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

State v Reinbubu [1997] PGNC 76; N1591 (25 June 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1591

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1561 OF 1996
THE STATE
v
BRIAN REINBUBU

Wewak

Batari AJ
25 June 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Manslaughter - Mitigating factors - Plea of Guilty.

CRIMINAL LAW - Manslaughter - Spleen Killing - Range of Sentences - Consideration of - Sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

Cases Cited

Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487

Annettes Nawen Bulongal v The State (SCRA No.36 of 1994) (Unumbered) Supreme Court Judgment dated 8 May 1997

Maria Peld Pung v The State (SCR No. 56 of 1995) (Unumbered) Supreme Court Judgment dated November 1996

Samuel Sapaure v The State SCRA No 12 of 1997(Unumbered) Supreme Court Judgment

Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605

Sentence

On a plea of guilty to one count of manslaughter, the following judgment was delivered on sentence.

Counsel:

J Wala for the State

F Pitpit for the Accused

25 June 1997

BATARI AJ: Brian Reinbubu, you have pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of your wife, Margaret Reinbubu. It is now my responsibility to pass sentence on your crime.

The brief facts upon which I shall proceed for the purpose of sentencing are that, on 2 May, 1996 both you and your wife were teachers at St. Anna Community School, West Sepik Province. You were Deputy Headmaster of the school while your wife held a teaching post in Mathematics. On the evening of that day, your wife and two other female members of the school staff were waiting outside the class-rooms for transport home. You spoke briefly with them and proceeded to your classroom where a female teacher had waited. Your wife called after you and made disapproval remarks about your acquaintance with that female teacher. You returned after sometime and confronted your wife over what she had uttered in the presence of your fellow teachers. You punched and kicked her on the back and side. You also grappled her by her hair and she fell to the ground. Your wife died within hours of that attack from ruptured spleen. It is not known whether the spleen was normal or enlarged. I give you the benefit of doubt. I do however, infer both from the medical report that the injury resulted from “extreme force” applied to the deceased’s body. I note also that you were described as wearing stockman boots at the time you kicked your wife.

That is the background to what is sadly a tragic and untimely termination of a life at its prime. The deceased was 31 years old and by your senseless disregard to her well-being, you caused her life to end prematurely. You have pleaded that you will lose your teaching career if your are sent to jail for a long time. I will have regard to that fact. But I bear in mind also that your punishment will be nothing like the permanent termination of life and teaching career you inflicted on your wife.

I take into account your co-operation with the police and your plea of guilty. I accept your remorse, supported by your general good background. You have spent 11 months in custody. I will deduct that period from the head sentence I impose. I have had regard also to the fact that your wife’s open disagreement and especially in front of your professional peers may have caused you grave insult and humiliation. Her instantaneous reaction was quite natural but unfortunately at the wrong time and place. The domestic nature of her disagreement meant the place and time for discussion and resolve should be at the confines of your home and not in public. I accept also that in the circumstances, there were elements of de facto provocation which explained, rather than excuse your crime.

When I pondered your sentence, I bear in mind on the one hand, that the death of your wife was spleen-related. On the other hand, you punched and kicked her a number of times. I do not however consider that your conduct, though serious, was vicious.

In lawful killings generally, I think it is fair to say the range is from suspended sentences to six (6) years as suggested in the case of Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487. A recent Supreme Court case of Annette Nawen Bulongal v The State SCRA No 36 OF 1994 (unumbered) dated 28 May, 1997 imposed a sentence of seven (7) years for manslaughter after over-turning the conviction and sentence of ten (10) years for murder. In that case, the appellant used a tapioca stick to assault an eighteen (18) month old child of her sister-in-law. She was then her foster mother while the natural mother was expecting another child. The assault with the tapioca stick caused the child to fall back on the cement and resulted in head injuries which led to the death of the child. That case is distinguished from this case on the facts.

In Lialu’s case, (supra) the appellant punched the deceased on the head following an argument during a chance meeting. Both men had been drinking at different places. The impact caused the deceased to fall backwards onto the ground and the deceased sustained injury to his head from which he died. He was convicted of manslaughter and received a sentence of six (6) years. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to four (4) years and six (6) months. In Maria Peld Pung v The State SCR No 56 of 1995 (un-numbered) Supreme Court Judgment dated November, 1996 a sentence of eight (8) years was confirmed where the case involved a vicious attack on an unarmed unsuspecting victim. Unlike the case of Lialu (supra) where there was only a fist fight, a dangerous weapon, namely a knife was used to inflict numerous stab wounds on various parts of the victim’s body.

In Samuel Sapaure v The State SCRA No 12 of 1997 (un-numbered) Supreme Court Judgment, the appellant punched and kicked his wife before she died. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and a sentence of (4) years imposed. In dismissing the appeal against severity of sentence, the Supreme Court held:

“The range of sentences for these types of killing is between four 4 years to 6 years and we are of the view that the sentence he received is within the range for these types of killing. We will not interfere with the sentence.”

It was not apparent on the judgment of the Court whether this was a spleen case and what the nature of the injury that caused death, was.

I am guided by these cases in considering the prisoner’s sentence. In the case of Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605 and the case of Lialu (supra) and it would appear that a death caused by a single fist punch would attract sentence at the lower range whereas death caused by vicious attack or caused by use of an object would fall into the higher category of sentence.

This approach in manslaughter sentence is inherent in the recent Supreme Court cases I have cited. I have also considered sentences imposed by Judges on manslaughter killings in the last two (2) years. It is in my view fair to say, the sentences have ranged from suspended sentence to six (6) years in cases where the deceased died from ruptured spleen caused by assault. Where the victim was attacked by fists and legs several times or where the victim was literally beaten to death in that manner, a sentence in the higher bracket has been imposed.

Considering that this was a plea of guilty which followed your early admissions to the police and your open expressions of remorse and taking into account the circumstances of your crime, the appropriate penalty should be three (3) years imprisonment. I sentence you to three (3) years imprisonment with hard labour. Eleven (11) months is deducted for the time spent in custody. You are to serve two (2) years and one (1) month.

I recommend that you serve your term at the Corrective Institution at your Provincial Headquarters, being Vanimo.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: A/Public Solicitor