N2334

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR NO. 278 OF 2000

THE STATE

v.

JONATHAN SOKAI

LAE: INJIA, J.
2002: JUNE 19

Criminal Law – Sentence – Murder – American University Lecturer killed by "houseboy" for no good reason – Worst case of its kind – Maximum punishment appropriate – Life Imprisonment.

Cases cited:
Public Prosecutor v. Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469 at 472;
John Eliba Kalabus v. The State [1988] PNGLR 193.

Counsel:
N. Miviri for the State
M. Mwawesi for the accused

19 June 2002

INJIA, J.: On 15 May, 2002, I found the prisoner guilty of murdering Professor Wallace Ruff thereby contravening s.300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Professor Ruff was employed by the University of Technology at Lae (UNITECH) for over 15 years as a Professor in Architecture. He comes from Lake Oswego in the State of Oregon, USA. The prisoner is a mature man aged about 45 years old and comes from Bumon village, Madang. At the material time, he was working as a "haus boi" for the deceased. The total circumstance of the crime and my findings of relevant facts are set out in my written judgment, which I published on 17 May 2002.

The maximum punishment for the crime of murder is life imprisonment. By virtue of s.19 of the Criminal Code, the Court has discretion to impose a term of years in appropriate cases. The maximum punishment is reserved for the worst case of its kind. The question whether the circumstances of a particular case constitute the worst case of its kind is a question of fact. In considering the appropriate punishment in a particular case, the Court must have proper regard to the seriousness of the offence, the community interest intended to be protected by the offence, the purposes of sentencing to be emphasized, the personal circumstances of the offender and extenuating circumstances which mitigate punishment and the aggravating circumstances of the offence. Other related relevant factors include the effect of voluntary intoxication, prospect for rehabilitation of the offender and any likelihood that the offender will re-offend in the future and thereby pose a danger to the community: John Elipa Kalabus v. The State [1988] PNGLR 193. The Court must then balance all these relevant factors and impose a sentence which fits the crime.

Murder in all its form is a serious and heinous crime that is condemned by all civilized human societies. Societies place high value on the sanctity of human life to ensure that human life is protected and preserved. Severe punishment is prescribed by law for this crime and Courts impose strong punishment to deter this crime and to punish offenders. For instance, in a murder case, where the circumstances of the killing are "so bad" or so "serious", then ordinary mitigating factors such as the offender’s guilty plea, first offender status, his expression of remorse, his good education, work, church and family background; or any chances of rehabilitation, or there is no likelihood that the offender will re-offend in future, may be rendered nugatory as deserving no credit: Public Prosecutor v. Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469 at 472; John Eliba Kalabus v. The State [1988] PNGLR 193.

On the evidence, I found that the prisoner stayed with the deceased at Unitech Campus where the deceased worked and resided. He had been with the deceased for some 15 years and the deceased looked after him like his son. On the night of 9/10/99, the prisoner attacked the deceased with a blunt object, possibly a coconut scraper and boots, causing head and facial injuries from which the deceased died. The reason for the attack was that he was unhappy with the deceased after he refused to pay him his fortnightly wages as a "house boy" which he could spend on beer at a party held at John Sari’s house which was situated next door to the deceased’s house.

As I have already stated, the accused is a mature man aged about 45 years old and he comes from Bumon village, Madang. He is married with three children all of who attend school. He is a member of the Catholic Church. He was educated up to Grade 7 at Tusbab High School, Madang, in 1975 and was employed by the Forestry Department at Bulolo in 1982 and in 1996. Also between 1986 – 1999, he worked as a "Garden Boi" for the deceased and was earning K100.00 a fortnight. This is his first offence, to which he expressed remorse in Court on allocatus after I found him guilty. I take all these factors into account in his favour when I consider sentence.

I also take into account in his favour the long years of dedicated service he rendered to the deceased and the special relationship he developed with the deceased. Foreigners from afar working in PNG for many years are persuaded by the warmth of the friendship extended to them by Papua New Guinean acquaintances and forge lasting friendships. The deceased saw something good in the prisoner’s conduct which attracted his attention he was able to express his gratitude by employing him and providing other maternal benefits to him generously. The deceased favoured him and treated him like his own son. The relationship in this case appears to be so close that the deceased was prepared to accommodate the prisoner and his family in his house, and even when the University banned him from the Campus after he abused the deceased, the deceased took him back.

Having said all these good things of the accused however, there are a number of special aggravating factors in this case which render those mitigating factors nugatory as deserving no credit. It is clear from the evidence that the deceased was a very generous man who was prepared not only to look after the accused like a son but also prepared to sacrifice his own peace and the comfort of and security of his life at the Unitech Campus to accommodate the prisoner even when the prisoner abused him on many occasions. But for all this generosity, the prisoner repeatedly treated him with contempt, continuously abused him, and eventually, cruelly took away his life in a brutal manner. This kind of behaviour from someone in the position of the accused is unacceptable in civil society and should be condemned in the strongest terms. Any sentence the Court imposes must reflect the utter condemnation of this kind of behaviour.

The full circumstances of what exactly transpired between the prisoner and the deceased which resulted in the death are not clear because the State’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. But it is clear from the nature of the injuries found on the deceased’s body that it was a horrific attack on an old defenceless man who could not raise an arm in self-defence. The prisoner at that time was under the influence of liquor and given his bad temperament and his past abusive behaviour towards the deceased, one can only infer the amount of abuse hurled at the deceased and the repeated assaults perpetrated on him with the use of the said weapons. In my view, it is these circumstances which render this kind of killing falls into the worst category of murder killings.

When I look at the prisoner’s personal background and his good past relationship with the deceased and balance that against his past abusive behaviour towards the deceased culminating in the brutal killing of the deceased, the weight to be attached to their existing relationship is completely diminished.

The other special aggravating factor is that the deceased left behind the comfort and security of his home his relatives and friends and good lifestyle and the security of employment in the United States and came to PNG to serve this country. With his qualification as a Professor in Architecture, he would have had no difficulty in finding employment in any University in the United States. He chose to come here to pass on his technical expertise to our young Papua New Guineans and remained loyal and committed to his call for some 15 years. Many Papua New Guineans I am sure benefited from his teachings in the field of his expertise. But he did not restrict his service to his professional calling. He went beyond his call of duty to help the prisoner and his family settle in life and meet their daily material needs, not only by paying him a fortnightly salary but also accommodated him at his house and treated him like a son. On the night of the killing, he tried to assist the prisoner save his money instead of spending it on beer. That was when the prisoner turned on him, attacked him and killed him. This is a very cruel way to take the life of someone so close. His cruel conduct has left a bad impression of this country in the minds of many foreigners living in this country and also those other countries who allow their countrymen to come to PNG to serve here. It has deeply hurt the feelings of those close to the deceased who no doubt took pride in the deceased’s service to PNG, such as his daughter Judy Ruff who travelled all the way from Oregon, to give evidence in Court.

In my view the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the circumstances of the killing I have described above renders these mitigating factors and any possible extenuating circumstances of the offence nugatory. I also consider that the state of the prisoner’s deliberate state of intoxication that night prompted his actions. I consider that the prisoner has no chance of rehabilitation because he is already a grown up man and is unlikely to change his attitude. A clear evidence of this is that his behaviour never changed before when he was banned from the campus by the University. I also think that given his past abusive conduct towards the deceased before the killing which culminated in the killing of someone so close to him, he represents more than an ordinary danger to the community if he is released from prison after serving a term of years.

I also consider that whilst there is no evidence of likelihood that he may re-offend in future, this particular murder, is "so bad" that it warrants the maximum penalty: John Elipa Kalabus v. The State, supra per Kidu CJ.

Finally, in relation to the four purposes of sentencing, I consider that it is not appropriate in this case to give effect to the rehabilitation purpose of sentencing. I consider that the other purposes of sentencing, namely public deterrence, retribution and protection of the community should be emphasized.

In all the circumstances, I am of the view that this killing falls into the category of the worst case of murder. Therefore the maximum punishment is warranted. Accordingly, I sentence the accused to life imprisonment.
______________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State			:	Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the accused		:	Public Solicitor