PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2023 >> [2023] PGNC 434

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Amos [2023] PGNC 434; N10578 (23 November 2023)

N10578


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


CR NO. 945 OF 2021


THE STATE


V


RENDY AMOS


Vanimo: Miviri J
2023 : 20th & 23rd November


CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GBH S319 CCA – Plea – Prisoner Drunk Demanded Money from Victim – Victim Did Not Comply – Attacked Victim with Bush knife – Grievous Injuries Sustained Arm – No Lawful Justification for Attack – Residual Injuries – Protection of Public – Jail Term Appropriate.


Facts
Accused cut the victim with a bush knife after he refused to give money to him. He was rushed to the Hospital and treated.


Held
Plea of guilty
First-time offender
Residual injuries
3 years IHL.


Cases Cited:
The State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239
The State v Ogi Songe [2017] N6759
The State v Philip Piapia [2017] N6763
The State v Steven Tumu [2017] N6768


Counsel:
F. Popeu, for the State
O. Himore, for the Defendant


SENTENCE


23rd November 2023


  1. MIVIRI J: This is the sentence of Rendy Amos who demanded money from the victim. Who did not accord and accused cut him repeatedly with the bush knife he had.
  2. Around 2.00pm on the 16th August 2020, Benny Utan went to visit his grandfather at Wesan Camp. He was returning to his house at Wara Kongkong. The accused was drunk and armed with a bush knife in the way of the complainant. He asked him for money to which he replied he had none. The Accused attacked and cut him with the bush knife he had on his right hand specifically on the upper part of that hand. Complainant felt pain and started running but the Accused pursued and followed him with that bush knife. The complainant fell down and accused cut him again on his back as he lay on the ground. The Victim passed out and came to the hospital.
  3. The Indictment was preferred against him pursuant to Section 319 of the Criminal Code in that, “A person who unlawfully does grievous bodily harm to another person is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.”


  1. Initially the prisoner denied the allegations when taken in by police and questioned in a record of interview conducted on the 31st August 2020. He changed that fact when he pleaded guilty before me admitting outright the offence. A very serious offence drawing the maximum penalty of seven (7) years, he no doubt accepted the consequences due to him. He no doubt appreciated that decision he was making to admit the offence would land him in jail to a maximum of seven years. Decisions in this manner speak well of the prisoner. It is a step that he has taken of his own volition to correct what has been wronged by his hands. It is overt of the goodness and acceptance of a wrong that must be made right.
  2. The sentence will reflect this fact in his favour. But it remains that he was drunk and cut the victim when he did not accord the ask for the money. It is likened to robbery because violence is used when the property asked for does not exchange hands from complainant to prisoner. Here complainant is chased and repeatedly cut with that bush knife. So much so that he is left unconscious and could have died had he not being taken to the hospital immediately. This is a case that has come about because of the voluntary intoxication, in which state the prisoner was in. He had no excuse nor justification for asking the money. And when it was refused, it did not give him authority to cut and chase the complainant, and repeatedly cut him. He persisted and was determined in the attack but for the actions of one Benjamin Mani momentarily the complainant would have suffered very serious injuries. Even then the prisoner refused to stop and struggled out and went after the victim armed with two bush knives. That is evident from the medical report that was obtained evidencing.
  3. This is a behaviour that calls for a stern deterrent and punitive sentence against the prisoner. He must learn to control his conduct and desist from uncontrolled consumption of alcohol. It is the gist of his behaviour on this day. He was not asking return of money that was owed to him. Or owed for service rendered to the complainant. It would be more money to fuel and keep up his drinking urge there. Life lived in this way has no place in an orderly society. It must be weeded out from its roots. Particularly when the backdrop is the grievous injuries that the complainant has endured and suffered at the hands of the prisoner. It is grievous bodily harm because section 1 Interpretation of the Criminal Code defines it as, “means any bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger life, or to cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health:”. There is no doubt the victim suffered heavy blood loss, because he passed out after the first cut and vaguely describes someone’s voice saying, “inap ya bai yu kilim em ya.”
  4. It was life-threatening injury which could have easily taken his life had it not being for the professional medical attention that was exerted to bring him back. The medical report dated 1st September 2020 by HEO Tanabo Noah depicts serious cut to the upper right arm visible still after being healed with a long curving line defacing and disfiguring the arm. He states that three (3) lacerations were sustained, two (2) on the hand measuring 8cm x 4cm x 2cm. One laceration on the hip measuring 15 to 20cm long 4.5cm deep and 4cm wide. No Xray was done. He went on to state it was grievous bodily harm and that the victim had fully recovered. Which injury is confirmed by photograph 1 depicting the cut on the right upper arm bicep area in a curved lining almost half of the bicep area. And another photograph depicts a small cut on the left bicep. A further photograph depicts a large cut across the abdomen on the right side measuring 15 to 20cm long 4-5cm deep and 4cm wide. Viewed in this way it depicts the extent of the attack that the prisoner was prepared to exert upon the complainant for no fault of his.
  5. It is independent confirmation of the gravity of the attack. And for the prisoner to admit to it is clear evidence of the responsibility he has taken to amend his ways in the matter. It will be shown in the sentence that is eventually passed. The sentence will emphasize that random attacks with weapons upon innocent persons who are merely going about their business in life must be stopped. Because bush knives used in this manner are deadly and there are many who have succumbed to its use. And it is a weapon which is readily available for its use as a tool because of the kind of community we have. But it is a deadly weapon as used here leaving very grave and grievous results. The maximum penalty prescribed by that section is 7 years imprisonment. It will be imposed should this be considered the worst case of grievous bodily harm. In my view after consideration of all above it is not the worst case. And a determinate term of years will be imposed upon the prisoner.
  6. This Court imposed the maximum sentence of seven (7) years cumulative in State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239 (23 May 2002) where both wives were cut with a bush knife almost killing them, but they survived because they were taken quickly to the hospital but came out with serious residual injuries. Where a nephew attacked an uncle with a bush knife cutting him causing a life-threatening injury, this court imposed 3 years IHL part custodial and part noncustodial with conditions for payment of compensation: State v Ogi Songe [2017] N6759 (27th May 2017). Where there is demonstrated by clear evidence to mend family or relationship and there are means to ensure compliance of compensation orders, this court has gone ahead to impose sentence giving effect: State v Philip Piapia [2017] N6763 (17 May 2017); see also State v Steven Tumu [2017] N6768 (23 May 2017). The sentence has been in the mid-range of 3 to 4 years part custodial and part suspension in each case.
  7. In the present case there has been demonstrated by the presentence and means assessment reports and the facts and circumstances of the case which I set out above. And it would be disproportionate to consider otherwise then to follow suit because like cases should be treated alike. Due regard must also be paid to the fact that what is just and proportionate is depended on each case by its facts and circumstances and the sentence is swayed accordingly.
  8. Here I determine that the just and proportionate sentence given all set out above is 3 years IHL and I so impose that upon the prisoner for the crime of grievous bodily harm committed upon Benny Utuan contrary to section 319 of the Code.
  9. Further in the exercise of my discretion in the light of all set out above I order that 1 year of that sentence will be wholly suspended on a probation order for the same period on conditions as follows:

Ordered Accordingly.


__________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Defendant

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2023/434.html