State v Rimboho [2024] PGNC 356; N11030 (9 October 2024)

N11030

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 1318 OF 2020

BETWEEN
THE STATE

AND
JAPHERTY RIMBOHO
Offender

Wewak: Makail, J
2024: 4^th, 8^th & 9^th October

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Murder – Plea of not guilty – Mitigating and aggravating factors considered – Violent confrontation between two groups of men – Principal offender – Assault of deceased – Head wound – Sentence of 25 years term of imprisonment imposed – No partial suspension of sentence – Time spent in pre-trial custody deducted – Criminal Code – Section 7, Section 19 & Section 300(1)

Cases Cited:
Golu v. The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Manu Kovi v. The State (2005) SC789

Counsel:
Ms D Ambuk, for State
Mr A Kana, for Offender

SENTENCE

9^th October 2024

1. MAKAIL, J: The offender was found guilty of one count of murder of one George Wingu on the morning of 17 May 2020 contrary to Section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

2. The offender was one of the men involved in a violent confrontation between two groups of men at Yawasoro on the morning of 17 Mayc 2020 where he struck the deceased on the back of his head with a iron rod. The deceased collapsed and passed out. The deceased was rushed to the hospital at Boram but died the next day. The violent confrontation was a result of an altercation between Kamillus Pikiora (“Kamillus”) and Moses Jajaho (“Moses”) earlier on that morning where Moses wounded Kamillus on his hand. After receiving medical treatment for his wound, Kamillus mobilised his family members and friends and confronted Moses at his premises. The offender joined Kamillus while the deceased was in Moses’ group and that was when the offender attacked and wounded the deceased.

3. The offender by caught by Section 7(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Criminal Code by aiding and abetting Moses to confront Kamillus and assaulted the deceased causing injury that led to his death, thus contravening Section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

4. I have considered the offender’s statement on allocutus, pre-sentence report, the prosecution counsel’s submissions and offender’s counsel’s submissions in relation to an appropriate sentence to impose on the offender. It is common ground between the parties that this is not a worse case of murder and that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment under Section 300(1) of the Criminal Code is not appropriate: Golu v. The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

5. Each counsel submits that the Court’s discretion under Section 19 of the Criminal Code be exercised in favour of a lesser penalty. For the prosecution, the presence of aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and consistent with the sentencing tariffs in Manu Kovi v. The State (2005) SC789, this case falls into category 3 where a sentence between 20 and 30 years term of imprisonment is proposed. The prosecution counsel submits a term between 25 and 27 years term of imprisonment is appropriate.

6. The offender’s counsel submits based on category 2 of the Manu Kovi case, where the term of imprisonment is between 16 and 20 years, an appropriate sentence is 16 years term of imprisonment. A 16 year term of imprisonment to strongly proposed because a payment of monetary compensation in the sum of K20,000.00 was made to the family of the deceased by Stafford Wafi and his family members and a further K5,000.00 is being proposed by the offender to the family members of the deceased. According to the offender’s counsel, payment of monetary compensation of that sum is strong mitigating factor as it reinforces the offender’s expression of remorse and sincerity.

7. A further point for the Court to impose a sentence being proposed is that the offender is a student, and his education will be in jeopardy if he is given a lengthy prison sentence.

8. The prosecution strongly contests the payment of compensation and submits that the Court should not accept reduce the sentence for that reason because it is not clear if the offender contributed towards that sum of money. Further, the proposed additional K5,000.00 comes too late and casts doubt in relation to the offender’s remorsefulness and sincerity.

9. I accept the prosecution counsel’s submissions that the presence of aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factors. This was a contested matter where the offender pleaded not guilty and was convicted after a trial. I was a case where the assault and death of the deceased arose from a violent confrontation between two groups of men after one of them was attacked and wounded by the other, earlier that morning. Instead of reporting the earlier attack to the police, they took the matter into their own hands. One group led by Kamillus confronted the other, led by Moses at Moses’ premises.

10. Both sides were armed with bush knives and other offensive objects. Strong words were exchanged between the two groups and attacking of Kamillus followed suit resulting in deceased coming to the aid of Kamillus and was struck by the offender on the back of his head with the iron rod. Striking the deceased on the back of his head reinforces the prosecution’s submission that the offender intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased, and it was vicious. The prevalence of the offence must remind parties that this case adds to the growing statistics of murder cases in this country and a strong deterrent sentence is called for.

11. Ultimately, a life is lost. The wife and children and extended family members, relatives and friends have lost a loved one, friend and family member in the deceased. It is for this reason that the Court must also listen to the cries and pleas of the wife, sister and father of the deceased who have unequivocally expressed their anger and sadness of losing the deceased through this premature death in a statement released to the probation officer and presented together with the pre-sentence report to this Court.

12. I take into account the offender’s expression of remorse, plea for leniency, being a first-time offender, being a student and desirous of furthering his education in teaching training and giving back to the next generation of Papua New Guineans in teaching, being the eldest in the family, his parents are of advanced age and in critical need of his support, his father being recently admitted to the hospital and the fear of losing his father is imminent. These factors favour the offender.

13. While I note the prosecution’s strong submissions against the reduction of the term of sentence on account of the payment of monetary compensation, and that there is no evidence that the offender contributed to the sum of money, I consider that as the death occurred as a result of a group attack between two groups of men, and the offender was in the group led by Moses, it is sufficient to find that the payment of K20,000.00 is inclusive of the offender.

14. In all the circumstances of this case, I consider that a sentence at the lower end of the range between 25 and 27 years term of imprisonment proposed by the prosecution, is appropriate. Accepting the compensation of K20,000.00 paid to the deceased family earlier on in the related case of Stafford Wafi, a sentence of 25 years term of imprisonment is imposed. There will be no order for further compensation to be made and furthermore, there will be no partial suspension of the sentence.

15. Time spent in pre-trial custody shall be deducted from the sentence of 25 years. As I do not have the relevant information on the time spent in pre-trial custody except the period of time spent in custody following the offender’s conviction on 4 October 2024, which is five days, counsel will work out the time spent in pre-trial custody and advise my Associate before I sign the warrant of commitment for the offender to be conveyed to the prison facility.

16. Finally, bail money shall be refunded to the offender forthwith.
Sentenced accordingly,
________________________________________________________________
Acting Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Offender