State v John [2021] PGNC 296; N8987 (21 July 2021)

N8987

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 409 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

AND:
MELI JOHN

Minj: Salika CJ
2021: 19^th, 20^th, 21^st July

CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Charge of Murder – s. 300 (1) (a) of Criminal Code Act – Prevalence of homicide cases – 16 years imprisonment – Appropriate Sentence.

Cases Cited:

Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789
The State v Peter (2000) N1973
The State v Molien Steven (2017) N6678
The State v Guina (2020) Unreported and Unnumbered NC decision

Counsel:
Mr. F Popeu, for the State
Mr. L Siminji, for the Accused

SENTENCE

21^st July, 2021

1. SALIKA CJ: INTRODUCTION: The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of murder pursuant to S300 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act. The brief facts she pleaded guilty to were:

On the 26^th day of July 2020, sometimes between 5:30pm and 6:00pm the Accused Meli John was at the Waghi Primary School at Kindeng and fought with the deceased Martha Cliff there and they were stopped. The fight was stopped by a person by the name of Alex Kumba, and the Accused walked up to Kindeng market located in the same area but some distance away whilst the said Alex Kumba and the deceased caught a PMV and also went to Kindeng market arriving there around 7:00pm. By that time it had started raining and a person by the name of Paul Bura arrived and joined them. It is alleged that fight between the Accused and the deceased had been over this person Paul Bura. When Paul Bura went over to buy sausage from sellers close by, the deceased followed him and whilst standing under the seller’s umbrella, unknowingly, the Accused came up from the dark to her and using a kitchen knife stabbed her twice in the left chest area. The deceased tried to fight back but collapsed and was taken to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. A post-mortem examination conducted on the deceased showed she had sustained at least 2 stab wounds to the left side of her chest resulting in her death. State alleges the Accused caused the death of the deceased when she stabbed her in the chest and State also alleges that when the Accused did this, she intended to cause GBH to the deceased contrary to Section 300 Subsection (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 262.

Issue

2. Having pleaded guilty to the charge the court is faced with what sentence to impose on the prisoner.

The Law

3. The maximum penalty under S300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act is life imprisonment subject to S19 of the Criminal Code Act. Section 19 gives wide powers and discretion to impose a lighter sentence than the maximum penalty prescribed under S300 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code Act.

4. The Supreme Court authority of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 puts this case into the second category and attracts 16 to 20 years. I am reminded by the Defense counsel that Manu Kovi’s case is only a guide. I agree it is a guide but the Supreme Court authority is binding on the National Court which I am now sitting as.

5. Counsel also referred me some National Court decisions to help me come to a fair sentence. The cases are:

a) The State v Peter (2000) N1973

In that case the prisoner stabbed the co-wife while she was sleeping on the same bed with their common husband on her chest. She died. The prisoner was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.

b) The State v Molien Steven (2017) N6678.

The deceased and prisoner had a common husband. The prisoner stabbed the deceased on the mouth and body and died. The prisoner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.

c) The State v Guina (2020) Unnumbered National Court decision.

The deceased and prisoner were married to one man. The deceased was in bed with their common husband. The prisoner stabbed her multiple times on her body and died. She was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.

6. In cases a) and c) cited above the deceased were in bed with the husband and each were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. In this case the deceased was not in bed with their common husband. In any case the prisoner is now married to a new man and has a 2 months old baby. The prisoner saw the deceased follow her husband at the market. It was more on suspicions that she reacted and killed the deceased.

7. Taking the life of another human being is a serious matter. Humans live only once. The lives we live is sacred and due respect must be given to human life. The actions of some women and men in committing homicide offences is quite alarming in this country.

Allocutus Statement

8. On allocutus the prisoner expressed her sorrow to the court and the relatives of the deceased. She also said sorry to the ‘mama law’ the constitution. She said the constitution does not allow us to take another person’s life. She said she was the first wife and the deceased stole her husband. She said she did not mean to kill the victim and regrets her actions. She said she has a 2 months 2 weeks old son and asked for probation.

9. It was submitted that this was another case of being forced to do what she did because of the actions of her then husband.

Personal Particulars

10. The prisoner is 28 years old from Kindeng Anglimp South Waghi District. Both her parents are alive. She comes from a family of 7 siblings. She is the youngest of the 7. She is a villager and educated to Grade 10 level at Notre Dame Secondary School in 2004. She now has a stable marriage with her current husband and they have a 2 year old child.

Mitigating Factors

11. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge and thus she is a first-time offender.

Aggravating Factors

12. She stabbed the victim with a knife and the deceased died soon after.

Sentence

13. The victim’s family want the prisoner to be given custodial terms and for her and her relatives to pay more compensation. The probation officer’s report says that there was some provocation in the non-legal sense by the victim and that the prisoner acted erratically on the heat of passion. The prisoner’s relatives are willing to pay more compensation in the hope of reducing the sentence.

14. Compensation must not be seen as buying your way out of jail or out of a custodial sentence. Compensation should be seen as a gesture to mend relationships and maintain peace and status quo.
15. Taking into account all the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors I impose a sentence of 16 years imprisonment. She has served 8 months in custody awaiting trial. The balance to serve is 15 years 4 months.
________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused