Lahui, Hetau, Noho and Eki, The State v [1992] PNGLR 325 (3 August 1992)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1992

[1992] PNGLR 325 - State v Tau Ted Lahui, George Gadiva Hetau, Maraki Pati Noho and Jeffrey Airi Eki 

[1992] PNGLR 325

N1111

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

THE STATE

V

TAU TED LAHUI,

GEORGE GADIVA HETAU,

MARAKI PATI NOHO, ALL OF BARAKAU VILLAGE, CENTRAL PROVINCE, AND JEFFERY AIRI EKI OF KIVORI POE VILLAGE

Waigani

Hinchliffe J

3 August 1992

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Victim dragged behind a stolen motor vehicle - Section 300(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code - Sentencing - Considerations determining severity.

Facts

The accuseds pleaded "not guilty" to the murder of one Theresa Mitchell Lutschini. The victim had parked her car at a shopping centre. After completing her shopping, she got back into the car and, as she was about to leave, the accuseds forced her out of the car. She went to help her mother and children, who were also in the car, but whilst doing that she became entangled in a car seat belt. The accused driver drove off dragging the victim, who was still entangled in the seat belt. She was dragged for 3 kilometers and died from severe head injuries. Two of the accuseds denied they were present. The other 2 accuseds admitted to being in the car at the time, but they denied that they knew the victim was being dragged behind the car.

Held

1.       The trial judge was satisfied that the 4 accuseds were in the car and that they knew the victim was being dragged.

2.       Their actions amounted to murder because death was caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose and of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life.

Counsel

B Takin, for Tau Ted Lahui and Jeffrey Airi Eki.

R Vaea, for George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho.

M Unagui, for the State.

3 August 1992

HINCHLIFFE J: The 4 accuseds have pleaded not guilty to a charge that on 26 October 1991 they did murder one Theresa Mitchell Lutschini.

At the commencement of the trial on 17 June 1992, the prosecutor outlined the alleged facts as follows:

"On the 26 October last year between 10.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. the deceased Theresa Mitchell Lutschini drove her motor vehicle, a blue Toyota Starlet registered number AGD.041 to the Hohola shopping centre. She parked her car in front of the Regal Bakery. In her car were her mother, Lilly Avenall, and the deceased's two children Stephen, aged two and a half years, and Ajesha, aged fourteen months. Stephen was in the back seat and the other child was with her grandmother.

After completing her shopping the deceased returned to her motor vehicle. She got into the vehicle, fastened the seat belt and closed the door and was in the process of starting the vehicle when the accused ran to the car with the intention of stealing it. The accused Tau Ted Lahui opened the door on the driver's side. Two others ran to the other side to the front passenger door where Lilly Avenall was seated. Tau Ted Lahui said "hurry up" and he then forced his way into the car and sat on top of the deceased's lap and he then took the key from the ignition. The deceased struggled and managed to alight from the motor vehicle. She then ran to the other side of the vehicle and tried to help her mother unbuckle her seatbelt. The two other men were struggling with Lilly Avenall. One climbed over Mrs Avenall to the back seat and unlocked the back doors.

The four accuseds and one other (who is still at large) all got into the vehicle. When they closed the door to the front passenger side, part of the seat belt was left hanging outside. At the time both Lilly Avenall and the deceased's hands were caught-up in the seat belt. Tau Ted Lahui then reversed the motor vehicle from its parked position and then drove forward. Both the deceased and Lilly Avenall were dragged onto the road because of the seatbelt.

At some stage Lilly Avenall became untangled and fell away, but the deceased remained entangled and was dragged through various streets of Hohola for a distance of three kilometres.

A post mortem report on the 29 October 1991 revealed fracture and evulsion of the left side of the skull with damage to half of the brain. There were multiple lacerations over all of the body. The deceased was twenty eight weeks pregnant at the time of death. The actual cause of death was brain injury and multiple lacerations over the body."

The State indicated that it was relying on section 300(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code which provides:

"300.   Murder

1)       Subject to the surrounding 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; or

(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;

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."

The defence case was that Tau Ted Lahui and Jeffery Airi Eki admitted to being involved in the taking of the motor vehicle by force, but submissions were made that, at the most, they could only be convicted of manslaughter.

George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho denied any involvement in the crime, and they gave evidence that they were in their village - named Barakau - at the relevant time. Their mothers and another witness gave sworn evidence to support their defence.

First of all, I shall deal with Tau Ted Lahui and Jeffery Airi Eki. They were involved in the forceful stealing of the motor vehicle outside the Regal Bakery, Hohola. That is not disputed. It is also undisputed that they were in the motor vehicle when it was driven.

Tau Ted Lahui did not give any verbal evidence at trial, but in his record of interview (Exhibit 5), recorded on 29 October 1991, he said that he did not know that the deceased was being dragged along behind the motor vehicle.

The relevant part of the said record of interview reads as follows:

"Q.22  When you were driving around Hohola Three did you know that Theresa Mitchell was tangled to the car?

Ans.    No.

Q.23   Did you know that the body of Theresa Mitchell did become untangled from the car near St. Theresa Clinic and that she was already dead?

Ans.    No"

But then on 8 November 1991 there was a scene indication conducted between Detective Senior Constable Peter Senat and Tau Ted Lahui, and that record was tendered without objection and became Exhibit 6. Various photographs were taken at the scene indication, and they were also tendered in evidence by consent.

The record reads, inter alia, as follows:

"Q.10  Can you indicate where was the baby taken out of the car, and the first attempt to release Mrs Theresa Mitchell from the tangled seat belt.

Ans.    Yes, photo taken Satin Street opposite Eki Vaki School. Tau Ted Lahui indicating where the baby was left on the road side and the first attempt to release Theresa from the tangled seat belt of the car. Photo taken photo No. 4.

Q.11   Can you indicate the scene of the second attempt that was made on Mrs Theresa to free her from the tangled seat belt of the car.

Ans.    Yes, photo taken along Bomber Street indicating the second stop to free Mrs Theresa Mitchell from the tangled seat belt along side Hohola United Church. Tau Ted Lahui indicated. Photo taken, photo No. 5."

It is quite clear that Tau Ted Lahui co-operated in the scene indication and there has been no complaint about it. He indicated freely where efforts were made on 2 occasions to release the deceased from the seat belt. It follows, therefore, that he did know that the deceased was being dragged behind the car in which he was driving even though he denied it in the first interview. Knowing that the deceased was being dragged, he continued to drive the vehicle at high speed. In fact, she was dragged in all some 3 kilometres. That distance was confirmed when the Court went on a view of the scene. The deceased was dragged along sealed roads with rough edges and some pot holes. On the first occasion the vehicle stopped, it had already travelled a considerable distance, and the second time, even farther. When the deceased was not released after the second attempt, I am quite satisfied that Tau Ted Lahui knew that she was still entangled. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he would have known that she was still being dragged as he sped through the streets of Hohola. People in the car would have told him, he could probably have felt it in the steering and seen it for himself. People on the road were screaming at him to stop. To believe him when he says that he did not know that the deceased was being dragged would, on my part, be parting company with reality. Therefore, I must go back again to the said s 300(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Clearly, death was caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose. The unlawful purpose was the undisputed stealing with force of the motor vehicle and driving off in it. Was the act "of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life?" To my mind, the answer must be yes. To knowingly drag a human being along behind a motor vehicle at high speed for 3 kilometres on sealed roads with rough edges and pot holes is an act which is likely to endanger human life. To think otherwise would be quite unrealistic.

It follows then that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Tau Ted Lahui is guilty of the murder of Theresa Mitchell Lutschini on 26 October 1991.

Now to Jeffery Airi Eki. He also elected not to give any evidence at the trial. His record of interview, dated 31 October 1991, was tendered by consent and marked Exhibit 8 (the pidgin version) and Exhibit 9 (the English version).

Part of the record of interview reads as follows:

"Q.32  What route did you take when you drove off the car you took from the woman.

Ans.    We drove to Eki Vaki Community School, and we tried to drop the small boy who was in the car. When I opened the rear left door to drop the small boy, there I realized the woman was trapped by the left seat belt. She was dragged along with us to Eki Vaki School. Tried to release her from the seat belt, but it was very hard, as I was trying to loose the seat belt from her hand. I saw the public were throwing the stones and running after us. I tried my very best to release her hand from the seat belt, but I could not, and when I noticed that the public were coming closer to us, I hopped in the car, closed the door and drove off with the woman who was still trapped by the seat belt.

Q.33   Was the woman still alive when you first made an attempt to release the seat belt from her?

Ans.    We drove past Admin Hostel, and to Spring Garden Road and turned into Second Street. We stopped again and I opened the door and made the second attempt to release the trapped seat belt from the woman's hand. By this time I saw the woman was unconscious and she was bleeding very heavily. I tried my very best to remove the seat belt from her but without success. We were also chased by two trucks, so we again hopped in the car, closed the door with the woman still trapped by the seat belt, around Hohola No. 3 and back to Kunai Street, Hohola 1, up towards St. Theresa's hospital and along Hibiscus Street. While the car was still running, I opened the door and pulled from the seat belt, and it came out from her. I closed the door and we drove off towards Wards Road and later ended up at Gordons Industrial area....

Q.43   When you stopped at Eki Vaki school to drop off the victim's son, you realized the victim was trapped by the seat belt, and she was dragged to that distance, why didn't you leave the car and run away in order to save her life rather than you knew that she was still trapped and drove off with her and she eventually met her death.

Ans.    My intention was to save her life by releasing the seat belt loose of her hand but as I was attempting to do so we were chased by the public that is why we drove her around and she later died."

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Jeffery Airi Eki was fully aware that the deceased was being dragged behind the motor vehicle. Indeed, he admits it quite openly in his record of interview. He made 2 unsuccessful attempts to release her. On the first occasion, the deceased was still alive, but even so the accused decided to allow her to be dragged further because he was trying to avoid being apprehended by the public. On the second attempt to release the deceased, she obviously was seriously injured at that time. She was unconscious and bleeding heavily. Still, the accused let her be dragged further eventually to her death. She was dragged for 3 kilometres before eventually being released.

It seems that she was bleeding heavily and unconscious after being dragged several hundred metres. Jeffery Airi Eki saw her condition at that time, so it only stands to reason that he would have realized what state she would be in after being dragged 3 kilometres. He, like Tau Ted Lahui, knew that the deceased was being dragged at high speed on sealed roads with rough edges and pot-holes. He would clearly have known that it was likely to have endangered her life. He did not in anyway disassociate himself from the act that caused the death of Theresa Mitchell Lutschini. I am, therefore, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Jeffery Airi Eki is also guilty of the murder of the deceased.

George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho gave sworn evidence and denied that they were involved in the crime committed on 26 October 1991. They both swore that they were at Barakau Village on the day and did not go away from the village. On that day, the Court was told, there was a football grand final and Maraki Pati Noho was captain of one of the teams. George Gadiva Hetau said that he had been at a religious gathering all night up on the hill near the village and that it ended with a dawn service. He then went home, had some sleep and then went to support the team that Maraki Pati Noho captained. The State called very strong evidence to prove that the two accused were not telling the truth. The State contended that the both accused were with Jeffery Airi Eki and Tau Ted Lahui at the time and that they were passengers in the motor vehicle that dragged the deceased to her death. The State submitted that they were equally as guilty as the other two accused.

Lilly Avenall, the mother of the deceased, gave evidence in court and seated in court, as one of the people involved in the crime. Previously, on 14 November 1991, Mrs Avenall had identified both Maraki and George Gadiva Hetau at an identification parade at Boroko police station. That was only 19 days after the event. Obviously her recollection would have been clearer and fresher at that time.

During the course of the trial, there was criticism from the defence in relation to the conduct of the identification parades. At the parades, Maraki Pati Noho and George Gadiva Hetau were identified by 3 of the 4 witnesses who took part in the parade. They being Lilly Avenall, Janet Lahui, and Kulu Gavu.

I found Lilly Avenall to be a very honest witness who presented well in the witness box. She was not questioned in cross-examination about any irregularities regarding the identification parades. The fact that she only identified Maraki Pati Noho in court and not George Gadiva Hetau, to my mind, is not all that significant. What is important, though, is that she did identify both accused at the parades less than 3 weeks after the event. The courtroom tension and pressure would not have been easy for Mrs Avenall, who is an elderly woman. Also, it must not be forgotten that the trial commenced some 8 months after the death. Under the circumstances at the time of trial, I am of the view that the fact that she did not identify George Gadiva Hetau in court does not take anything from her identification of him at the identification parade. I am satisfied that she was not directed by a police officer as to who to identify and, in fact, I am satisfied that the identification parades were conducted fairly and properly. To suggest that Mrs Avenall was dishonest in her identification of the both accused, to my mind, is totally unfounded. After all, Chief Inspector Mark Kanawi conducted the said parades, and I was very impressed with him as a witness. He asked both accused whether they had any complaints after being identified, and both indicated that they had no complaints. That evidence was not contested at trial. Therefore, I am satisfied that both accused did not complain at the time about the conduct of the identification parade. It was only at trial that they alleged misconduct on the part of the people involved in the parade. It is clear to my mind that it is recent invention on the part of both accuseds and I am well satisfied that the identification parades were conducted fairly and properly.

Janet Lahui identified George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho at the identification parades at the Boroko police station, but was unable to identify them in court. To my mind, she identified properly and carefully at the Boroko police station but for some reason she was not happy in court. I felt she may well have been afraid to identify the 2 accused in court and refrained from doing so. I am unable to give much weight to her courtroom evidence as I am satisfied that she was not telling the truth. I am satisfied in relation to her identification of the accused at the police station as 2 of the people she saw get out of the car at F.T. Wimble in the Gordon industrial area on the morning of 26 October 1991. The occupants of that car then took a tipper truck from the yard.

Kulu Gavu also gave evidence for the State. He was also at F.T. Wimble on the morning of 26 October 1991 and he also saw the 4 accused arrive in a motor vehicle and they then joined him in the tipper truck on a journey around parts of Port Moresby.

Kulu Gavu was able to identify all 4 accused in court as being the same four who took the tipper truck. He had ample time to observe the 4. It certainly was not a "fleeting glance". He was sure about what and who he saw. He gave his evidence with confidence and clarity, and I found him to be a good witness who was telling the truth. He said 2 of the accused got off at Jim Trading, and I am satisfied by later evidence that that place is where people get public transport to Barakau Village. As indicated earlier, Kulu Gavu also identified George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho at the identification parades, and I am also satisfied that he was telling the truth when he indicated that the parades were conducted properly.

I can only repeat that this witness was able to get a very good look at the 4 accused as they got out of the small blue car and then into the tipper truck. He was in the cabin of the truck with George Gadiva Hetau and Tau Ted Lahui and he could also see that Jeffery Airi Eki and Maraki Pati Noho were in the back. He had even more time to observe because he was not driving the tipper truck. It was being driven by Tau Ted Lahui, who the witness had known in the past. I am quite satisfied from the evidence of this witness that he correctly saw the 4 accused alight from the small blue motor vehicle and climb into and steal the tipper truck.

To strengthen the State's case even further, evidence was given that fingerprints of George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho were found on the stolen blue car that dragged the deceased. Much examination in chief and cross-examination was carried in relation to the fingerprint witnesses. I say from the outset that I found the fingerprint witnesses to have presented their evidence very professionally. They are definitely well experienced and experts in their field. Their evidence was well prepared and thorough. They were not shifted in cross-examination, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the prints found on the motor vehicle were those of George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho.

It is quite clear from what I have now said that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho were, in fact, involved in the incident at Hohola on 26 October 1991. Needless to say, I will make observations of the defence evidence.

George Gadiva Hetau swore that he was at a religious gathering and dawn service in the early hours of 26 October, and as soon as the service had finished he went home to sleep. He called his mother to support his story. I must say that I was surprised that he did not call anyone who was in attendance at the service to support him. An obvious choice would have been Moses Madu, the youth chairman, who was present at the service.

His mother gave evidence to the effect that she was at home when he came back from the service and went to sleep. But as the evidence went, it would seem that she did not wake up that morning until some time between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. It was after waking up and sometime later that George Gadiva Hetau arrived at the home. It is quite possible, therefore, that he could have got public transport at Jim Trading at about 10.00 a.m. or so, and been back in his home at Barakau by 11.00 a.m. Otherwise, the question must be asked as to why he was up until 11.00 a.m. The dawn service was well and truly finished at that time. The Court took a view and discovered that the trip from Jim Trading to Barakau takes about 35 minutes and is a distance of about 21 miles.

George Gadiva Hetau's mother, Mune Gou, did not impress me as a good witness. She contradicted herself on a number of occasions about conversations she had with her son on the morning of 26 October and also as to seeing all 4 accused, but then she said she saw only 2. She also said that there was a party after the grandfinal, but that was denied by other defence witnesses.

Maraki said he woke up in the village at 7.00 a.m. because there was a big clock in his home. Later on, his mother said there was not a clock in the home and there never had been one.

He said he and others finished clearing the rugby field about 9.30 or 9.45. George Gadiva Hetau's mother said she saw Maraki Pati Noho cleaning the field, but that could not be so because it seems to me that at that time, on her own evidence, she would still have been sleeping.

Maraki Pati Noho said George Gadiva Hetau arrived at the football meeting on the said morning at 11.10 a.m. But it is clear to me that that could not be so if I was to accept the times as given by George Gadiva Hetau and his mother.

Maraki Pati Noho also gave evidence of his movements on the Saturday morning, and he never mentioned that he went to Gewa Dawa's home and received instructions re cleaning the rugby field. Gewa Dawa, the chairman of Waema Club, gave evidence that he saw Maraki Pati Noho when Maraki Pati Noho came to his home early on the morning of 26 October. I found that part of the evidence to be very suspicious.

Maraki Pati Noho's mother Mauri Sere, also gave evidence to support her son. I found her to be a very unconvincing witness. She would have the court believe that, although there was a football grandfinal on that day, her son did not tell her that his team won the final. She, in fact, did not know who won the grandfinal. I find that impossible to believe. Of course, her son was also the captain of the winning team. Her credibility was severely damaged when answering those questions about the grandfinal. I have taken almost no notice at all of this witness. She was not being honest, and I find it quite impossible to sort out the truth from the lies.

Gewa Dawa, as previously mentioned, also gave evidence and he also, I am satisfied, was not a witness of truth. Because of my previous findings he could not have spoken to Maraki Pati Noho at about 9.00 a.m. or earlier on 26 October and, therefore, whatever he said in court was not convincing. He may well have seen Maraki at a meeting at around 11.00 a.m. Maraki would have had time to return to the village by then. But because I am satisfied that he was purposely telling untruths about happenings before 11.00 a.m., I am not in a position to take any of his evidence seriously. To a great extent, I ignore his evidence.

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Maraki Pati Noho and George Gadiva Hetau were passengers in the motor vehicle which dragged the deceased to her death on the morning of 26 October 1991. I am satisfied that they were aware of the body being dragged behind the car and would have known that the act would be likely to endanger human life. They did nothing to prevent the act from happening, and they did not disassociate themselves from the crime. They remained in the motor vehicle, even though it stopped twice, whilst it dragged the deceased 3 kilometres at high speed over a sealed road which had rough edges and pot holes. After the body was eventually released, they remained in the motor vehicle and subsequently stole a tipper truck and then returned to their village.

I am satisfied that their role in the crime was no different to that of the other 2 accused and I, therefore, find them also guilty of the murder of Theresa Mitchell Lutschini.

Murder is one of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code and it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Your lawyers have submitted that I should not consider life imprisonment but to consider a lesser term. Mr Takin suggested a period of eight to twelve years imprisonment in relation to George Gadiva Hetau and Maraki Pati Noho. The State Prosecutor, Mr Unagui, submitted that I should consider a sentence beyond that suggested by Mr Takin.

I was asked to treat you as young men and that three of you have no prior convictions. Tau Ted Lahui you have two prior convictions: 1980 Unlawful use of a motor vehicle - sentenced to three months imprisonment in hard labour. 1987 - Robbery, two years good behaviour bond.

To my mind Jeffrey Airi Eki is the only one who might just fall into the "young first offender" category. You are nineteen years old. Tau Ted Lahui you are thirty two years, George Gadiva Hetau - twenty three years and Maraki Pati Noho - twenty one years. Certainly you latter three could in no way be described as young offenders.

Needless to say I am of the view that when such an horrific crime as this occurs it makes little difference whether the accused is a first offender or not. Certainly none of you are of the age to whom the Court sometimes gives special consideration. Those people are usually about sixteen years old or younger.

I have also been asked to consider that you voluntarily surrendered. I do take note of that but I also note that you came to this Court and pleaded "not guilty" to the charge and therefore a lengthy trial needed to be conducted. Because of your "not guilty" pleas witnesses needed to be called and the one of course who stands in my mind is Mrs Lilly Avenell, the mother of the deceased. She had to re-live the tragic event, this time in a court room before many people. That must have been extremely difficult for her as apart from the fact that she is the mother of the deceased, she is also an elderly lady.

Two of you, George Gadiva and Maraki, also went into the witness box and gave sworn evidence. You swore on the Bible to tell the truth. You did not tell the truth and by doing that you committed a further criminal offence - perjury. At least two of your alibi witnesses also told lies on oath they being Maraki's mother Mauri Sere and also the Chairman of the football club Gewa Dawa. I have no doubt that the State will look into the matter and consider whether perjury charges should be laid. I urge it to do so.

Mr Vai asked me to consider that you Tau Ted Lahui and Jeffery Airi Eki had been brought up in an environment infested with gangs and rascals and you only had a limited education. He said that the court should be lenient towards unfortunate people. But what he forgot to tell me was that there are thousands of people around the country who grow up in a similar environment and only a handful of those people end up as criminals. Indeed many of them go on and do very well for themselves, whether it be in the private or public sector. Jeffrey Airi Eki, I heard you address the Court from the dock on Friday and you appear to me to be an intelligent person with a very good grasp of the English language. I would not describe you as an "unfortunate person" at all.

Mr Takin also said that I should be lenient because whereas in many crimes weapons are used, in this crime that was not the case. I don't know if I can agree with him on that point. I am of the view that the way in which that motor vehicle was used on the 26 October last year was equally as bad as the use of a firearm or a knife or the like.

Strongly against you of course is the fact that a person has been murdered in horrific circumstances. What you did was brutal and cowardly. I have no doubt whatsoever that Mrs Lutschini suffered terribly and died in agony and pain. I can only hope for her sake that it did not take too long. It seems to me that you had a choice - to release Mrs Lutschini and risk being captured or to only release her when your freedom was assured. You chose the latter, and Mrs Lutschini died.

It was also put to me that if the public had not pursued the motor vehicle then Mrs Lutschini would have been released quickly and would be alive today. I find that submission to be quite unrealistic. It was quite normal for the public to react in the way it did. People were clearly shocked, concerned and angered by what they saw. If they had not reacted in that way I would have been quite surprised. The four of you would have clearly understood the public reaction but you only thought of yourselves.

Your actions at the time not only left a nation in shock but you have also ruined a family. A man has been left widowed with two young children whilst the rest of the family has lost a loved one many years before it was time for her to go. That family will never be the same again. Sorrow will be with them for the rest of their lives. Two young children will grow up without a mother.

Whilst I have spoken of the deceased's family I should mention your own families. Clearly they would also be shocked and sorrowed by what has happened. I am of the view that the people of Barakau Village should be commended for the way in which they assisted the police in their investigations and thereby assuring that justice be done. The police should also be commended for their thorough investigation.

I have taken into account everything that has been said in Court by you Jeffrey Airi Eki and the three lawyers. There is no doubt that the facts relating to this murder are horrifying. It falls into the category of the worst type of murder.

You all showed absolute disrespect for human life. Once again this Court has seen the after effects of alcohol abuse.

I have considered very carefully the matter of sentence over the week-end and I have come to the conclusion that the maximum penalty is appropriate in this case. I make the following order:

The four of you are convicted of the murder of Theresa Mitchell Lutschini and sentenced to life imprisonment in hard labour.

Lawyers for the defendants: Public Solicitor.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor.

<