State v Mara [2025] PGNC 383; N11541 (6 October 2025)

N11541

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1532 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

JANET MARA

WAIGANI: MIVIRI J
08, 20, 21 AUGUST, 6 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Murder S300 CCA – Plea – Deceased Husband Stabbed with a Knife in the Neck By Wife – Massive Bleeding Severing the Carotid Artery – Knife Retrieved inside House to inflict outside on Deceased – First Offender – Cleaner in National & Supreme Court – First Persons to Show Law & Order to All – Deceased Driver of the Courts – Prevalent Offence – Strong deterrent sentence – 20 years IHL

Facts
Accused stabbed deceased in the neck over a drunken argument between them. She was cleaner of the Courts and he was driver also of the Courts.

Held
Guilty plea.
First time offender.
No extenuating Circumstances.
Court Cleaner.
Deceased Court Driver.
Voluntary consumption of Alcohol.
Court Staff first to show observation of Law.
Prevalent Offence
20 years IHL

Cases cited
Tardrew, Public Prosecutor v [1986] PNGLR 91
Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105
Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487
Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702
State v Er [1998] PGNC 78; N1749
Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Tapi v The State [2000] PGSC 2; SC635
State v Walus [2005] PGNC 147; N2802
State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913
State v Kapoi [2021] PGNC 181; N9021
State v Kolokolo [2021] PGNC 74; N8849
State v Tony [2017] PGNC 125; N6774
State v Nicholson [2016] PGNC 247; N6442
State v Kande [2021] PGNC 251; N9104
State v Lucas [2024] PGNC 79; N10732

Counsel
S. Patatie, for the State
B. Popeu, for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. MIVIRI J: Janet Mara aged 36 years old of Imam village, Kompiam Ambum, Enga Province appears to be sentenced after pleading guilty to the Murder of her husband James Paulus upon the Indictment pursuant to section 300 of the Code.
   
2. Murder is defined that:
   
   • (1) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder: –
     

(a) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other person;

(b) if death was caused by means of an act–

(i) done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose; and

(ii) of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating–

(i) the commission of a crime other than a crime specified by a law (including this Code) to be a crime for which a person may only be arrested by virtue of a warrant; or

(ii) the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit an offence referred to in Subparagraph (i);

(d) if death was caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c);

(e) if death was caused by wilfully stopping the breath of a person for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c).

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

(2) In a case to which Subsection (1) (a) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who was killed.

(3) In a case to which Subsection (1) (b) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) In a case to which Subsection (1) (c), (d) or (e) applies, it is immaterial that the offender–

(a) did not intend to cause death; or

(b) did not know that death was likely to result.”

3. She was arraigned that on the 05^th July 2024 together with the deceased with whom she was living together as husband and wife, they were drinking alcohol with two others in front of a trade store where they lived. They had started drinking the previous afternoon on the 04^th July 2024 and continued to the early hours of the 05^th July 2024. She was playing cards with others. An argument developed between her and the deceased at about 1.00am and 2.00am in the morning. She got up and left returning a short while approaching the deceased and stabbed him on the left side of the neck with a small knife. Then she pulled it out and tried to run away but was apprehended by bystanders there. Deceased was rushed to the Gerehu General Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. The autopsy report revealed that he sustained a stab wound to the left side of the neck which cut his carotid artery from which he bled to his death.
   
4. It was an action that caused a grievous injury to the deceased. She stabbed him with that knife in the neck severing the carotid artery. He bled to his death. It was murder within the section charged. The plea was consistent with the evidence tendered and it was confirmed. She was remorseful on allocutus, a first-time offender aged 36 years employed as a Cleaner with the National Judiciary, notably in the Chamber of the Chief Justice by her antecedent report. He was 56 years old confirmed by the Autopsy report dated 2^nd October 2024 prepared by Doctor Seth Fose Pathologist. Which report confirmed that external examination showed a penetrating stab wound to the left side of the neck. Internal examination showed underlying carotid artery was punctured. The neck muscles were bruised. The tongue was punctured at the left side of oral cavity. There was blood within the airway, trachea, main bronchi and bronchioles. And it was confirmed that a sharp instrument had caused the stab wound. Evidence of witnesses immediately present at the scene confirmed the medical evidence. It was affirmed out by her own admissions to police in the record of interview conducted on the 31^st July 2024. And photographs that were taken JP.12.2608/24 showed the entry wound just below the left ear into the neck. JP.13.2608/24, JP. 14.2608/24, JP.15.2608/24, and JP.16.2608/24 depicted the gruesome details of the injury externally on the left side of the neck near the left ear. And, internally showing out the extent of the injuries underlying leading to the immediate death of the deceased.
   
5. Together I have individually and carefully considered the submissions of both counsels filed. Added to by the presentence report that has been ordered now filed 17^th September 2025, before me in the consideration of this penalty upon her. The latter does not recommend any other sentence other than what is due by the section detailing. Because there is no material in that report standing out to issue a penalty other than a custodial term. I am guided by the law in Tardrew, Public Prosecutor v [1986] PNGLR 91. There is no material overt imperative to go along that path here. Yes, she is a first-time offender who no consequence of the offence has one of her breasts removed whilst awaiting remand on this matter. I have no medical basis to say it is a consequence of the incarceration pertaining. Even if it was considered, it does not mitigate, nor could it be added to the penalty she incurs, unlike the period in custody awaiting.
   
6. In my view this is very strong intention to do grievous bodily harm depicted by all that evidence I set out above. The neck is a very venerable part of the body. It supplies food into the body. It supplies oxygen into the blood. The carotid artery is a very important blood vessel that supplies blood to the head and brain. To sever it in this manner is a calculated thrust with that weapon. No doubt the intention was to grievously hurt the deceased from which he succumbed. He was 56 years old certainly had a long way to go in his life taken by the prisoner without restraint. She got the knife from inside the house came out to deliver that blow killing him. This evidence cannot be ignored to pass sentence. It must tailor the sentence due the prisoner. The circumstances are relevant admissible and must constitute the proportionality of the sentence to the prisoner. Because the aggravation and the mitigation will fill out the scale for the sentence due the prisoner: Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.
   
7. It is a very serious case of murder committed depicted by this evidence. And the evidence will write the sentence due the prisoner. She has admitted the matter outright to police and now in Court. That is in her favour. She is a first offender. Who by this evidence fulfilling the dictate of Section 300 of murder. She can draw the maximum imprisonment of life years if her facts depict it as the worst case of murder Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92. Considering all matters for and against, I do not hold that her case is the worst case of murder committed. It is very serious case and undoubtedly will draw time in custody. Life is a fundamental right by section 35 of the Constitution. No one takes it freely without sanction of law. She was the wife of the deceased and on this occasion, both were intoxicated by voluntary consumption of alcohol.
   
8. It will not be the first and last in this way in life of all persons. Therefore, the sentence passed is bold that if the choice was to be made between alcohol and life, the latter will prevail as supreme. That is fundamentally the seriousness of the conduct of the prisoner. Because Alcohol is forever consumed by all in our society. Its effects are not strange to the persons who so consume as do the prisoner here with the deceased. Its consumption will draw serious consequences if care and control is not exercised. The level of intelligence will subside with its influx into the blood stream of a person. A normal person with strong fibre in life will crumble under its slavish intake. It is therefore not an exercise to shy away from the effects of the law. Deterrence must be exercised and given due care and attention in the sentence passed as is the case here. The evil that is looming must be held captivated and contained in the sentence passed.
   
9. She led a very productive and unblemished life for a person who had little to no education. And that is very clear from her allocutus to Court. I take due account of her remorse for the offence. Coupled with her guilty plea is a significant factor in the consideration of an appropriate proportionate sentence due her. She was employed as a cleaner of the National and Supreme Courts of Papua New Guinea for nine years. Her antecedent report states that she was the cleaner to the Chief Justice Chamber for nine years. She was literally at the doorsteps in the hall of Justice law and order. She was very well versed of the consequences of her action in this regard. More so is the fact that he too was a driver of the Courts. Both had their livelihood and sustaining in life demarcated by this foundation. Staff, employees of law enforcement agencies of Government, here the Supreme and National Court must show the light to the world, not put it out as here. In so doing it is a very significant fact that will come out in the sentence passed. What seriously aggravates her sentence is that she was cleaner to the Chambers of the Chief Justice.
   
10. The beacon of society is law that we enforce as the Courts of our country Papua New Guinea. We will not by the actions of our staff uproot that fact by our conducts as here. We should always be the first to show the light to Papua New Guinea. Our Staff and employees who see fit must bear the full force of the law. It is therefore no light matter for the prisoner to be pleading her breast removed whilst awaiting this trial. Emotion administered in law is not good law. Objectivity in the enforcement is key and will be the basis here against. There is no medical report properly set out before me to consider in the sentence due her. Documents pertaining must have authority in law demarcated to be placed in law for consideration. That is lacking in the documents she attaches to her presentence report. A Medical doctor must give me the basis for its consideration in her favour. Therefore, this sentence does not give it that footing. Even if it did her conduct on this day by the tide of alcohol consumption swept aside the good life she led up on this day. “Volenti non fit injuria” He who volunteers suffers no injury. She picked her destiny that would be accorded her proportionally appropriately. Whatever consequences that flow as a result from that fact cannot constitute mitigating the offence. She has endured confinement in prison awaiting the determination of this matter. That will be deducted from the head sentence due her here.
    
11. Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105 is more serious than the case now before me by the prisoner. He was charged convicted on his own admissions of wilful murder. Appeal was lodged against the sentence of life imprisonment, reducing it to 15 years imprisonment. Here is murder committed by the Cleaner of the Chamber of the Chief Justice who is not on the same footing as a State Prosecutor. That was wilful murder sustaining 15 years on appeal. At the lowest end this is not a simple punch to the abdomen rupturing the spleen to draw 10 years imprisonment: Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487. It would not be on par with Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702, or that of State v Er [1998] PGNC 78; N1749, eight (8) years imprisonment was imposed for murder upon the wife killing the young woman the husband was with ignoring her and four children. It is not what happened in Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017 9 years was imposed for pleading guilty to the killing of the wife or girlfriend of the husband who had fathered six (6) children with her. She appealed to the Supreme Court against that sentence of 9 years for Manslaughter pursuant to section 302 of the Code. The Supreme Court varied the sentence stating that she had defences of provocation and self-defence in law that she had not pursued in the trial. She had spent time in custody and the balance remaining was suspended on a non-custodial basis. Effectively 2 years and 1 month spent pre-sentence and postconviction were considered sufficient for the offence. Six (6) years eleven (11) months were suspended on own recognitions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
    
12. That sentence warranted the facts there which the Supreme Court set for the better. I do not find the same here by its facts and circumstances. Comparably this is very serious case of murder. In the light of Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (31 May 2005) it will align in the third category scale drawing 20 to 30 years imprisonment. Because a knife is used as a weapon upon a venerable and delicate part of the human body, the neck. I am firm that the level of violence in the commission of the offence will be reflected in the sentence passed. It is the basis that I do not accede to the submissions by counsel. In Tapi v The State [2000] PGSC 2; SC635 (30 March 2000) the top end of manslaughter cases for 16 years was imposed on a husband who had cut up the wife causing massive bleeding from which she died. I am considering sentence for murder, up from Manslaughter. Therefore, the sentence will correspond. This prisoner worked with the Courts in the Chambers of the Chief Justice but saw no light with it except divulging into a viciousness stabbing of the neck leading to death. This court held in State v Walus [2005] PGNC 147; N2802 18 years IHL imposed upon the prisoner who pleaded guilty to assaulting the deceased who sustained a broken neck as well as a ruptured spleen from which she died. No weapon except his limbs. The sentence was for Manslaughter. That was not the result of a knife. Here is murder with a knife readily posed and inflicted into the neck.
    
13. I do not find any special or exceptional circumstance that must be accommodated in the sentence passed: State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913. In State v Kapoi [2021] PGNC 181; N9021 the back of the deceased was stabbed. He was unarmed and died because of the persistent and determined assault over a domestic feud. That sentence will not be on par with the facts here. It would not amount to the scene painted out in State v Kolokolo [2021] PGNC 74; N8849, that is a deliberate attack with the knife stabbing him in the legs leading to his death. Where there is deliberate attack with an offensive weapon it must draw serious consequences in the sentence imposed. In this regard I am not bound by that decision here given my facts and circumstances. Nor would I be in the case State v Tony [2017] PGNC 125; N6774. There being deliberate use of the knives to cut and inflict the injuries that lead to death. This is not a case of continuous physical violence over a period so that it will fall similar as in State v Nicholson [2016] PGNC 247; N6442. Nor would it equate State v Kande [2021] PGNC 251; N9104. Because she sets out in response to the deceased call with a knife in preparation for what the deceased was going to do to her. That in my view is a lot serious than the present. If a conviction for manslaughter in State v Lucas [2024] PGNC 79; N10732 dishes 13 years imposed upon the defacto wife for stabbing the husband deceased twice in the right side of the chest. Here is murder that must not be sentenced similar.
    
14. Because society must be protected from random acts as here leading to serious criminal actions known to the law. No one should be denied the right to life under section 35 without sanction of the law. Because we all live only once. Jurisprudence written over years is clear that time must be served in jail. I am not determining by a mathematical formular what sentence is due her. But I must consider like cases that have come before the Courts to guide me. In this regard I have started with manslaughter cases to eventually rise to murder here. Relevant also is the prevalence of this offence in the domestic setting between husband and wife, defacto and partner. I have tediously set that out above particularly referenced by manslaughter cases. It is by itself the first stone in the creation of a family. It must be protected by the law. A fair and proportionate sentence to the facts circumstances of her case would be 20 years imprisonment in hard labour. And I so impose that upon the prisoner. I do not consider any sentence below because the facts circumstances do not warrant. It would be erroneous given. And proportionality is measured out by the gravity of the offence. The plea does not mitigate the gravity or outweigh the aggravating features of the case. She will serve 20 years imprisonment in hard labour minus time in custody.
    
15. She pleads to serve time imposed at Baisu Jail in Mt Hagen Western Highlands Province, because that is close to where she originates from. Her family can visit her there. I will make no orders but recommend that she be transferred there to serve her sentence discretionary in the hands of the prison authorities. Her remand period will be deducted from the head sentence of 20 years imprisonment. She will serve the balance in jail forthwith.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor