Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A
Saksak
Miss Cynthia Thomas - Clerk
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Counsel: Mr Willie Daniel and
Inspector Wilson Garfor Public Prosecutor
Mr Hillary Toa - for the
Defendant
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
SENTENCE
This man appeared before this
Court on a charge of intentional hde contrary to section 106( 106(1)(a) of
the Penal Code Act [CAP.135]. He pleaded guilty to the charge.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
It is charge thaor about
09.30 am on 19th February 1998 Aitip Issingboas, father of the deceased was was
told that the
Defendant had seriously injured his son. He went to find out.
On the way to a cocoa plantation called Winbebeo he saw the deceased
lying
in a pool of blood. He was bleeding heavily and was he using difficulty in
breathing. He sat beside his son and
called him but his son had died. He saw
a cut on the left jaw, a cut on the left shoulder, and that the right hand
was
completely severed from the body.
The Prosecution relied mainly
on the statement of the deceased's wife, Mrs Kwemol Maboas who says
that inat in the morning
of 19th February 1998 she accompanied the deceased to
their garden at Winbebeo. They had their two children with them. There
were
weeding in their kava garden when the Defendant and his wife came along. The
Defendant accused the deceased of damaging
crops in his garden. The deceased
admitted he was responsible for the first damage but not the second damage.
The Defendant
pressed the deceased whom he says was a big sized man and whom
he alleged was angry and took a step towards him wanting to
fight. At that
point in time the Defendant drew his knife and stashed the deceased on the
left jaw, then at the left
shoulder and the right and completely severing
it. Mrs Kwemol called out for the Defendant to stop but the continued to
attack. When he finally stopped the deceased ran towards them but they were
afraid at the sight of the attack and much blood.
They walked down to the
village the deceased on the head. He stopped three times to gain breath and
the fourth time he
fell down and failed to recover. His wife and children
continued to the village to inform relatives.
The Defendant was arrested and
made a statement under caution. mitted that it was he who awho attacked the
deceased with
a knife. His reason is that he was cross because the deceased
had damaged his yams. He told the court through Counsel that
the deceased
had damaged his crops six times before. The seventh times the Defendant
damaged six heads of yams in his
garden. The Defendant says he had reported
all this damage to the Chiefs who seem to ignore it all. Further he says he
lodged complaints with the Police at Lakatoro who made no follow-ups. He
says he did not know why the deceased continued
to destroy his crops. To the
Defendant and his family gardening is important because they live by it. He
says he was
fed up because the deceased had been destroying their garden
crops since 1997. He says no-one had ever challenged the deceased
because he
was a big-sized man who appeared to be a strong man. The Defendant blames
the Chiefs and the Police for failing
their respective responsibilities.
Mr Toa whlating the
Defendant's version of the facts give a consistent story. He says the
deceased was sitting down
when the Defendant and his wife met them at their
plantation. He says the deceased got up when the Defendant pressed him for
the second damage and took position to fight. It was the that the Defendant
took his knife and cut him. He says he completely
lost control and his mind
and attacked him wildly when he thought the deceased was going to attack
him. He said he wanted
just to defend himself and submits that the decease's
action was provocative. He says that after the attack the Defendant ran
to
tell chief Along about it all. He says he offered to perform customary
settlement and was refused the offer. He says
he would still do that given
the chance. He says he is truly and deeply sorry for what he did. The
consequences he and
his relatives face is that they have been
ex-communicated from the village indefinitely. Mr Toa urged the Court to
take
into consideration the fact that this man has a clean record with no
previous convictions. That he cooperated with the Police
during arrest and
interview. That he pleaded guilty to a charge which would otherwise have
been earthy and expensive
in trial. That the Defendant made reports to
chiefs and police and nothing eventuated to show that they had concerns.
That there was no immediate medical facility to enable immediate care and
attention of the deceased. That the Defendant has
been in custody for 7
months from 20th February 1998. That there has been a threatening message to
his and his family
that if he should return someday, he would be killed.
This murder of the worst kind. I do not accept Counsel's submission that the deceased's action was
provocative. He . He was
defenceless. There is no evidence that he had a Knife on
him to warrant the Defendant using his own knife. He ignored completely
the
deceased's wife's pleas for mercy. He knew no mercy, he knew only that he
should cause death of the deceased. He
slashed at the deceased as if he was
not a human being. He took the law in to his own hands. He is a church
elder. As
a Christian he should have learned to forgive not seven times but
seven times seventy times.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
I sentenced a man on Tanna to
10 years sonment in June 1997 for murdering his wife over an adulterulterous
affairs even
after they had performed customary peace ceremony. Comparing
this case to that, this is a more horrible one. I could not even
look at the
photographs taken of the deceased by the Police which are exhibited. It is
horrible for me and indeed any
other person.
For those reasons aking
account of all that has been said in mitigation on his behalf I feel that
the appropriate
sentence I must impose is 12 years imprisonment. I order
that the 7 months he has spent in custody be deducted from this 12
year
term. In total the Defendant has 11 years, 5 months to serve.
He may appeal if he wishes.
Dated at Luganville this 17th
of August, 1998.
BY THE COURT
OLIVER A SAKSAK
Judge of the Supreme Court
