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

State v Kobepen [1999] PGNC 45; N1882 (4 June 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1882

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. NO. 27 OF 1999
THE STATE
-V-
SAP JAMES KOBEPEN

Goroka

Kirriwom J
4 June 1999

Counsel

Ms R. Johnson for the State

Mr M. Apie’e for the Prisoner

SENTENCE

4 June 1999

KIRRIWOM J: You pleaded guilty to the murder of an innocent child aged three years old. On the night of 16th October 1998 about 10:30 pm you went to the premises of Victor Kopen Hapon, a school teacher at Konkua SDA Community School at Kainantu. You were armed with a bush-knife. There you called out for Kopen Hapon to open the door for you to hide as the four mile were chasing you. Kopen did not open the door for you so you kicked down the kitchen door and inside the kitchen slept John Hapon and the victim Jefinia Victor. Once inside the house some disagreement arose between you and John Hapon and you fought. You tried to cut John Hapon with your bush-knife but he held on to the knife and you both struggled. In the struggle John got cut on his hand and he released the knife.

The child Jefinia Victor was sitting on the bed. You then turned to the child and cut him once on the head and he fell to the ground and you chopped him again the second time while he was on the ground. You then turned onto John Hapon again but he had escaped through a hole and alerted the neighbours. The victim was the child of Victor Kopen Hapon.

When you were interviewed by the Police about a month after the incident you admitted cutting the victim with your bush-knife two times. You were asked to give some reason for the killing and you said you had no reason. You were asked to explain your reason for going to Konkua Community School and particularly to Victor Kopen Hapon’s premises and you said ‘Longlong kisim mi na mi go long haus bilong em.’ You then went on to explain that you were with some boys that afternoon planning to go to a dance later in the evening. At that time some marijuana was smoked with the boys. You said the smoke made you go longlong and you ran into the coffee garden. You were no longer interested in the dance but you wanted to go home. However you ended up at the Hapon’s place thinking it was your house. At the house you wanted to sleep but John Hapon talked too much and annoyed you and you fought with him and in the process you cut the victim. In your allocatus you said you drank home-brew and you came to the Hapon residence where you normally sleep but the bed was occupied by John Hapon and the child. You were told to sleep on the floor. I do not accept this story. I prefer the story you gave to the police which was given when the incident was quite fresh in you mind. It is now almost 7 months since you first gave your story to the police where you have had a lot of opportunity to improve your story.

Crime of murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There are three most common homicide cases: Wilful Murder, Murder and Manslaughter. You have pleaded guilty to the second category of homicide which involves some deliberate intent to cause harm or bodily injury. This is a worst case of murder for many reasons but the main one being that the victim was an innocent child who did not know what was going on or what had gotten into you. Here we have a 3 year old child disturbed from his sleep by an intruder into their home at an ungodly hour and swinging a bush-knife like a maniac fighting with his brother John Hapon. He is perplexed about the intrusion and the struggle and before he realises what is going to happen next he is chopped on the head and the blow throws him onto the ground and then he is chopped again on the head while he is on the floor. These facts are weighty enough to have you tried for wilful murder except that you pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of murder. But that does not take away the severity of the wrongs you did.

This Court and the Supreme Court have on countless occasions repeatedly stated that those who commit murder on innocent persons deserve no leniency and must expect the severe sentence. There are no extenuating circumstances in this case. You had no reason to be in that place in the first place. You were an intruder and you were intoxicated by drugs. Your mind was affected by drugs. But that is self-induced intoxication and you don’t get any concession for your intoxicated state and that your mind had been impaired somewhat. Intoxication is no defence in law and self-induced intoxication is not a mitigating factor.

Your personal background is very shaky and unstable. You are from Mondo village, Mendi in the Southern Highlands Province and although you said you were married, you have moved about like a drifter. Before settling in Kainantu you were in Mt. Hagen and employed as a shoemaker. You then followed some people you knew to Kainantu where you did odd jobs of mending people’s shoes on the street.

Your lawyer has urged upon me to consider your plea of guilty, young man aged 20 years and you are a first offender. But I don’t think that all these factors should have any impact at all in a serious case such as this one. I must emphasize that this poor child was an innocent victim. He had no quarrel with you. You had no relationship whatsoever with these people. These were some people you came to know and whom you regarded as friends and occasionally paid them courtesy visits. But on this particular night you were affected by drugs - marijuana; you were hallucinated by the smoke into believing that you were pursued by people who meant you harm and you escaped into the Hapons kitchen whereby you attacked John Hapon and the victim as if you were fighting your enemies. Whatever your action, there is no question about what you had in mind and you executed it with deliberate intent and precision. Consequently you abruptly ended a young life and you brought untold and unforeseen miseries on a family who may have been good to you in previous occasions.

The sentence that this Court imposes must serve not only as a punishment to you but also as a general warning to all persons who think they can take innocent lives and expect leniency irrespective of their state of mind at the time they commit crimes of violence like this one. Human life is previous and Court has a duty to severely deal with those who terminate innocent lives as if they are slaughtering animals. The parents of this child are entitled to feel relieved to some extent that the law has heard their cry and justice has been done to them.

The sentence of this Court is that you are to be imprisoned for life.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor