State v Akus [2025] PGNC 481; N11626 (3 December 2025)

N11626

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1473 OF 2025

THE STATE

V

JANN AKUS

WABAG: ELLIS J
3 DECEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – WILFUL MURDER - s. 299(1) CCA – Plea – Offender struck victim with bush knife on the head, arm and leg – prior affair between victim and offender’s wife – offender’s house burnt down – 15 years IHL.

Brief facts

While the offender was living in Port Moresby, the victim had an affair with the offender’s wife. That affair, which resulted in the birth of a child, was considered by a Village Court. On 7 July 2025, the offender saw his wife in the victim’s house and they had an argument. After the offender and the victim exchanged words, the offender struck the unarmed victim with a bush knife.

Held
Admissions in record of interview
Guilty plea indicated prior to trial
First offender
Protection of human life
Prevalence of offence
Kovi, category 2 suggested 20 to 30 years
De facto provocation
Offender’s house burnt down
Reduction to 15 years’ IHL considered appropriate
Period on remand deducted
Balance to be served

Cases cited
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Marangi v The State (2003) SC703

Counsel
P. Tengdui, for the State
Jann Akus, the offender, in person

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Jann Akus of Yalemanda village, in Tsak Valley within Wapenamanda District in Enga Province, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of wilful murder, based on section 299(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1974.
   
2. In the CCA, s 299(1) provides as follows:

“ Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder”.

Procedure

3. As the offender was not legally represented, the procedure was explained to him on the day prior to the hearing and, during the hearing, each step was explained to the offender.
   

Allocutus

4. Since the uncontested evidence upon which the State relied supported a conviction, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions. What he said, as translated into English, was:

I have violated one of the commandments of God and I say sorry to God. Secondly, I also violated the Constitution of this country, and I say sorry to the State. And I also say sorry to this Court. Next, I would say sorry to the deceased, but I would like to explain first and then say sorry.

I was in Moresby in 2023. While I was away the deceased had an affair with my wife and they had a child. And I returned home in 2024. I brought that issue before the public and I forgave him for what he did. After all, she is still my wife, and we have children from me. I did confess or forgive him in public.

However, he came and attacked me, and I brought that before the Village Court. And he was ordered to pay K800 to me and another K200 as court fine.

That was the discretion that the Village Court can use. If there be higher power, they can impose more.

Prior to that there was a mediation. During that mediation, he was to compensate me, but I then told them that I would forgive them for what they did. The order against him was from the Village Court but I was not asking him to compensate me according to that order. And I forgot about that.

After one year and one month at home, this year on 7 July. I had an argument with my wife. Prior to that I saw my wife sitting in the house of the deceased. And I told her to come out of that house. That was heard by the deceased. I was actually talking to my wife, asking her to come out of that house. There were a lot of people around. The deceased was with somebody, and he came to attack me. I have done the wrong thing already. He came to attack me, and I swung my bush knife at him because he came to attack me.

I say sorry to his family members, his relatives. I also say sorry to my own family members. My wife had three children. They are all underage: 12, 8, and 5. They burnt my house and they are displaced somewhere else and I say sorry to them. The problem started in the family setting. On this earth, nobody is perfect. Everybody commits a sin. I am asking this court to have leniency on me.

Evidence for the State

5. The evidence placed before the Court by the State was the Police brief being pages numbered 5 to 37 (Exhibit A). Those pages included (1) three statements, in Pidgin and English, from eyewitnesses, (2) an autopsy report, affidavit and death certificate from a doctor, (3) statements from an interpreter and the Police officer who was the investigator for this matter, (4) a record of interview, in Pidgin and English, (5) photos of both the deceased and the crime scene, and (9) a sketch diagram. A copy of the Antecedent Report was also admitted, as Exhibit B.
   

Evidence for the defence

6. The offender did not seek to rely on any evidence.
   

Submissions for the State

7. It was contended that this case fell within what was described as Category 2 in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (Kovi), for which the suggested sentencing range is imprisonment with hard labour for 20 to 30 years.
   
8. As to aggravating factors, it was noted that a bush knife was used to inflict multiple blows, the most significant being a blow to the head of the victim. Mitigating factors were noted as (1) the offender acting alone, (2) the plea of guilty, (3) de facto provocation, (4) the offender’s house being burnt down, and (5) the offender having no prior convictions.
   

Relevant law

9. In Kovi, in which the Supreme Court specified sentencing ranges for the offence of wilful murder, under the following four categories:
   

Category 1 15-20 years

Plea No weapons used.

Ordinary cases. Little or no pre-planning.

Mitigating factors with Minimum force used

no aggravating factors. Absence of strong intent to do GBH.

Category 2 20-30 years

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Mitigating factors with Weapons used.

Aggravating factors. Strong desire to kill.

Category 3 Life imprisonment

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Special aggravating factors. Strong desire to do kill.

Mitigating factors reduced in Dangerous or offensive weapon used

weight or rendered insignificant eg. gun or axe.

by gravity of offence. Other offences of violence committed.

Category 4 Death

Worst case - Trial or plea Pre-meditated attack.

Special aggravating factors. Brutal killing, in cold blood.

Killing of innocent, harmless person.

Killing in the course of committing another serious offence.

Findings of fact

10. From the evidence, and having regard to the submissions, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
    

(1) Prior to 7 July 2025, the victim had an affair with the wife of the offender, while he was living in Port Moresby, and that affair resulted in the birth of a child, which affair was considered and determined by a Village Court.

(2) On 7 July 2025, the offender, who was armed with a bush knife, had an argument with his wife when he saw her in the house of the victim.

(3) Subsequently, the offender and the victim exchanged words: the offender alleging that the victim was having an affair with his wife; the victim denying that.

(4) The offender then struck the victim on the head, arm and leg with a bush knife.

(5) At that time, the victim was not armed and was not either threatening or attacking the offender.

(6) From the number of blows and the location of those blows, notably a severe blow to the head with a bush knife, it is a reasonable inference that the offender intended to kill the victim.

(7) Support for that view is found in the photos accompanying the medical report, which showed what the doctor described as “an extensive chop wound to the left tempo parietal scalp”.

(8) That attack was such as to case one of the eyewitnesses to faint.

(9) The victim died at the scene.

(10) Subsequently, the offender’s house was burnt down.

(11) When interviewed by the police, the offender admitted that he struck and killed the victim with a bush knife.

11. It is convenient to here note that there were suggestions by the offender, in the record of interview, that the victim attacked him first (A24), but that is contradicted by multiple eyewitnesses. He also referred to a previous incident in which he alleged the offender struck him (A27), but that does not provide a defence to the charge. The offender also said (A27): “... thinking that he will kill me, so I killed him”. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that the victim was going to attack, much less kill, the offender.
    
12. In those circumstances, the Court was satisfied there was no defence of self-defence available to the offender, and that the suggestions contained in the answers he gave in his record of interview did not create any reasonable doubt in relation to the findings of fact set out above.
    

Consideration

13. In determining the sentence in this matter, it is necessary to:
    

(1) consider the circumstances of the offence, and

(2) the circumstances of the offender, before

(3) assessing what Kovi suggests should be the starting point, then

(4) taking into account what are the aggravating or mitigating factors.

Objective factors

14. As to the circumstances of the offence, it is clear the offender was acting alone, that the victim was unarmed, and that the offender was carrying a bush knife. While the prior affair between the victim and the offender’s wife had been dealt with by a Village Court, the offender plainly became suspicious when he saw his wife in the home of the victim.
    

Subjective factors

15. The circumstances of the offender are that he is now about 42 and has three children, aged 12, 8 and 5. He made admissions in his record of interview, entered a plea of guilty and made expressions of remorse which the Court considers to be genuine. There was provocation, by reason of the relationship between the victim and the offender’s wife, but that was not such as to provide a defence under the Criminal Code Act 1974, a situation which is commonly described in this country as de facto provocation. It is also relevant to note that the offender’s house was burnt down, and it is reasonable to regard that as having occurred in response to the offender killing the victim.
    

Application of Kovi

16. This case falls within what was referred to as category two in Kovi, because it was a vicious attack in which a bush knife was used. That suggests a sentencing range of imprisonment for between 20 and 30 years.
    

Aggravating and mitigating factors

17. In this case, the aggravating factors are (1) the use of a bush knife, and (2) the extent of the attack.
    
18. The mitigating factors are (1) the early admissions, (2) the plea of guilty, (3) the expressions of remorse, (4) the offender acting alone, (5) the offender having no prior convictions, (6) a de facto provocation situation, and (7) the offender’s house having been burnt down.
    

Sentence

19. The offender requested that he be able to serve his sentence outside prison so that he could be with his children. However, to grant that request would (1) not show sufficient respect for human life, (2) not provide any message of deterrence for what is, regrettably, a very prevalent offence.
    
20. In relation to the use of a knife, the Supreme Court made the position clear in Marangi v The State (2003) SC 703 when it was said:
    

...a lot of lives are being lost in this country from the use of a knife than with any other weapon. Therefore, a strong and punitive sentence is required.

21. While an application of Kovi would suggest a sentence of at least 20 years’ imprisonment, the Court is satisfied that (1) the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors in this case, and (2) this offender has already learned a lesson. As a result, it is considered that a lesser term of imprisonment of 15 years is both sufficient and appropriate in this case, as the circumstances provide a basis that justifies departing from the range suggested by Kovi.
    
22. For the reasons indicated above, the Court considers the appropriate term of imprisonment is 15 years. Deducting the period which the offender has spent in custody of 3 months and 1 week gives a period remaining to be served of 14 years, 8 months and 1 week.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor