N2607

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[National Court of Justice]

CR 381 of 2004

THE STATE

v.

JUNE LAVIN

Kavieng: Sevua, J
5th & 6th May 2004

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of Guilty – Spleen case – Assault on deceased - Slap on mouth of deceased plus one kick to side of deceased –sanctity of life and constitutional protection of life – Manslaughter involving wife killing (spleen cases) very prevalent violent crime - Sentences of 3 to 7 years on a plea of guilty no longer appropriate – Death is the end result – Sanctity of life and constitutional protection of life are also important considerations in heavier penalties - Court should be looking at 15 to 20 years in uncontested cases of manslaughter – Sentence of 10 years appropriate in the circumstances.

Criminal Code; s. 302.

Case referred to:
Anna Max Marangi v. The State (SCA 11 of 2002) unreported and unnumbered, 8th November 2002

Counsel:
L. Rangan for State
A. Turi for Accused

6th May 2004

SEVUA, J: You pleaded guilty yesterday to a charge of manslaughter, contrary to s. 302 of the Criminal Code, a very serious crime which carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Briefly, the facts you admitted are that on the evening of 17th June 2003; at approximately 7;45 pm at Messi Village, Konos, Namatanai, you had a quarrel with your wife, saga June, now the deceased over some fish, which you had eaten at your uncle’s house earlier that evening. Your wife had accused of being greedy with the fish you had eaten earlier. She continued nagging at you over this matter then you became angry and slapped her on her mouth then kicked her on her left side once only. She fell down and never got up again. She was pronounced dead on arrival at Messi Health Centre. The deceased died of internal haemorrhage as a result of a ruptured spleen.

Once again the Court is faced with another unfortunate domestic dispute ending with the death of a housewife and mother and the death could have been avoided. Quarrelling over four little sardines is not worth the life that has been taken .Whilst the Court appreciates that you have been genuinely remorseful of your conduct leading to the death of your wife, this is one case of death that could have been avoided had you used your brain.

Having heard your counsel, Ms Turi addressed the Court on sentence I cannot help but wonder when this kind of domestic killing will ever end. It is a very prevalent crime. Poor defenceless housewives are being killed over very minor issues not worth dying for, and this is one such unfortunate cases. 

The Court has taken into account all the submissions that your counsel has made and in particular, the mitigating factors that have been pot forth – you are a first offender; you surrendered to police; you are very sorry for killing your wife, which is something that will live remain with you for the rest of your life; you have been in custody for 5 months and 22 days, which is 3 weeks and 1 day; you pleaded guilty therefore saved the Court’s time and expenses in running a trial, however, you would have no defence anyway and finally, you regret your action and feel sorry for your children. These matters have been taken into account.

Furthermore, the Court has taken into account the fact that some customary settlement had been made and a total sum of K5, 995.80 in cash and kind have been exchanged. You are 34 years old and have four children from the deceased. Your counsel has described you as an unsophisticated viler.

The Court has considered all these submissions and taken them into account in your favour. I accept that you are a first time offender and an unsophisticated villager and are quite genuine in your remorse over your wife’s death. However a life has been lost and you will never bring your wife back to life No degree of remorse or amount of compensation will ever bring her back to life. Again we witness the stupidity of a husband and father resulting in sufferings encountered by the innocent children. As I alluded to earlier, this death could have been avoided, had you used your brain.

You could have gone back to your uncle’s house and ask him for some fish for your wife if she was complaining about you being greedy with fish. Or you could have gone out and catch fish for your wife – this is your responsibility. Some women /wives like eating fish and if they want to eat fish, the husbands have the responsibility to provide fish for them. Alternatively, you could have left the house temporarily to allow her time to cool off. But you decided to argue with your wife, and as it were, you assaulted her – you kicked her on her side resulting in the rupture of her spleen, and consequently she died.

Your counsel has referred to a Supreme Court decision, Anna Max Marangi v. The State; (SCA 11 of 2002), unreported and unnumbered of 8th November 2002. In that case, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the sentence of 9 years imposed in a plea of guilty to manslaughter, involving the stabbing of the deceased twice with a kitchen knife. The Court in that case discussed three categories of sentences for manslaughter. There are other cases of manslaughter that the Court referred to in that judgment, which I do not intend to cite here.

However, suffice it to say, with respect, I consider that the killing of another person under circumstances which amount to manslaughter or murder or wilful murder is a very serious crime indeed. The Parliament has legislated that the maximum penalty for manslaughter and murder is life imprisonment whilst, wilful murder carries the death penalty.

I have said in several cases that a homicide is a very serious case. The Parliament has already determined the penalties for the three classes of homicide under the Criminal Code so that in my respectful view, and with respect to the Supreme Court in the above case, it is not necessary to categorize the three different classes of homicide into further classifications and attempt to set down guidelines for sentencing because the end result is the same anyway – death is the ultimate consequence. Therefore, I am of the view that once the Courts start comparing manslaughter cases and talk about a very serious manslaughter case and a less serious case of manslaughter the significance of the sanctity of life and the constitutional protection of life become meaningless. A death is a death, irrespective of how it was caused.

In my view, where a person causes the death of another, howsoever the cause may be, a person is dead, a life has been prematurely terminated, and with respect, we cannot continue to classify killings into different categories because the Parliament has already done that under Section 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Criminal Code. If a person causes the death of another and does not get the maximum penalty, in this case, life imprisonment, he must consider himself very fortunate. Courts must never lose sight of the fact that a life is sacred, that is why we protect the principle of sanctity of life. No one has any right to terminate a life prematurely, and if he does, he must be prepared to accept the consequences of his action.

I consider that the different categories discussed by the Supreme Court in Anna Max Marangi are no longer suitable to the circumstances of Papua New Guinea today. We ought not to continue to impose 3 to 7 years in pleas of guilty to manslaughter because such a violent crime has become so rampant and very prevalent that the kinds of sentences discussed in that make a mockery of our judicial process. There is far too much wanton killing that this has become a very prevalent crime today. Because manslaughter has become so prevalent today, the National Court should not continue to impose 3 to 7 years, but must be looking at 15 to 20 years for manslaughter, after all, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

Having carefully considered the circumstances of how this death was caused, I am of the view that a sentence of 10 years is not an unreasonable and excessive penalty under the circumstances. People, especially men, must realize that women are an integral part of our society today. The Constitution accords equal rights and opportunities to women. They are human beings with dignity and value. Therefore men like you cannot continue to treat women like rubbish. Women are not football that men can kick around. A man who kills his wife, like the prisoner in the present case, must pay the price for his action. He cannot come to Court and give all kinds of reasons to escape a heavy penalty for the life he has taken.

After considering the personal antecedents of the prisoner and the nature of the commission of this crime, it is the judgment of the Court that you be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour less 5 months, 3 weeks and 1 day for time spent in custody awaiting trial.

A warrant of commitment for the balance of 9 years 6 months and 6 days is issued for the imprisonment of the prisoner.

Lawyer for the State : Public Prosecutor
Counsel : Lukaran Rangan
Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor
Counsel : Annie Turi