Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Wapuri [1994] PGNC 87; N1212 (26 April 1994)

N1212

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CR: No. 35 of 1994

STATE

V

ISAAC WAPURI

Waigani: Kapi DCJ
16, 24, 25 February, 26 April 1994

Criminal Law - Criminal (Compensation) Act 1991 - Sentence - Compensation order under custom.

Held: That the accused should pay compensation to the victim having regard to the custom of the people of Kapantais Village of Angilan Clan, Laiagam, Enga Province.

P. Mogish for State
E. Kamburi for the accused

26 April 1994

The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of grievous bodily harm contrary to s 319 of the Code.

At the time of the offence, the accused was living with his cousin and his wife. Prior to the commission of this offence, accused's cousin's wife, the victim in this case made advances towards him for sexual intercourse. The accused refused to have sexual intercourse. On the 1st September 1993, when the accused returned to the house from work he found all his clothes were thrown all over the place. The accused believed that this was done by the victim because he had refused to have sexual intercourse with her. This belief was not contested by State. This angered the accused and he obtained a cable of handbrake of a motor vehicle and assaulted the victim across the face. This resulted in injuries to the left eye -a mascular tear in the left eye. Dr Peter Korombo in a medical report dated 30 September 1993 concluded the injury to the left eye "amounts to 90% of visual loss of the left eye. This is a permanent change and there is nothing further that can be done to improve the vision."

Having regard to the facts of this case and all the factors in favour of the accused, I would impose a sentence of eighteen months in hard labour. He has spent a total of five months waiting for this trial. This will be taken as part of the eighteen months term. In view of the background to this case, I consider that this is sufficient punishment and I would suspend the rest of the sentence and place the accused on good behaviour bond for a period of twelve months.

In addition to this punishment I considered the possibility of compensation as directed by Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1992. I called for a Means Assessment Report pursuant to s 4 of the Act and the factors for consideration under s 3. I have received these reports including the relevant custom regarding compensation. The Chief Probation Officer recommended that I should order compensation as the accused is capable of paying it.

Counsel for the accused obtained the custom of the people of Kapantais Village of Tangilan Clan, Laiagam in Enga Province. The evidence of custom relating to compensation was obtained from the following persons: David Lambu, Jack Wialu, John Waip, William Kili, Dick Poro, Iso Norm, Beno Tambukin and Jack Kili. The evidence of custom relating to compensation is as follows. Compensation is paid for both death of a person and injuries caused to a person. It is not necessary to deal with compensation for death. Compensation for injuries may be categorised as follows:

1. Common assault - one medium pig and K10.00.
2. Where injury result in permanent injury - five to six pigs and K300.00-K600.00.
   

Counsel obtained recent compensation payments for permanent injuries. In December 1993 a person who received a fractured jaw and has difficulty in eating received a compensation of three pigs and K200 in cash.

In January 1994, a person who received a fractured skull received one pig and K87 in cash.

Having referred to the injury received, the report of the Chief Probation Officer and custom relating to compensation for injuries, I order that compensation be paid as follows:

(1) K500 in cash

(2) Five pigs valued at about K800.

I direct that these payments be made to the victim and the payments to be made within one month. If there is default in payment, the accused will spent two months in prison in accordance with the Schedule in Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1992.

------------------------------------------

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor