilty after trial for the wilful murder of a suspected sorceress. He was in the company of two other persons armed with guns, bush knives and an axe. They went to the deceased’s house and found her in the presence of several other persons and slashed her with bush knives. Before they attacked her the offender singled out the deceased and told her that she was a sorceress and that they had come to kill her. He then pulled out his bush knife and cut her on her hand as she lifted her hand to deflect the blow. One his accomplices then came in and cut her on the neck, and as blood was gushing out from the deceased the other accomplice came and cut her on the head. Even though a first-time offender, the offender was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
29. The State v Gladwin Balik Niaka ((2014) N5581( Batari J): There the prisoner was amongst many other people had gathered at the residence of man whose daughter had died for her burial. After the burial, the man's son sent the people away but not before accusing them of his sister's death. Prompted by those remarks, co-offender Eugene Bangagu grabbed the deceased from the group sitting under the house and dragged her out to the open. He then kicked her on the face causing her to bleed heavily from the nose. Niaka next picked up a huge rock and repeatedly threw it against the deceased's abdomen. She collapsed and died shortly after. Niaka was charged with and pleaded guilty for murder. Even though the offender and his lawyer did not plead the belief in sorcery as influencing his actions, His Honour nonetheless considered and made an instructive discussion of the relevant law in relation to this type of killings. He imposed a sentence of 18 years.

30. The State v John Kanua Siune & Kenneth Kunda Siune (2006) N5014 (Cannings J): The two offenders were convicted after a trial for murdering a man they suspected had killed a friend of theirs by sorcery. It was a mob attack. The victim was bashed to death. They were sentenced to 25 years.

31. The State vs. Maraka Jackson (2006) N3237 (Kandakasi J): The offender pleaded guilty to one count of murder. He had suspected the deceased, a Village Magistrate, for killing his brother by means of sorcery and that he was also going to kill him in a similar manner. So, to prevent the deceased from killing him too he and a friend walked 5 - 6 kilometres to the deceased's village. The deceased had just woken from sleep and as he came out of his house, the offender, who had been hiding, sprung out and without warning cut the deceased twice on his neck with a bush knife. His Honour sentenced the offender to 24 years less the period spent in pre-trial custody.

32. John Baipu v The State (2005) SC796 (Sevua, Sawong and Lay JJ): The appellant was convicted on a guilty plea and sentenced to life imprisonment. He believed that his pregnant wife and father were killed through sorcery. He had had lodged a complainant with Village Court officials more than a year before he committed the offence where he had undertaken not to attack the suspected sorcerers. He, however, attacked his 70-year-old uncle (one of the suspects) with a bush knife cutting him on the arms and legs and left him to bleed to death. The trial judge held, among other things, that this was not a case in which great weight could be placed on the mitigating effect of the belief in sorcery and sentenced the offender to life imprisonment. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to 25 years in hard labour.

33. Irai Thomas v The State (2007) SC867 (Kandakasi, Lenalia and David JJ): The appellant was convicted of wilful murder of a person he suspected of killing his father by sorcery. He was sentenced to eighteen (18) years imprisonment by the National Court but on appeal the sentence was increased to twenty-two (22) years. The victim was an elderly woman. The Court noted that the offender killed the deceased even though there was no basis for the claim that she had killed his father.

34. The State v Baika Martin & Ors ((2008) N3312 (Kandakasi J)): A mother of one of the offenders was believed to have been killed through sorcery by the deceased. While the offenders were mourning her death, the deceased walked into the house. The prisoners set upon him with axes, bush knives and a piece of black palm stick and brutally and mercilessly killed him in the full view of a lot of people. The prisoners were sentenced to 16, 22 and 24 years respectively.

35. The State v Wilfred Opu Yamande N'danabet (2004) N2728 (Davani J): There the offender believed that the deceased, who was his brother- in-law, had killed his brother by sorcery. The offender alleged that the deceased told others that he would kill him through sorcery. So, he had to kill the deceased before the deceased killed him. The court found that the offender killed the deceased because of his belief in sorcery. He used a knife to stab the deceased on the back and the neck. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment.
36. The State vs. Sedoki Lota and Fred Abenko (2007) N3183 (Sevua J): There the offenders, who believed that their parents were killed by the deceased through sorcery, pleaded guilty to wilful murder of the deceased sorcerer. They were sentenced to death. They entered the deceased's house, tied both her hands, blindfolded her, and then chopped off her head with a knife. The trial judge accepted that the belief in sorcery could be a mitigating factor but stressed that the circumstances of the killing were so callous and unimaginable, it was a premeditated execution-style killing in which the culpability of the offenders was so grave that it warranted the death penalty. The offenders had appealed to the Supreme Court, but as we speak the Supreme Court has yet to hand down its decision.

37. The State v Toropo (No.2) (2015) N6013. There a procession led by diviners or glasman using a so-called magic bamboo led to the purported identification of the victim as the sorcerer responsible for a spate of deaths in the village. The so-called magic bamboo led the procession of some 500 villagers to the deceased’s premises whereupon the offenders immediately attacked the deceased with bush knives killing him instantly. They then took the deceased’s brother – a policeman – captive and strung him up in the village square until he was rescued several days later. After a trial I sentenced the offenders to 21 years after trial. Let me now return to the instant case. move to the current case.

WHETHER WORST CASE

39. Viewing the circumstances of the instant case objectively, I must say at the outset that it does appear at first glance to qualify for the imposition of the death penalty. There is pre-meditation involved, the killing was done in cold blood and there was total disregard for the sanctity of life. It was a pitiless killing, but it was not unnecessarily tortuous, gruesome or barbaric. In my opinion this is not an appropriate case for me to impose the ultimate penalty. I must nevertheless impose appropriate sentences befitting each prisoner’s degree of culpability and participation in the killing of the deceased.

ANTECEDENTS

40. Baina Benny would be about 30 years old now. He is married and comes from Kanatura village, Daga LLG, Alotau District of Milne Bay Province. He has two children who would now be 10 and 3 years old respectively. Both of his parents are deceased, and he is an adherent of the Bahai Faith. He was educated up to Grade 9 before leaving school due to school fee issues. He was employed by Coecon Ltd in 2007. He is of good health and is a first-time offender.

41. Peter Gomuna would be about 43 years now. He is from Kwamaru village, Duau LLG, Alotau District, Milne Bay Province. He is a widower and has five children who would now be aged 12, 10, 8, 6 and 4 years old. He is the 2^nd born of 5 siblings - the other 4 are now all dead. Both his parents are also deceased, and he too is a member of the Bahai Faith. He is illiterate, but of good health and is a first-time offender.

42. Luke Willie would be 34 years old now. He is from Bobopi village, Daga LLG, Alotau District, MBP. He is married with 4 children - twins who would now be 10 years old and two others who would be 6 and 3 years old. He comes from a family of 6 siblings. Both his parents are deceased, and he is also an adherent of the Bahai Faith. He is illiterate and a first-time offender. He currently has a disability to his right pointer finger and tall finger inflicted on him by the deceased.

43. Jacob Gerald would be 35 years old now and comes from Biman village, Duau LLG, Alotau, MBP. He is married with 5 children aged 16, 13, 9, 7 and 3 years by now. He is the 1^st born in a family of 9 siblings. His father is deceased, but his mother is very old. He is illiterate, a member of the Anglican Church, of good health and is a first-time offender.

44. Richard Ripuna would now be 23 years old. He comes from Bobopi village, Duau LLG, Alotau, MBP. He is single and comes from a family of 6 siblings of which he is the 4^th born. His father is alive, but his mother has passed away. He has a 5^th Grade education only and is member of the Bahai Faith. He was at one time employed as a labourer at Veimauri Rubber Plantation, Central Province. He is of good health and is a first-time offender.

45. All prisoners had been in pre-trial/pre-sentence detention for a period of over four years since their respective apprehension.

ALLOCUTUS
46. Baina Benny apologised for his crime. He expressed regret of having to be taken away from his family and from his duties in taking care of the ward but acknowledged that it is his own fault. He promised never to re-offend. He said that the victim never respected the human rights of people in the community. He committed numerous wrongs to the extent that his relationship with the community became very bad. He took women against their will and was practising the evil powers of sorcery, disputing with people over their customary land, and engaging in criminal activities and influencing youths to engage in such activities in the Agaun area. Every year the people were grieved by his unlawful activities. Hence in order to survive and for everyone’s sake there was no other way but to kill him.

47. Baina asked for a fair decision because he said had learned his mistake while in custody. He said he is the father of two kids. His and his wife’s parents have all died. He said his children’s welfare is very important to him.

48. He also said he had admitted his involvement in the crime from the very beginning. His relatives had compensated the victim’s relatives. He said he surrendered to the police and assisted them in bringing in his other friends. He then attempted to present what he said was his Faith’s Freedom Charter on Self Governance” which I rejected. He finally asked for mercy and that he given probation so that he can serve his sentence in the community.

49. Peter Gomuna apologised for his offence. He said that for 21 solid years a lot of innocent people had lost their lives including his own mother and wife at the hands of the deceased. The whole community was fearful of him and so he (Gumana) took the law into his own hands to save the community and society and future generation’s physical and spiritual welfare.

50. He said that on the date in question he did not physically lay a hand on the deceased. Hence, he respectfully asked for the court to have mercy on him and consider placing him on probation so that he that he can be rehabilitated.

51. Luke Willie apologised to God and the Court and officials for his crime. He confessed that on 20^th June 2012, he committed the offence because the deceased had no respect for the community. He practised sorcery with his sorcery stone and black power magic to create disharmony in the community. And so, he did what he did to restore peace in the community. He said he recognized the deceased’s evil ways when he caused problems in his family. He said he was responsible for his mother and auntie’s death. Hence, he did this to protect and bring about peace in the community and future generations. He pleaded for mercy as it is his first offence which he committed out of concern for the communities. He also asked for mercy because he has 4 children and a wife who need his assistance. He prayed for justice and mercy because he said he had learned his lesson while in custody for 2 years and 11 months and promised not to re-offend. He asked for probation.

52. Jacob Gerald confessed his involvement in the crime. He apologised to the deceased and his family. He also said that the action they took was to save lives in the community and wards at the Daga LLG. He said he was present, but he did not lay a hand on the deceased nor was he armed with a weapon though he did witness the killing. He asked for probation or good behaviour bond.

53. Richard Ripuna apologised for his crime. He apologised to his family and the deceased relatives. He said he committed this offence because of what happened to his mother and other members of his family.

54. After the prisoners had addressed the Court, I asked who among them shot the deceased on field and Baina Benny owned up. I announced the purpose of my posing the question was because the prisoners would be sentenced according to their level of participation.

SUBMISSIONS

55. Mr. Palek submitted that the prisoners had the support of the community to kill the deceased – a reputed sorcerer who was responsible for numerous deaths in the community by means of sorcery. The deceased’s involvement in sorcery brought fear into the community and the village leaders and law enforcers were not able to deal with him out of fear. Counsel said numerous meetings were held in the community to discuss how to deal with the deceased and it was resolved that one way of dealing with him was to kill him to prevent him from taking more innocent lives. With the backing of Village Councillors and elders, the prisoners here were then chosen to execute the plan to kill the deceased.

56. This is confirmed by the prisoners’ Pre-sentence Reports (PSRs) which reveal the following. The Chief of Upper Umanakaina, Mr. Ponomuwa Berwa, Chief of Kanaturu Ward Mr. Baina Kadea, Mr. John Baiata, Chief of Lower Umanakaina and the Councillor of Sirisiri Ward Mr. Nicholas Lucian (who were interviewed for the Report) all expressed support for what the prisoners did. They vouched for the prisoners’ reputations as law abiding citizens and that they acted in the best interest of the community in killing the deceased to ensure peace and normalcy.

57. Even the deceased’s second wife Tawaninena Kampen, who claimed to be a victim of her late husband’s acts of sorcery herself, and her son Mula Alex also voiced their support for the killing of the deceased. They said the deceased had caused so much suffering to his own family and others in the community. And they have reconciled with the community and the prisoners and had accepted compensation for his death. Compensation and reconciliation were confirmed by the villagers elders mentioned above.

58. The Pre-sentence Reports also revealed that the home-made gun used in the killing was given to Baina Benny by the deceased’s own uncle Kuburea Aitara. The two bullets were supplied by Reserve Policeman Barnabas Wavine.

59. Mr. Palek submitted that the prisoners were all related to the deceased and had all lost a loved one to his acts of sorcery. Baina Benny is a nephew of the deceased (his father and the deceased were cousins) and both his parents’ deaths were attributed to the deceased. Baina Benny admitted to shooting the deceased on the face and hand.

60. Peter Gomuna is a cousin of the deceased and said his wife’s death was also attributed to the deceased. Peter Gomuna was armed with a short bush knife which he did not use. He played a rather passive role in the killing.

61. Luke Willie is a maternal nephew of the deceased. His mother was a cousin of the deceased. He was armed with the home-made gun. When he entered the kitchen, the deceased confronted him with a bush knife and cut his right fingers. He fired a shot at the deceased, dropped the gun and fled the scene. Baina Benny picked up the gun and pursued the deceased.

62. Jacob Gerald is a cousin brother of the deceased. He was not armed, nor did he physically attack the deceased, but was there to support the others kill the deceased because of the many killings attributed to him.

63. Richard Ripuna is a biological maternal nephew of the deceased, his mother being the deceased’s sister. Ripuna attributed his own mother’s death to his uncle’s acts of sorcery. He admitted being armed with an axe which he used to cut the deceased on the field.

64. Mr. Palek submitted that the prisoners have several good mitigating factors but conceded that the offence is very prevalent and there was use of dangerous weapons.

65. Counsel submitted therefore that the circumstances of the case brings it within the upper end of Category 1 and the lower end of Category 2 of the Manu Kovi tariffs, and thus ought to attract sentence between 17 - 22 years, which can then be partially suspended because the prisoners have favourable pre-sentence reports.

66. Mr. Apo on behalf of the State submitted that the circumstances of the case warranted the imposition of the death penalty, if not then very stiff sentences of 35 – 40 years ought to be imposed. Counsel cites several aggravating factors to support his call which I concur with.

MITIGATING FACTORS

67. I do accept that the prisoners are all first-time offenders and that they all pleaded guilty to the charge and co-operated with the police. I accept that they were motivated by their belief in sorcery which I take into account as mitigating their offence and that they were hence provoked in the non-legal sense. I accept that they were of good character and men of good standing in the community prior to committing this offence.

68. I accept also that compensation was paid by the community to the deceased’s immediate family even though I see no utility at all in it when the family approved of the killing. What were they compensated for when the deceased had caused them so much suffering as they claimed in the pre-sentence reports? So, in the real sense, this was no compensation at all, but a reward for ridding the community of the deceased and his supposedly harmful and evil ways.

69. Both Mr. Palek and Mr. Apo for the State agreed that the killing of the deceased was self-inflicting on the prisoners, and hence ought to mitigate the offence, in reliance on the principle in Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182. While I agree with the Kesino Apo principle, I do not see how this principle can be applied in respect of the prisoners. They obviously do not regard the killing of the deceased as a loss to their families and community at large. As we heard in their pleas in mitigation and from their pre-sentence reports, they strongly believed that what they did was a service to and for the good of the community. And so, it is hard to see how his services to his family, clan and community will be missed by the prisoners themselves. To take this into account as a mitigating factor would therefore be pointless to say the least.

70. Both counsel also agreed that the prisoners had expressed some remorse. And indeed, they in fact did. But for the same reasons alluded to above, I do not take their apologies as genuine. They may regret having breached the law but given the circumstances under which they killed the deceased, I do not for moment place any weight at all on those apologies. If anything, their apologies are superficial, shallow and were offered with no real contrition at all.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

71. This was a well planned and executed cold-blooded murder that involved not only the prisoners, but their community leaders as well – both traditional and government. The deceased was first shot in the presence of his wife and other persons in the enclosure of a kitchen thus exposing those other persons to collateral injuries from the gunshot. Offensive and dangerous weapons – a gun and an axe – were used to kill the deceased who was shot twice, first in the kitchen by Luke Willie and secondly by Baina Benny out in the field. And he was finally chopped with an axe by his biological maternal nephew Richard Ripuna. The prisoners were also in the company of each other and the offence of wilful murder, and sorcery killings in particularly, are now very prevalent, not to mention the increasingly brutal and inhuman manner in which so-called sorcerers are being killed. Finally, the prisoners displayed a total respect for the sanctity of life. All these I consider and accept as aggravating the offence.

DELIBERATIONS

72. Now the fact that the killing was sanctioned and in fact authorized by the community and their leaders, and overtly approved by the deceased’s second wife and son, is most alarming to say the least. The involvement of a law enforcement officer – a Police Reservist - makes the killing all the worse. That Police Officer ought to be charged for his part in the killing, because his actions gave a false cloak of legitimacy to the killing.

73. This was an unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of a power that is vested exclusively in the National Justice System. It was an extra-judicial killing, or execution to be exact, which was an upfront to the rule of law and must not be condoned in any way, notwithstanding that the prisoners were motivated by their belief – a belief which is engrained in their conscious and subconscious minds – that the deceased, a relative of theirs, was an evil sorcerer who must be permanently removed for the benefit of the community.

74. In this regard I reiterate what the current Chief Justice Sir Injia, in his former capacity in The State vs. Boat Yokum & Ors. (2002) N2337, said:

"In considering the appropriate sentence, I have had regard to and emphasize the deterrent and retribution theory of sentence as is usually done in sorcery killing cases: see Acting Public Prosecutor vs. Uname Aumane & Others [1980] PNGLR 510. A strong punitive and deterrent sentence is required to punish the offenders and to send a clear message to their own community; who apparently seem to think that it is alright to kill a sorcerer or a reputed sorcerer for that matter; that it is wrong to kill another person including a sorcerer, reputed or not, and that they will be punished by the Courts, if they do".

75. In The State v Latuve (2013) N5406, I expressed similar sentiments when disapproving a suggestion by defence counsel that the killing of the deceased, a reputed sorcerer who was alleged to have been responsible for 34 death in the community. I said –

69. Defence counsel in his submission said that the deceased's life was only a single one compared with the 34 that he had taken through sorcery. He seemed to imply firstly that those deaths were in fact caused by the deceased when there is no solid or empirical evidence to prove that. Despite the fact that belief in sorcery may be real it does not necessarily follow that sorcery itself does in fact work or if it works at all those deaths can be attributed to the deceased.

70. Secondly this type of argument can be taken to legitimizing the extra-judicial and summary killings of sorcerers or reputed sorcerers and that such killings are done for benefit and protection of the community at large.

71. This type of thinking is dangerous in a modern State and the rule of law and should be nipped at the outset. They should not be allowed to fester or grow any roots. Any argument in support of such preposterous ideas from the bar table should also be quickly rejected and must not be allowed to see the light of day.

72. We live in a society where the law rules supreme. The State has institutions such as the police and the courts where people can take their grievances to for the lawful and just resolution of disputes.

73. So regardless of how engrained the belief in sorcery is, and, whether the community allows or accepts the extra-judicial killings of suspected sorcerers, nobody should be allowed to take life readily in the manner the prisoner and his community did in this case.
76. The killing in the instant case took place prior to the amendments to the Code which also saw the repeal of the Sorcery Act 1971. The short title to the Act provided that it was “...an Act to prevent and punish evil practices of sorcery and other similar evil practices, and for other purposes relating to such practices.”

77. The Administration was placed in a real dilemma. While it did not acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, it could not deny the fact that the belief in sorcery was widespread or endemic. And this can be gleaned from the rather long Preamble of the Act. To understand the policy and intent behind the passage of the Act, it is worth quoting the Preamble fully. It states –

There is a widespread belief throughout the country that there is such a thing as sorcery and that sorcerers have extraordinary powers that can be used sometimes for good purposes but more often for bad ones, and because of this belief many evil things can be done and many people are frightened or do things that otherwise they might not do.

Some kinds of sorcery are practised not for evil purposes but for innocent ones and it may not be necessary for the law to interfere with them, and so it is necessary for the law to distinguish between evil sorcery and innocent sorcery.

There is no reason why a person who uses or pretends or tries to use sorcery to do, or to try to do, evil things should not be punished just as if sorcery and the powers of sorcerers were real, since it is just as evil to do or to try to do evil things by sorcery as it would be to do them, or to try to do them, in any other way.

Sometimes some people may act, or may believe that they are acting, under the influence of sorcery to such an extent that–

(a) their conduct may not be morally (and should not be legally) blameworthy; or

(b) actions that would ordinarily be regarded as customary offences may, in traditional social groups, be regarded as excusable or capable of being compensated for.

There is a danger that any law that deals fully with sorcery may encourage some evil-intentioned people to make baseless or merely spiteful or malicious accusations that their enemies are sorcerers solely to get them into trouble with other people, and this is a thing that the law should prevent.
78. The Act thus differentiated between what it termed as “innocent sorcery” from “forbidden sorcery” and created offences as well. Hence, a person who held himself out to be a practitioner of forbidden sorcery or influences or attempts to influence the actions of another person by the use or threatened use of the powers or services of a sorcerer was liable to be imprisoned for 1 year. Persons who engaged in acts of forbidden sorcery or who aided, abetted, procured or counselled such an act were liable to 1 year while administering sorcerous substances carried 8 years imprisonment. Spreading false reports of sorcery and possession of implements of forbidden sorcery attracted sentences of 1 year imprisonment. (Ss 6 – 11 of the Act)

79. In a way the Sorcery Act engendered and entrenched the belief in sorcery in people ‘s mind, and perhaps unwittingly contributed very much to the litany of often horrendous extra-judicial killings of suspected sorcerers that have plagued this country for over 40 years since its enactment. Commenting on this point a couple of months before the repeal of the Sorcery Act and creation of the new offence of wilful murder on account of accusation of sorcery, His Honour Kirriwom J had this to say in The State v Naba (2013) N5308 –

4. ... Sorcery is only a belief, a belief that was recognised by an Act of Parliament in the seventies and eighties, thereby according some form of de facto recognition of its influence, effect and impact of the citizens of the country nationwide and because of this mass influence sorcery played dominant role in the lives of the people, even judges and magistrates allowed special consideration for those coming before the courts on charges, especially of homicides in connection with sorcery beliefs.

5. The downside of this implied legislative protection to sorcery related killings was that over the last ten or more years, vigilante-type and mob-related killings escalated in frequency and were happening right under the noses of law-enforcement agencies in towns and cities, and the mode of executions becoming more and more gruesome and barbaric. The lack of decisive action by the law enforcement agencies was indirectly viewed as tacit approval for such executions being carried out and there were cases that unrelated sorcery killings and rapes were also taking advantage of this complacency and ineffective response.

80. I do not know if I can entirely agree with His Honour’s bold statement on what he saw as an “implied legislative protection to sorcery related killings”, but I can say that the Sorcery Act did in fact give legitimacy to the phenomenon by its acknowledgment of the existence of the belief.

81. That killings of reputed sorcerers often happen “under the noses of law enforcement agencies” is not an understatement though. The current case is on point. The Ward Councillors counselled with villagers to kill the deceased and the prisoners were chosen to execute their plan. If that were not enough, the bullets used in his killing were supplied by a Reserve Police Officer. That the bullets were the properties of the State is beyond question.

82. Another case on point is The State v Toropo (No.2) (supra). There a procession led by diviners or glasman using a so-called magic bamboo which led to the purported identification of the victim as the sorcerer responsible for a spate of deaths in his village, was done with the tacit approval of the Village Court Magistrate and his Peace Officer. They witnessed the procession and the killing of the deceased. They did nothing when the mob took the deceased’s brother (a policeman) and hung him up in the village square for three days. In that case I said -

65. I pause here to say something about what I see as disturbing features about this case and possibly other sorcery killings elsewhere in this area and elsewhere in the country. First, the bamboo trial at Kumiane seemed to have been received with approval by Village Court Magistrates such as Luke Norombo, who are the faces of justice in villages and communities. Their tacit approval of such practices and their attendance at such processions, unfortunately have the effect of giving legitimacy to these illegal practices. This practice by Villages Magistrates and their Peace Officers must therefore be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

66. Second, is the very destructive role the clairvoyants, visionaries and diviners or glasman/glasmeri, such as the Bamboo Team from Erave, have been playing in fanning the flames of sorcery related killings. In some cases, I think that suspicions remain innocuous or harmless, but as soon as these people perform their rituals and make their pronouncements, the result is always fatal for some unfortunate person. These people are a scourge to society and are a threat to peace and order and the rule of law.

67. While they can easily be caught by the recent amendments to the Code that I alluded to earlier as accessories or even principal offenders under Section 7 & 8 of the Code, I think that a specific offence should be created for them and to criminalize their practices. In that way they are also held directly accountable for consequences of their actions. As things now stand, these people, who are and have been responsible for so much suffering, are left to roam around freely to ply their trade another day and at another place resulting in more unnecessary deaths and misery.

83. Now, if the involvement of officers of the law, and diviners or glasman (who are in actual fact sorcerers themselves, I would assert) were not enough, the involvement of relatives throws in a completely new perspective into the picture. Relatives would normally come to the aid of a suspected sorcerer, albeit unwillingly. However, when they condone and in fact approve the extra-judicial killing or execution of a relative for allegedly practicing forbidden sorcery, as was the case here, a huge problem for the rule of law arises. Fundamental Constitutional and human rights such as the right to life, the right to the full protection of the law, the right to a fair trial and freedom from inhuman treatment and presumption of innocence are trampled upon. People become prosecutors, judges and jury themselves. And because family members are involved and complicit, such killings may never be reported and people, particularly those involved in killing of reputed sorcerers, may continue to kill with impunity.

84. This practice must therefore not be allowed to continue, and in such cases, punishment must be stiff enough for personal as well as general deterrence. Whether long sentences deter people at all is debatable because there is no empirical or anecdotal evidence to suggest that they in fact do. Be that as it may, wilful murderers of every shade and type must be removed from society because they are a threat to the peaceful co-existence of people, and to the rule of law.

85. It is a hard task to attempt to discourage this type of killing in a society where almost everyone, from the simple villager to the educated elite and the most religiously devout, believes in the power of sorcery. Secular education and religion have not, to a large extent succeeded in liberating people from their morbid fear of sorcery and sorcerers.

86. Enforcers of the law, who themselves often have strong beliefs in the power of sorcery, are no exception and are caught in a dilemma. Their duty to the law is thus blurred and they may pass a blind eye to this type of killings, become reluctant to take appropriate action for the sake of protecting themselves from sorcerers, or in the worst scenario tacitly approve or participate in the killing in various ways such as supplying bullets (as was the case here) or even firearms.

87. Whatever the case, the Court has a duty to protect society from people who take the law into their own hands. Wilful murderers are a danger, as I said, and must be removed, where appropriate permanently from society by the imposition of the death penalty or life sentences. Where death or life sentences are not appropriate, long terms of years ought to be imposed.

88. So, what should be appropriate sentences for the prisoners here? Well, each prisoner has to be sentenced according to his level of culpability and degree of participation in the crime. (Steven Loke Ume v The State (supra))

89. As we have seen Mr. Palek submitted that sentences ought to be between 17 – 22years putting the case between the upper end of Category 2 and the lower end of Category 3 of the Manu Kovi tariffs. Mr. Apo’s counter submission was that appropriate sentences ought to be 35 – 40 years, i.e., above Category 2 of Manu Kovi.

90. I agree with Mr. Apo’s counter submission that the sentences must be above the top of Category 2 in the Manu Kovi tariffs. This is because it involved pre-planning and pre-concert by the prisoners and their relatives and community leaders. The Pre-sentence Reports show that there were several meetings by the community and their leaders to discuss how the deceased ought to be dealt with. There is no suggestion in the reports that the option of taking the deceased to the police for prosecution under the Sorcery Act (which was still in force) was ever considered. The community and the leaders resolved to kill the deceased and the prisoners were selected to execute the plans and they did so willingly.

91. The killing was also cold and calculated. In fact, it was an execution type of killing, and as the Supreme Court said in Ure Hane (supra) the maximum penalty ought to be imposed. Dangerous weapons – a gun and axe – were used. The prisoners, especially those who shot and cut the deceased exhibited a strong desire to kill which can be seen from the sustained nature of the attack. The deceased was first shot in the kitchen by Luke Willie. He put up a fight by attacking and chasing his assailants with a bush knife and cutting one of them in the process. The prisoners did not desist but continued to chase him to the field where Baina Benny admitted to shooting him twice and Richard Ripuna also admitted to cutting him with an axe.

92. To impress upon the prisoners that you cannot take it upon yourself to kill a suspected sorcerer or any person for that matter, even if he were a relative or with the concurrence and approval of the community, as was the case here, sentences must start at 35 years for those with a lesser degree of participation. Those who actually did the killing ought naturally to get higher sentences and I should think that 40 years would be appropriate.

93. These sentences may be seen as a quantum leap, from those that have been imposed in some of the cases cited above. However, it must not be forgotten that killings of reputed sorcerers have also taken a quantum leap over the last few years and the circumstances under which some have been carried out have been so horrendous that the courts can no longer give offenders a slap on the wrist.

94. People should not be under any illusion that they will get off lightly if they kill under these circumstances. Community leaders should not think that they have any right, whatsoever, to pass judgment on suspected sorcerers and worst still sanction their killings or removal from society. If village leaders and their people are allowed or given the impression that they can extra-judicially order and carry out the killings of reputed troublemakers in communities, then anybody can fall victim.

95. If the rational for such killings is for the good of the community, then the next victims might as well be drug addicts and drunkards who are causing so much disharmony in the villages and communities. And that is something that the courts are not going to sit by, and watch let alone condone.

96. The prisoners believed that what they did was to preserve their lives and the lives of others in the community. Some even thought that it was for the good of future generations. But as we speak, people continue to die in their villages up at Agaun. The removal of the deceased from the society did not eradicate death for death is unavoidable. People die from medical reasons such as illness or disease. People die from natural causes such as old age. That is simple mankind’s lot and destiny.

97. And so, for the prisoners Peter Gomuna and Jacob Gerald, because of their lesser degree of involvement in the actual killing of the deceased, I sentence them to 35 years imprisonment with hard labour less time in presentence custody.

98. For the prisoners Baina Benny, Luke Willie and Richard Ripuna, I sentence them to 40 years imprisonment with hard labour less the pre-sentence detention period.

99. None of the resultant sentence will be suspended.
100. In imposing these long sentences on the prisoners, I accept and am acutely aware that their loved ones will suffer as a result. Children will lose the care, love and support of their fathers. Wives will be deprived of their husbands’ love, support and consortium, and aged parents and siblings and clans will lose the support expected of the prisoners. But these are things that each and every one of the prisoners ought to have considered. They counselled with their community leaders and relatives and deliberated on the matter and decided to kill the deceased. I am sure that none of them had any misgiving or illusion about the consequences. Certainly, they would have known that they will lose the liberty or even their lives if the law caught up with them. If they did not, then they have no one else to blame but themselves. (Utieng v The State; SCR 15 of 2000 (Unnumbered judgment dated 23^rd November 2000)

ORDERS

101. I therefore make the following orders:

1. The prisoner Baina Benny is sentenced to 40 years imprisonment less 4 years 2 months and 25 days for time spent in pre-sentence detention. None of the resultant sentence shall be suspended.
   
   2. The prisoner Luke Willie is sentenced to 40 years imprisonment less 4 years 2 months and 21 days for time spent in pre-sentence detention. None of the resultant sentence shall be suspended.
      
3. The prisoner Richard Ripuna is sentenced to 40 years imprisonment less 4 years 4 months and 23 days for time spent in pre-sentence detention. None of the resultant sentence shall be suspended.
   
4. The prisoner Peter Gomuna is sentenced to 35 years imprisonment less 4 years 2 months and 23 days for time spent in pre-sentence detention. None of the resultant sentence shall be suspended.
   
5. The prisoner Jacob Gerald is sentenced to 35 years imprisonment less 4 years 2 months and 21 days for time spent in pre-sentence detention. None of the resultant sentence shall be suspended.
   

Ordered accordingly.
________________________________________________________________
The Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
The Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Prisoners