Criminal Case No.23 of 2001
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
–v-
JOHN AMOS PAKOA
CoramMarum J. MBE
Ms. Miranda for the Prosecution
Mr. Hilary Toa for the Accused
SENTENCE
-GB">
The defendant pleaded not guilty to the five counts on
the 19th September 2001. And the matter was adjourned to thto the 17th
October 2001 for trial. On the trial date the public prosecutor applied to
amend Count 1 and 2, for Intentional Homicide
or wilful murder under Section
106 (b) to a lesser offence of unintentional homicide under Section 106 (a),
which carries
a maximum sentence of 20 years. Also applied to amend count 3
from Section 28 and Section 106 (b) to Section 28 and Section
106 (a). The
prosecutor withdrew Count 4 and 5 on application. The defendant pleaded
guilty to all three counts.
In summary the prisoner was married to Mrs.y Pakoa
(deceased). They had three children; Freda Pada Pakoa, George Pakoa (deceased)
and Annabelle Pakoa and all lived at Independence Park, Port Vila.
On the 27th July 2001, during independence
celebration, the prisoner and hole family went to the stal stalls at the
Independence
Park. After they all went back home. Later that night, the
prisoner and Mrs. Helly Pakoa returned to Independence Park and
drank kava
and later went back to their house just before daybreak. Soon after going
back home the prisoner then stabbed
Mrs. Helly Pakoa on her back with a
knife, she fell to the floor and was bleeding and died resulting from
bleeding from
the stabbed.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
After stabbing Mrs. Helly Pakoa he then went to
nabelle’s bed, hold her on her head, and cut her throat witt with the knife.
After stabbing Annabelle he then called George to come into the house.
George went into the house, he then stabbed him
with a knife by cutting his
throat and died later that day. The prisoner flees from their house and went
to a garden
in the Le Meridien area. There he cut off part of his penis and
also slashed his throat however, he remain alive till today.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
On the defendant statement, he was bothered very mu
the deceased fashion over theft and misuse of money;oney; using his name
for
false purposes; adultery; and restraining orders. However, what bothers him
more was the adultery action of the deceased.
In his statement, the main
reason why he decided to kill them all, that is the family, is that he did
not want the children
to remain alive and to suffer upon the problems of
their mother. The reason is against the law.
In mitigation Doctor Robert Frank, a general practitioner
alled to give evidence, in my view to give evidence on the the state
of
mind of the accused. Even though not a specialized psychiatric doctor, he
treats also psychiatric patient, and about
1% of his patient are
psychiatric. This is very low. There were three reports that the doctor did
with findings. I accept
the first report dated 8th August 2001
where the doctor found no evidence of psychosis or severe mental disorders.
This was enough to satisfy me
that the prisoner was sound knowledge of what
he did on that day pursuant to Section 20 (1) of the Penal Code which
states: -
“Every person accused of criminal offence shall be
presume sane until ttil the contrary is proved; the burden of such prove shall
be
upon the accused on the balance of probabilities.”
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The law is much interested in state of mind of th prisoner prior and before committing the offence and notd not after, for the
provision of Section 20 to come into play. No evidence or history of mental
disorder of the prisoner. The pleading of
guilty to the lesser offence than
that he was charge for, also removes the s.20 requirement.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
His sign statement is self-explanatory explaining his
reason to kill them ald executed it on that day. day.
The offence under Section 106 (a) carries a maximum
penalty of 20 yeas. This is not a minimum penalty that the Court will always
impose, but reserve for subsequent offenders. The defendant is only a first
offender, however, executed two deaths at
once and quite serious, including
attempted homicide.
Domestic violence involves two parties. A this case
mainly between married couples as the most most. Mrs. Pakoa is dead and
her side
of stories cannot be told while the prisoner statement was that she was the
cause of him taking this cause.
Again the law does not accept such excuse,
rather protect both parties, for them to settle the matter. That’s why the
chiefs and churches leaders relatives and other responsible leaders must
take active role if and when they are aware of problems
being put to them,
to see that it is settled one way or the other before patient runs out from
one party or both parties
and result to violence. On the other hand, it’s
the married couple to live an honest way of married life. The statement by
the prisoner is that he already paid bride price and the deceased was his
wife and he is her husband and nobody else.
On such statements custom,
churches and the law all recognize custom marriages. However, the law does
not allow the prisoner
to cause injuries to her or to take away her life.
This was a tragic event calculated from a very greedy and
jealous person. In jealously guarhis wife, went beyond the lthe limit
by
killing her. He had no sense of respect to life of a human being. The most
tragic killing is when he killed George
and attempted to kill Annabelle not
parties to their marital differences. For the prisoner, as head of the
family unit,
guardian, and providing security to the family, the wife and
children looked to him for protection. To abuse it, sends message
of fear,
mainly within the children minds of the tragic event of the 28th
July 2001.
This is a serious case, as the general publics too have
raise concern about the prisoner’s attitude. There were public outcries
over
the manner of killing. The Court is the peoples’ Court and the Court must
also take heed of the general public concern.
The type of sentence must also
be seen of restoring some confidence in the family unity and the general
public at large
in Vanuatu. In sentencing you I have taken into
consideration the period spent in custody and the doctors report. In your
case there are no other form of suitable penalty that I can impose to match
the crime you committed, but to impose a severe
custodial sentence as a
punishment. Furthermore, the sentence that I will impose will be in no way
near compensating
the death of Helly and George. The only way to compensate
them is to give them back their life, which is quite impossible.
I therefore
impose the following sentences:-
Count 1 - &&nsp;; Ysp areucore conviconvicted and sentenced to seven years six months
imprisonment.
-GB"> 
Count 2 - &&nsp;; Ysp areuconvicted ated and sentenced to seven years six months
man">.
For Count 1 and 2 you shall serve your sentence cumulatively, which you will
serve Count 1 first and when you finish you
will then start serving Count 2.
That is you will serve a total of fifteen years
imnment altogether.
p class="MsoBoMsoBodyTextIndent" style="margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Count 3 - &nnbsp; &nsp; Yo areiconv anedsentencedenced to four years imprisonment
to
an">
be sebe served concurrently.
That is you
are
to serve the four years together with the above sentence of fifteen years.
You have a right to appeal the sentences imposed.
Dated at Port Vila, this 11th day of
ry 2002.
>
R. MARUM MBE
JUDGE.
