N1953

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 814/99

THE STATE

-v-

STEVEN TLUKEAN

KOKOPO: Jalina, J.
2000: 11 and 13 April

Criminal Law – Sentence – Guilty Plea – Unlawful killing of wife during domestic argument - Death from loss of blood from severe injury inflicted through a kick on vaginal area. – Stiff sentences necessary as deterrence against violent husbands – Twelve (12) years appropriate sentence – Criminal Code s.302.

Cases cited:
Rex Lialu -v- The State [1990] PNGLR 487.
Jack Tanga -v- The State an unreported Supreme Court Decision dated 6 April 1999

M. Peter for the State
J. Kaumi for the Accused

13 April 2000

SENTENCE

JALINA, J. This accused has pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing his wife during a domestic argument at Teimtop Village in the Pomio District of the East New Britain Province on 23 March 1999.

Evidence from husband and wife John and Roberta Langlang shows that at about 8:30 am they heard a loud scream from inside the accused's and deceased's house and they knew that the accused was assaulting his wife (now the deceased) again. The loud cry appeared to be from someone in pain. They went to investigate and found the deceased was bleeding from a wound on the side of her vagina. The deceased was put on a boat and taken to Guma Health Centre but died that night.

The medical report shows that a very deep laceration measuring 7 cm in length and 10 cm in depth on the left side of the vagina was found. The clitoris was torn right down to her anal region. She was still bleeding profusely when she arrived at the health centre.

The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter or unlawful killing as it is sometimes called, is life imprisonment under s. 302 of the Criminal Code Act subject to the court's sentencing discretion under s. 19 of that Act.

In his statement on the allocutus he expressed remorse and sought leniency on the basis that compensation of K600.00 cash, 5 pigs, 2 kakals, 1 fathoms bis was paid and a big feast was held in the village to settle the problem with the deceased's relatives. He also sought leniency on the basis that his parents were old and were not able to care for his only child which he had from the deceased as well as his cocoa and coconuts which he needed to look after.

Manslaughter involves the taking of the life of a human being which is very serious even though the circumstances of its commission may be unintentional. It is very serious because a life once lost cannot be restored and punishment that is imposed must fit the crime taking into account the circumstances in which it was committed. (see Rex Lialu -v- The State [1990] PNGLR 487).

Sentences for manslaughter have ranged from 6 to 10 years depending on the circumstances the offence was committed and the mitigating factors that may be put to the court on behalf of an accused person.

Last year in Jack Tanga -v- The State an unreported Supreme Court Decision dated 6 April 1999 the Supreme Court in which I was a member, upheld a sentence of 12 years imposed on the appellant who caused the death of his wife by repeatedly assaulting her. It said at p3:

"The sentence in any given case will of course depend on its own peculiar facts. We are unable to prescribe any particular range of sentences for this offence as it is all too difficult to fix any range of sentences with some degree of precision. However, we should suggest that in an unintentional killing case which is uncontested, whatever the extenuating and mitigating circumstances may be, the application of vicious force, with or without the use of a weapon, causing serious bodily injury resulting in death may attract sentences between 10 years and above and in some cases, even life imprisonment. Such stern punishment should reflect the seriousness and prevalence of this offence throughout the country which this Court and the National Court has emphasised time and time again".

The Supreme Court also endorsed the warning given by the trial judge in relation to death from domestic violence from husbands which I, with respect, endorse and adopt herein.

"It is about time that sentences started to increase in a large way in relation to domestic violence. The National Court (has) been far too lenient in the past in relation to men who are belting their wives. And in some instances wives belting their husbands. So let (us) warn everyone right now that the sentences are going to go up".

In the case before me, whilst I accept that there was no repetition of assault on the deceased on the day in question, the deceased's death was nevertheless caused by this accused's violent behaviour. The evidence of Bernard Maktamanam, the Village Court Magistrate, shows that on three (3) occasions previously the accused went too far with beating his wife and parents. In 1998 he beat her up so severely that she was hospitalised and he was brought before the Village Court which gave him a strong warning. When he assaulted his wife and his parents the second time a fine was imposed on him by the Village Court.

The witnesses John and Roberta Langlang who are husband and wife say when they heard the deceased scream that "Steven Gilmaes must have bashed her up again". So it is consistent with what the Village Court Magistrate, Bernard Maktamanam said which was that there has been previous assaults by this accused on the deceased. It is clear therefore that the accused is a violent person who has no respect for the law and the law must deal with him in such a way that he respects it. The Village Court represented the courts and even that court was not respected by the accused.

In deciding the sentences I should impose I have taken into account his plea of guilty and his expression of remorse as well as payment of compensation but as I said he is a violent person and must be dealt with sternly and decisively. I also echo the warning to violent offenders in a domestic setting that this kind of behaviour has gone on for far too long and needs to be deterred by imposition of stiff penalties against violent husbands.

I accordingly consider a sentence of 12 years imprisonment in hard labour to be appropriate which I so impose. I deduct from that sentence the 1 year and 2 weeks he has spent in custody which leaves 10 years 11 months and 2 weeks in hard labour.

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