PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2025 >> [2025] PGNC 393

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

State v Seriko [2025] PGNC 393; N11527 (16 October 2025)

N11527

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


CR NO 488 & 489 OF 2025


BETWEEN:
THE STATE


AND:
EDWIN SERIKO


GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
15 AUGUST, 1 SEPTEMBER, 16 OCTOBER 2025


CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Guilty Plea- Causing Grievous Bodily Harm, s319 Criminal Code and Assault occasioning bodily harm, 340(1) Criminal Code-Random unprovoked senseless violence on unsuspecting couple-use of grass knife-husband’s right small finger amputated-wife’s wrist lacerated-concurrent sentence-4 years


Cases cited
Koribiseni v State [2022] SC2296
Gima v The State [2003] SC730
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564
Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88
Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487
Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193
State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85
The State v Tendi Kalio Ulio [1980] PNGLR
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294
State v Winston [2003] PGNC 146; N2347
State v Simon (2022) Unreported decision delivered on 14 October 2022
State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] PGNC 527; N9385
State v Russel [2021] N9295
State v Egi [2016] N6912
State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211
State v Pari [2015] PGNC 43; N5962
State v Tokenaki [2015] N5960
State v Mais [2014] N5838
State v Duma [2014] N5643
State v Peter [2011] PGNC 345; N4320
State v Aiwa [2008] PGNC 321; N3330
State v Justin Ipa (2008) N3439
State v Nicodemus Badui [2007] N5055
State v Piries [2007] PGNC 186; N4982
State v Waiguma [2007] N3188
State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239
State v Sinowi [2001] PGNC 35; N2175
1State v Idab [2001] PGNC 39; N2172
State v Kuman [2000] PGNC 123; N2047
State v Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271
State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320


Counsel
L Maru for the State
V Move, for the offender


DECISION ON SENTENCE


  1. WAWUN-KUVI J: The victims, a husband and wife, were going about their day as usual. They were walking down to their local market at Cassaro Junction in Okapa to sell their produce when the offender approached them. Without any reason or justification, he suddenly attacked them. He swung a grass knife at the husband, cutting him on the right hand and severing his small right finger. He then swung the knife at the wife, inflicting a cut on her wrist. Bystanders came to their aid and took them to the local clinic.
  2. The offender has pleaded guilty to these facts.
  3. I must now decide the appropriate penalty.

Purpose of Sentencing

  1. I remind myself that the purpose of sentencing is not solely to punish the offender. It serves purposes such as rehabilitation, reparation by the offender to those affected by the offence, deterrence, community protection in cases of violent offences, and communicating clearly that the offender's behaviour is not condoned.
  2. It is a discretionary process that requires assessing and applying the peculiar circumstances of the case against the relevant sentencing principles: Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487.

The Charge

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to one count of Causing Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) under s 319 of the Criminal Code and one count of Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm (AOBH) pursuant to s 340(1) of the Criminal Code.

Maximum Penalty

  1. The maximum penalty for GBH is 7 years while the maximum penalty for AOBH is 3 years.
  2. The maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious case: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

Sentencing range

  1. The State submits a sentence of 3 years imprisonment for the charge of GBH and a sentence of 12 months for the charge of AOBH. Counsel for the offender submits for a sentence range between 1 and 2 years for the charge of GBH and a sentence of 6 months for the charge of AOBH.

Comparable cases

  1. Counsel have assisted the Court with the following cases:

GBH

  1. State v Tokenaki [2015] N5960, Toliken J: The offender pleaded guilty. He and his accomplices, armed with bush knives and sticks, were on the road waiting for the victim. They were angry over something that he had done. When he arrived, they attacked him with sticks and knives. He received three major lacerations and three minor ones to various parts of his body; none were life-threatening. He was hospitalised at the local health centre and later discharged. No permanent injury or disability was diagnosed. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended.
  2. State v Mais [2014] N5838, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty. He approached his brother, who was telling stories with other people, without warning, and cut him on the left shoulder, inflicting a deep wound, which was very painful. The victim was given medical treatment, which required the application of multiple stitches under local anaesthetic. The offender was under the influence of alcohol and offered no rational explanation for attacking his brother. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
  3. State v Duma [2014] N5643, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to his neighbour. The victim was at his house, cooking, with two friends when the offender, who was drunk, turned up. The offender, standing outside the front of the house, shouted obscenities at the victim, who went outside to see what was happening. He was set upon by the offender, who had hidden in a dark area, and slashed on the back with a bush knife. When the victim’s two friends tried to intervene, they were chased away by two members of the offender’s family, who were assisting him to attack the victim. The victim ran away and was taken to hospital. He had suffered knife wounds to the back and arms. His back injury required 12 stitches. He was admitted to the hospital overnight and discharged the next day. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
  4. State v Justin Ipa (2008) N3439, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to slashing the victim on his face with a bush knife. The offender and the victim were at the same beer shop to purchase beer. The victim was robbed shortly after purchasing his beer. Incorrectly assuming that the offender was involved, he threw a beer bottle at the offender. The offender, who was drunk, took out a bush knife and attacked the victim. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
  5. State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239, Kandakasi, J: The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of grievous bodily harm. Armed with a bush knife he attacked his two wives. His attack was over suspicions that they were not faithful to him. He was sentenced to 7 years for each count, and the sentences were made cumulative.
  6. State v Idab [2001] PGNC 39; N2172, Kandakasi J: The offender pleaded guilty. After a group of men verbally abused his mother, he and his brothers in retaliation, sought out those responsible. When they reached the river, they found the victim and others, who they attacked with bush knives and stones. The victim was not involved in the initial incident. He sustained serious multiple knife injuries and was taken to the hospital. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. 2 years of the sentence was suspended with conditions.
  7. State v Kuman [2000] PGNC 123; N2047, Kirriwom J: The charges were grievous bodily harm with intent under s 315 and rape. I do not accept that this is a comparable case. Other than the charges being distinct, the offender in this case was a juvenile.
  8. State v Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271, Kapi DCJ: The offender pleaded guilty. He was living with his cousin. His cousin’s wife had made sexual advances towards him on a prior occasion. The offender had refused her advances. On the day of the offence, he had returned from work to discover his clothes and been thrown around. He believed that it was his cousin’s wife. Using a hand brake cable, he struck her across the face. She suffered 90% loss of vision in her left eye. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions including compensation.
  9. I found comparable cases involving random attacks where there was no justification.
  10. State v Egi [2016] N6912, Polume-Kiele J: The offender pleaded guilty. He was in the company of others who were all drunk and went to burn down a house. The victim, who was an innocent bystander, tried to stop the offender and his brother from burning the house, as the fire would spread to other homes. The offender refused to listen, swore at the victim, and in the process swung a bush knife, cutting him on the left side of his head and eye. The victim then fell to the ground unconscious and was rushed to the hospital for treatment and was subsequently discharged. The victim in this case suffered lacerations to the left side of his face and eye and loss of blood. None of these injuries was life-threatening; however, the medical reports furnished confirmed that these are permanent disabilities suffered by the victim on the left side of his face and eye. The offender was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
  11. State v Nicodemus Badui [2007] N5055: Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty. He was drunk and armed with a grass knife. He went to the victim’s house in search of another person named Eric. He was frustrated and swung the knife at the victim and his companions, causing a slight injury to one of them. He then swung the knife at the victim, and when the victim raised his hand to protect his head, the knife cut through two of his fingers and severed them from his hand. The victim also received a cut to a third finger. The victim tried to wrestle the grass knife from the offender but was unable to do so, and the offender chased him. The offender had no lawful justification or excuse. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
  12. State v Waiguma [2007] N3188, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to stabbing the victim in the arm. She approached the victim and questioned her about somethings that the victim had allegedly said. When the victim saw the knife, she pleaded with the offender to drop the knife. However, the offender proceeded to stab her in the arm. She was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
  13. In cases of random and senseless violence, where there was no reason to attack to the victim, the cases demonstrate a range between 3- and 4-years imprisonment on guilty pleas.

AOBH

  1. Ms Move for the offender submits the following comparable cases for the charge of AOBH:
  2. State v Simon (2022) Unreported decision delivered on 14 October 2022, Wawun-Kuvi AJ: The offence occurred in a domestic setting. The offender was the victim’s husband. He was convicted after a trial. He was a close protection officer during the APEC meeting. While he was in the shower getting ready for work, the victim took his vehicle keys and searched it. When he was about to leave, he could not locate his keys. As time was passing, he grew increasing agitated with the victim he persistently denied taking the keys. The victim started an argument over finances. Frustrated the offender head butted the victim and struck her with a table leg. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended, and the offender was placed on probation.
  3. State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] PGNC 527; N9385, Salika CJ: The offender was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm under section 340 of the Code. He was a Lieutenant in the Army. He arrived home from work and began questioning the victim over a TikTok video. He punched her in the face with his folded fist and burnt her on her thigh with a clothing iron. He also burnt her face, chest, and abdomen. The offender hit her twice on her forehead with the iron and head butted her. The victim was treated at the military aid post and was referred to Port Moresby General Hospital for further treatment. She sustained multiple second degree and superficial burns to her left thigh, left chin, anterior chest, and abdomen, as well as a laceration to her forehead measuring 6 cm in length and 1 cm deep exposing her skull. The offender was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and no part of the sentence was suspended.
  4. State v Russel [2021] N9295, Ganaii AJ: The offenders pleaded guilty. Their son had gone to the victim’s home and insulted the victim’s family. The next morning, the victim went to the offenders’ home enquiring as to the reasons for their son’s actions. A fight ensured. The offender Betty Russel swung a dry bamboo branch at the victim. When the victim raised his hand to protect himself, the branch struck his arm. As a result, his ulna bone was fractured. The injury left the victim with 55% functional capacity. Betty Russel was sentenced to 2 years while her husband was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Their sentences were wholly suspended, and they were placed on a good behaviour bond with orders for compensation.
  5. State v Sinowi [2001] PGNC 35; N2175, Kandakasi J: The offender pleaded guilty to assaulting her co-wife. The offender was frustrated with the victim’s continued actions of leaving her children with her following arguments between their joint husband. She used an iron and struck the offender in the arm causing the ulna bone to fracture. She was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment which was wholly suspended.
  6. I have found other comparable cases where the offender has no lawful justification for assaulting the victim.
  7. State v Pari [2015] PGNC 43; N5962, Toliken, J: The offender pleaded guilty. He and the victim were consuming alcohol. The offender became disorderly, and the victim attempted to calm him. The victim’s elbow was fractured when he blocked a pipe that the offender swung at him. He was a first-time offender. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The pre-sentence custody was deducted, and no part of the balance was suspended.
  8. State v Aiwa [2008] PGNC 321; N3330, David, J: The offender pleaded guilty to using a short metal rod to hit the victim on her right pointer finger. The victim suffered a fracture. The offender and victim were known to each other. The offender was aggrieved over the refusal of the victim to assist her recover debts or what is termed as ‘dinau mani’. The victim was a middle woman who had introduced the borrowers to the offender. The injury was sustained when the victim raised her hand to defend herself. This was the offenders first offence. The prisoner was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance of the sentence was wholly suspended with conditions including compensation.
  9. State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211, Cannings J, the offender hit the victim with a piece of wood resulting in the victim suffering from a fracture. She was angry over the victim holding her child. She endangered the child. There was no lawful justification. The victim did not want compensation. The Court said that the victim’s views must be considered. The offender was a first-time offender. The offender was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was not suspended.
  10. State v Piries [2007] PGNC 186; N4982, Cannings J: the offender went to his in-law’s house in search of a friend. He was informed that the friend was not there. He was drunk at the time. He was aggrieved by the response from his in-laws and uttered some words at them. His brother-in-law confronted him. He hit his brother-in-law with a guava stick. His sister-in-law went to her brother’s aid and was also hit with the same guava branch. His mother-in-law went to the aid of her children and was also hit with the same guava stick. The offender pleaded guilty to all three counts of assault causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to 8 months for each count. The sentence was cumulative, and the resultant sentence was 2 years. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions including compensation.
  11. The above cases demonstrate that sentences range between 14 months and 2 years depending on their seriousness.

Allocutus

  1. The offender stated in allocutus:

“I would like to say thank to Your Honour for giving me time to talk. It is my first time to stand before the Court. I want to say sorry to Your Honour, the State Lawyer, Public Solicitor Lawyer and the Corrections Officers. Sorry for breaking the Constitution. Sorry to the couple, there was no good reason. To conclude I would like to ask the Court for the mercy.”


  1. The offender appears to be genuinely remorseful for his actions. This is based on his cooperation and admissions to police and his early guilty plea: Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 on genuineness of remorse.

Culpability

  1. Generally, reasons for a person committing an offence may not exonerate or absolve criminal liability; instead, they become relevant in sentencing. Such reasons, or the absence thereof, can serve as either mitigating or aggravating factors.
  2. Here, while there is nothing to such that the offence was pre-planned or premediate, it was senseless and entirely random. Supported by the facts and accepted by the offender in his allocutus, he had no reason to attack the victims.
  3. The use of a weapon to attack an unsuspecting couple who had no issues with the offender indicates a high degree of culpability and takes his case to the higher end of the range of comparable cases.

Harm

  1. The medical report for the second victim shows that she received three interior stitches and four exterior stitches. The cut was 4 cm in length. The first victim’s small right finger was amputated.
  2. The victim impact statement demonstrates that the couple is retired and living in the village. They have some adult children who are married. They suffer physically because they rely on subsistence farming for their livelihood. They have difficulty holding on to garden tools. The injuries were to both their hands. Emotionally, they express that they have never faced such troubles and feel frustrated because they cannot help their children. They have incurred financial costs for travel to the hospital and purchasing medication.
  3. The harm caused is significant considering the age of the victims and the effects of their injuries specifically that they live in the village, and that they require their hands for their livelihood.

Antecedent

  1. The accused is 23 years old and hails from Anisa Village, Okapa, Eastern Highlands Province. He is a member of the PNG Bible Church. He is not married. He was educated up to year 9 at Ivingoi Secondary School in Okapa.
  2. His parents are deceased. He has four brothers and one sister. His brothers are single and live in the village. His sister is married.
  3. He has had no formal employment and supports himself with subsistence farming.
  4. He has no prior convictions.

Aggravating Factors

  1. I find the following to be aggravating:
    1. The offender used a weapon, grass knife to cut the victims.
    2. It was a random senseless act of violence. While counsel for the offender submits that the offender’s actions were caused by depression, the offender himself stated in allocutus that he had no reasons for committing the offence. Submissions are not evidence and there is no medical evidence before the Court to support that the offender’s actions were caused by depression. It is imperative for counsels for offenders in sentencing to assist their clients with relevant and pertinent information if they intend to submit for leniency for their clients: see The State v Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320 on information that was provided to assist in sentencing.
    3. The 1st victim’s small finger was amputated.
    4. Both offences are prevalent.

Mitigating Factors

  1. In mitigation:
    1. The offender has no prior convictions.
    2. I accept that he has expressed genuine remorse.
    3. He cooperated with police investigations and made early admissions.
    4. He pleaded guilty.

Consideration

  1. Throughout this decision, I have emphasised the sheer senselessness of the offender's actions against an innocent, unsuspecting elderly couple. They were simply going about their day, working hard to support themselves, when their lives were violently disrupted. The facts of this case call for a strong and punitive sentence. The punishment must match the seriousness of the crime and send a clear message that the community does not condone random acts of violence. As discussed earlier, the offender's conduct demands a sentence at the higher end of the range for knife attacks, given its random, vicious, and senseless nature. Applying all the matters discussed in this decision, 1 find that for the charge of causing grievous bodily harm under s 319 of the Criminal Code, the offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and for assault occasioning bodily harm under s 340(1) of the Criminal Code, the sentence is 2 years' imprisonment.

50. The next question is whether the sentences should be made cumulative or concurrent.


51. In Koribiseni v State [2022] SC2296, the Supreme Court referred to Public Prosecutor v Kerua [1985] PNGLR 85 and Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88 which state that:

  1. “where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction the sentences should be concurrent;
  2. where the offences are different in character, or in relation to different victims, the sentences should normally be cumulative;
  3. after deciding whether sentences should be concurrent or cumulative, the court must consider whether the total sentence is just and appropriate, and if it is not, the court must vary one or more sentences to get a just total (the totality principle).”

52. In Koribiseni v The State (supra), there were two different victims, and the Supreme Court noted that all the offences were committed within a relatively short period, one after the other, and during a single transaction or purpose, namely sexual abuse of pupils. The Court found that it was an error to have sentenced the accused to a cumulative sentence. His sentence was subsequently made concurrent.


53. Here, this case involves two separate victims. However, the circumstances of the case show that the offences were committed during a single transaction and as such the sentences are made concurrent. The offender shall serve 4 years imprisonment.


54. There is nothing before me to suggest that the sentence of 4 years would be crushing on the offender. A sentence of 4 years is appropriate given the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the general sentencing trend.


55. The offender has been in custody since 18 September 2024, which makes his pre-sentence detention period 1 year, 3 weeks, and 5 days. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, that period is deducted and the offender shall serve 2 years, 11 months and 2 days.


56. The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended.


57. The State takes no position on suspension, only submitting that if suspension is considered, there should be orders for compensation because the first victim suffered a loss of his right small finger.


58. Counsel for the offender makes no submission for suspension. She contends that the Court consider time spent in custody as sufficient punishment for the offender.


59. I have given thought to the relevant principles on suspension[1], and when considering suspension in violent offences, I must consider the views of the victims: see State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211 and State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723.


60. The pre-sentence report is unfavourable and opposes suspension. However, I note that the probation officer made no attempts to contact individuals in the offender’s community, citing transportation challenges. As such, it would not be appropriate to make a finding based on the probation report that the community did not have any views.


61. Applying the principles in State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91, I consider that the offender is young and has no medical issues, consequently, the sentence will not cause him any hardship; while the victims seek compensation, they also seek imprisonment in the same breath, and in any event, the offender has no means to make compensation. Finally, the seriousness of the offence and its random nature, in my mind, indicate that the offender poses a risk to the community.
62. For the foregoing reasons, suspension is not appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

63. The Orders of the Court are as follows:


  1. For count 1 on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm under s 319 of the Criminal Code the offender is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
  2. For count 2 on the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm under s 340(1) of the Criminal Code the offender is sentence to 2 years imprisonment.
  3. The sentences for count 1 and 2 are made concurrent, and the offender shall serve a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.
  4. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period of 1 year, 3 weeks and 5 days is deducted, and the offender shall serve 2 years, 11months and 2 days.
  5. The CR file and any bail file are closed.

Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: The Public Solicitor

[1] State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320, State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91, State -v- Tendi Kalio Ulio [1980] PNGLR, Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294, Gima v The State [ 2003] SC 730
State v Winston [2003] PGNC 146; N2347

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2025/393.html