Independent State of Papua New Guinea v Steven [2023] PGNC 222; N10382 (5 July 2023)

N10382

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1314 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

AGAINST:

LAWRENCE STEVEN

-Prisoner-

Waigani: Tamade AJ

2023: 1^st June; 5^th July

CRIMINAL LAW- sentencing- section 302 of the Criminal Code- manslaughter- unlawful death of father- offender young and intoxicated

Cases Cited
Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
State v Jeffery Peau [2021] PGNC 514, N9328
State v Robert Urevo [2021] PGNC 501, N9319
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487
Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91

Legislation
Criminal Code Act

Counsel
Mr Dale Digori, for State
Mr David Kayok, for the Prisoner

5^th July, 2023

1. TAMADE AJ: This is a decision on sentence on a plea of guilty to the charge of one count of manslaughter in contravention of section 302 of the Criminal Code.
   
2. The facts to which the prisoner pleaded guilty to is that on 25 June 2020, the offender had returned home drunk and intoxicated after being out drinking with his friends. The offender was upset that his school tuition fees had remained unpaid which resulted in him being unable to sit for his Grade 12 exams. An argument ensued when he confronted his father over his unpaid school fees and the argument turned into a physical altercation between the offender and his father. The deceased attempted to hit the offender with a wooden chair however the offender blocked the blow and grabbed the chair from his father and swung the chair back hitting his father on his back and on his head before fleeing. The deceased suffered from the effect of that hit bleeding profusely. He was rushed to the hospital for medical attention however he succumbed to his injuries and died soon after.
   
3. This Court is therefore tasked to decide on an appropriate sentence on the offender after a plea of guilty.
   
4. Section 302 of the Criminal Code 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: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

5. The offender is a young male of about 23 years of age. He is from Kuiya Village, Hagen Central, Western Highlands Province. He is single and has completed school up to Grade 12 but was unable to sit for his Grade 12 exams due to non-payment of fees.
   
6. The aggravating factors in this case are that:
   
   1. The loss of life that can never be replaced.
   2. The offence is prevalent these days in society
   100. The offender had used a weapon in this instance a wooden chair
   4. The offender was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol.
   5. The family of the deceased have been traumatized by the action of their own family member.
      
7. The mitigating factors in this case are that:
   
   1. The offender is a first time offender
   2. The age of the offender, he is 23 years of age. He was 20 years old at the commission of the offence.
   100. The offender made an early guilty plea.
   4. The offender co-operated with the police.
   5. The offender had no intention to kill.
   6. The offender acted alone.
   7. The offender made a single blow to the head and back of his father.
   8. The prisoner expressed sincere remorse at the allocutus that he did not mean to kill his father.
   9. There is a Pre-Sentence Report that favors the offender.
      
8. The Supreme Court held in Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (31 May 2005) an increase in tariffs for murder cases and especially to manslaughter cases, the Court held that:

“...This case demonstrates the need to further increase the penalty for manslaughter even after the increases noted in Anna Max Marangi.

In considering an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, the relevant matters to be taken into account are set out by the Supreme Court in Rex Lialu v The State¹¹. In addition to normal mitigating factors, we mention three special mitigating factors which might impact on the sentence.

These are, the offender’s very young age or very old age¹², poor health and payment of customary compensation. We had already discussed customary compensation.

Using the range of sentences noted in Anna Max Marangi as a guide, we suggest the following tariff:

1. In an uncontested case, with ordinary mitigating factors and no aggravating factors, a starting point of 7 years up to 12 years. A sentence below 7 years should be rarely imposed except in exceptional cases where there are special mitigating factors
2. In a contested or uncontested case, with mitigating factors and aggravating factors, a starting point of 13 – 16 years.
3. In a contested or uncontested case, with special aggravating factors and mitigating factors whose weight is reduced or rendered insignificant by the gravity of the offence, 17 – 25 years.
4. In contested and uncontested case with special aggravating factors - Life imprisonment for the worst cases. The presence of mitigating factors is rendered insignificant by the gravity of the offence. These are cases which involve viciousness, some pre-planning, use of a weapon and complete disregard for human life.”
   
9. I find that this is a category 1 case as discussed in the Manu Kovi case. The Supreme Court in Manu Kovi also said this in relation to the loss of life:
   

“We begin with the basic principle that the sanctity and value of human life is far more precious and valuable than anything else and no amount of remorse or compensation will restore life lost. The unlawful taking of another person’s life is a serious and horrendous crime which must be adequately punished. The courts have re-iterated this basic and fundamental principle in many cases.”

10. The following two cases are comparable cases as they involve offenders who were between 19 and 20 years of age, similar to this offender and at the time of commission of the offence, they were under the influence of alcohol when the offences were committed.
    
11. In State v Jeffery Peau [2021] PGNC 514, N9328, the age of the offender is similar to this offender at the time of the commission of the offence. The offender made an early guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter contravening section 302 of the Criminal Code. The offender had hit the deceased with a stone on the head unintentionally. The deceased was rushed to the hospital and succumbed to his injuries and died. The prisoner was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the offence. He was sentenced to six years in hard labour.
    
12. In State v Robert Urevo [2021] PGNC 501, N9319, the offender was also about 19 to 20 years old at the time of the commission of the offence. The offender was drinking alcohol with the deceased when a fight broke out and he stabbed the deceased with a scissors. The deceased died two days later as a result of the stabbing. The offender made an early guilty plea and was sentenced to 10 years in hard labour.
    
13. I have cited a character reference from the Office of the Chaplain at the Bomana Correctional Institution which states that the offender is a loyal member of the Pentecostal Fellowship program in prison. The reference is favorable to the prisoner. There is also a Pre-Sentence Report which I have cited. The offender’s family especially his mother has said that his son did not mean to kill his father as his grievance with his father was over unpaid school fee and sadly, their fight turned tragic. The offender has no prior convictions and is a young man of 23 years of age. He was 20 when he committed the offence.
    
14. I am reminded of Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 that the most severe punishment must be for the most serious offences and that the punishment the Court gives must be proportionate to the offence.
    
15. In Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487, this Court should take into account the circumstances of the death resulting as a result of manslaughter. This Court notes that the offender is young and was intoxicated. He had an argument with his father over his unpaid school fees that he was unable to sit for his year 12 examinations.
    
16. In directing my attention to section 19 of the Criminal Code in relation to suspension of a sentence, the Supreme Court held in Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91 that:
    

“ Suspension of part of a sentence under s 19(6) of the Criminal Code (Ch No 262) is, or may be appropriate, in three broad categories. The categories are not exhaustive:

(i) Where suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the offender.

(ii) Where suspension will promote the repayment or restitution of stolen money or goods.

(iii) Where imprisonment would cause an excessive degree of suffering to the particular offender, for example because of his bad physical or mental health.”

17. I am of the view that the age of the offender, his remorse and the circumstances of the death of his deceased father was an unfortunate and tragic incident. There is clearly no intention on the part of the offender to kill his father. I take into due consideration that the loss of a life can never be given back and that in this case, the offender will also suffer the loss of his father. Fathers provide guidance, vision and advice through life. That is something this offender will leave without and will suffer as this pillar in his life is gone. The offender’s family will also no doubt suffer this loss.
    
18. Taking into account all the principles, mitigating and aggravating factors and comparable cases, the offender is sentenced as follows:
    
    1. I am minded sentencing the offender to 8 years in prison as the head sentence.
    2. The period of 3 years and 9 days as time already spent in custody is deducted from this head sentence.
    100. This leaves the punishment to be 4 years and 356 days. This Court will suspend a period of 2 years from the remaining sentence that the suspension will reform and rehabilitate the prisoner due to his young age.
    4. The Prisoner will serve out 2 years and 356 days in custody and shall be released on good behavior thereafter.
       

Sentenced accordingly.

________________________________________________________________

Office of the Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State

Office of the Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Accused