N11254
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1573 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

WESLEY STEVEN KIANGA
Prisoner

WEWAK: CAREY J
23 APRIL 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Victim assaulted and killed with offensive weapon resulting in her death – Section 300 (1) (a) Criminal Code.

CRIMINAL LAW –Sentence Murder – Section 300 (1) (a) Criminal Code –Sentence of 50 years imposed less pre-trial custody period. 

The offender pleaded guilty to murder. He attacked his partner in the public in Wewak having followed her there from the village where they resided. He chopped her in the neck and stabbed her in the abdomen which resulted in her death at the scene. This is the judgment on sentence.

Held: 

1.	Mitigating factors were not such that the minimum penalty would apply. 

2.	Domestic violence is abhorrent to human dignity and an affront to the human rights of the deceased.

3.	Sentencing tariffs are discretionary in application given the National Court has the power to exercise its discretion in sentencing given the facts of the case.

4.	While some remorse was exhibited through the words given by Wesley Steven Kianga, there was unsubstantiated non-legal provocation which does not qualify as extenuating circumstances which vitiates any sentence reduction that could apply. 

5.	Wesley Steven Kianga is sentenced to 50 years imprisonment less time in pre-trial custody with net sentence of 48 years, 9 months and 20 days of Hard Labour at Boram Prison.

Cases cited
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Manu Kovi v The State [2005] SC789
Saeperius Yalibakut v The State [2006] SC890
Thress Kumbamong v The State [2008] SC1017

Counsel
D Ambuk for the State
A Koraino for the prisoner

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1.   CAREY J: The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of murder contrary to Section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act on 22 April 2025.  The offence could upon sentencing result in a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Section 19 of the Criminal Code empowers the Court to impose a sentence that is less than the maximum penalty.

Brief Facts

2.    The prisoner followed his wife to the town from the village and met her at a public place. He was walking with a tramontina knife and a small kitchen knife. He then stabbed her three times in the abdomen with the kitchen knife and chopped her on her neck causing her death at scene. 

Antecedents

3.   The prisoner has a prior conviction for armed robbery in 2008. 

Allocutus

4.    Allocutus was administered as outlined in Section 593 of the Criminal Code. The prisoner apologised to the family members of the deceased and his own family. He further apologised to the Court and asked for peace in sentencing by the Court. The prisoner indicated his thoughts on why he killed his wife and admitted that he was wrong to do what he did. 

Aggravating Factors

5.   The circumstances of aggravation in relation to this offence are as follows:

1. Loss of life;
2. Unprovoked assault;
3. Killing of innocent and harmless person;
4. Prior conviction;
5. Use of Dangerous weapon;
6. Some element of pre-planning.

Mitigating Factors

6. The mitigating factors are as follows:

1.	He co-operated with police;
2.	Guilty plea thus reducing court time;
3.	Gave a background as to why he committed the crime.

Submissions on Sentence – The State

7.   Ms D Ambuk for the State submitted that maximum punishment is life imprison subject to Section 19 of the Criminal Code Act. Appropriate punishment is data mined based on circumstances of the case. Given guilty plea prisoner should be given benefit of the doubt based on Saperius Yalibakut v The State [2006] SC890. This falls within Category 3 and 4 of the Manu Kovi guidelines on plea matters. Sentence range is 20 years at the lowest and life imprisonment at the high end. The killing was in cold blood. The Prosecutor asked for 30 years imprisonment as penalty for the crime. 

Submissions on Sentence– The Prisoner

8.   Mr. A Koraino for the prisoner submitted that a prison head sentence of 20 years would be appropriate. However, in light of the prisoner’s mitigating circumstances the submission was for 18 years. Written submissions were made and referred to the case of Manu Kovi v The State [2005] SC789. It is settled law that the maximum penalty is reserved for worst instances as in Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653. He submitted that this was not the worst type of murder and invited Court not to impose the maximum sentence. Furthermore, he invited this Court to consider alternative penalties under Section 19 provisions of the Criminal Code.  

Application to this Case

9.   The Court may examine applicable sentences available under the sentencing tariffs in the case of Manu Kovi v The State [2005] SC789. In my review of these tariffs and considering how to exercise my discretion in line with Section 19 of the Criminal Code I am to make a determination that also complies with the interest of justice. I remind myself that there is a victim and the rights afforded to that victim have been extinguished by this taking of life. It has been stated that maximum punishments are more appropriate for the worst types of case as in Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653. This killing approaches the description of what a reasonable person would aver is heinous but may not necessarily be the worst of the worst. 

10.   In Thress Kumbamong v The State [2008] SC1017, it is clear that the trial judge has the discretion in imposition of a sentence. It is appropriate for a long sentence to be imposed given the facts of this situation. The prisoner demonstrated behaviour that informs the Court that he is a danger to society. The actions of domestic violence is too common in Papua New Guinea and the death of a partner has become the result. Under the circumstances a head sentence of 50 years is appropriate. 

Sentence

11.   You are sentenced taking into account Section 19 of the Criminal Code.
Wesley Steven Kianga, having been convicted of one count of murder under Section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, is sentenced as follows:

Length of sentence imposed	50 years	
Pre-sentence period in custody to be deducted	1 year 2 months, 10 days	
Resultant length of sentence to be served	48 years, 9 months, 20 days	
Amount of sentence suspended	Nil	
Time to be served in custody	48 years, 9 months, 20 days	
Place of custody	Boram Correctional Institution	

Ordered accordingly.
_______________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor 
Lawyer for the prisoner: Public Solicitor