State v Aaron [2024] PGNC 70; N10723 (15 April 2024)

N10723

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 911, 912 & 913 OF 2022

THE STATE

V

EMMANUEL AARON

Lae: Kangwia J.

2024: 12^th & 15^th April

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – willful murder – killing on suspicion of sorcery – Guilty plea by first time offender – cooperated with authorities – expression of remorse - loss of life in brutal attack in front of family – strong will to kill – element of preplanning present - prevalence of offence -sentencing trend in sorcery related killings - deterrent sentence warranted – sentenced to 28 years.

Cases Cited

Manu Kovi v the State (2005) SC789
Goli Golu v the State [1979] PNGLR 653
Hure Hane v State [1984] PNGLR 105
Thomas v The State (2007) SC867

Counsels:

N. Pare, for the State
N. Katosingkalara, for the Defence

15^th April 2024

1. KANGWIA J: Emmanuel Aaron appears as a prisoner for sentence after he was convicted on his guilty plea to one count of wilful murder pursuant to s299 of the Criminal Code Act.

2. The facts to which he pleaded guilty to state that on 19 November 2021 Christian Aaron who was the prisoner’s brother went to the bush to cut timber. In the process a tree fell and struck him on the leg. He blamed the deceased who was known in the village as a sorcerer as the one who made sorcery on him that caused the injury. The villagers planned to burn down the deceased house. Upon hearing of the villagers plan the deceased fled with his family to another village.

The prisoner in the company of others followed the deceased to the village where the deceased was and attacked him repeatedly on all parts of the body with a bush knife. The deceased died as a result from heavy loss of blood.

3. The prisoner is 35 years old and is married with 2 children. He is a subsistence farmer and has no prior convictions. He is a member of the Lutheran faith.

4. On his allocutus the prisoner said; “I say sorry for what I have done. I say sorry to the victim and to God. I broke the law and say sorry. I say sorry to my family and community for bringing bad repute. How my family is faring I do not know since arrest. I will not reoffend. I ask for the mercy of the Court or probation”.

5. On his behalf Mr Katosingkalara through a written submission submits that even though the present case fell within the second category of the Manu Kovi v the State (2005) SC789 guidelines, in the given peculiar circumstances of the present case, the appropriate sentence was 19 years imprisonment without parole. The offender heard from his deceased brother before his death that it was the deceased who made sorcery on him which prompted him to do what he did which was a factor for consideration.

6. It is also submitted that the offender had no prior convictions and had been in custody for more than two years.

7. For the State Mr Pare also through a written submission while conceding that the present case did not fall into the worst category of the offence submits that the aggravating factors rendered the mitigating factors insignificant warranting a deterrent sentence. The offender was in possession of a dangerous weapon and followed the deceased from one village to another. The offender showed no mercy nor respect the life of the deceased and proceeded to cut him multiple times on all parts of the body. It was cold blooded in that the attack happened in front of the family who begged for him to stop.

8. The circumstances of the case made it fall into the second and third category of the Manu Kovi guidelines and a sentence of 25 to 30 years imprisonment was appropriate.

9. Wilful murder under s 299 of the Criminal Code is the ultimate homicide under the Criminal Code. It carries the ultimate maximum prescribed penalty of life imprisonment after parliament recently relieved it of the death penalty.

10. Despite that the Court has discretion to impose other sentences pursuant to s 19 of the Criminal Code and in view of the standing sentencing practice that the maximum prescribed penalty is reserved for the worst category of each offence. (See Goli Golu v the State [1979] PNGLR 653 and Hure Hane v State [1984] PNGLR 105).

11. The prisoner has been convicted of wilful murder from a blame of sorcery committed by the deceased. It is safe to say that the deceased lost his life in a sorcery related killing. It is common knowledge that blind killings and torturing of fellow human beings on blame of sorcery have taken a foothold in this country despite public awareness, religious interventions and even high sentences imposed by the Courts for sorcery related killings. Sorcery in my view is only a twisted manufacture of blame void of the naked eye. It has no definite description of what it is or what it is constituted of. Nevertheless, the gullible members of the community fall into believing it as the cause for bad outcomes and blindly react as in the present case. There is no justification for such reactions without proof of the actual sorcery alleged.

12. In the present case the prisoner has offered no explanation on allocutus to mitigate the penalty the Court might impose. The only factor operating in his favour is that he has pleaded guilty as a first-time offender. His expression of remorse fades into insignificance in view of the brutal attack on an unarmed defenceless man.

13. The most serious aggravating factor is that a life was prematurely lost in front of the family. Life is precious and everyone has it only once. It does not return after it is removed. The offence is prevalent and there is public outcry over killings and tortures founded on a blame of sorcery. The Court must not resile in its duty to protect lives and the wellbeing of persons when it comes to dealing with sorcery related killings.

14. The circumstances of the present case in my view places it into the top of the second category and bottom of the third category of the Manu Kovi guidelines.

15. It was a brutal killing which involved repeated bush knife attacks all over the body of an unarmed defenceless man reflecting a strong desire to kill. There was also an element of pre-planning involved. The prisoner travelled to another village and attacked the deceased in front of the family in the residential area of another person.

16. To reach an appropriate sentence I am ably assisted by both counsels through the cited cases as possible guides.

17. The cited cases have one significant similarity. They all relate to sorcery related offences where the sentences imposed by the National Court were more than 20 years imprisonment. The trend of sentencing is further enhanced by the decision of the Supreme Court in Thomas v The State (2007) SC867 where a sentence of 18 years imposed by the National Court was set aside and substituted with 22 years of imprisonment for a sorcery related killing.

28. I am fortified by the cited case to hold the view that the minimum sentence the Court should impose for sorcery related homicides should be 20 years. To go up would be subject to the circumstances of each case.

29. In the present case I am of the view that a sentence of 30 years is appropriate for the prisoner. However, he should be given a discount for pleading guilty early as a first-time offender in the exercise of discretion. Therefore, two years from the 30 years shall stand suspended. From the remaining 28 years the period in custody till today shall be deducted and the prisoner shall serve the balance at CIS Buimo.

Formal Orders.

1. Prisoner is sentenced to 28 years imprisonment.
2. The period in custody to today shall be deducted from the 28 years and the prisoner shall serve the balance in CIS Buimo.

______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Defence