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

State v Sakora [2008] PGNC 255; N3935 (27 October 2008)

N3935

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 974 0F 2008

THE STATE

V

GABRIEL SAKORA

Madang: Cannings J
2008: 9, 11 September, 23, 24, 27 October

SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter – Criminal Code, Section 302 – guilty plea – offender killed his ten-year-old son by hitting him twice from the back, rupturing his spleen, in a domestic setting – sentence of 10 years.

A man pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He got angry with his ten-year-old son over a domestic matter and hit him twice from the back, rupturing his spleen and killing him. The offender expressed genuine remorse and his wife (the boy's mother) does not want her husband imprisoned.

Held:

(1) The starting point for sentencing for this sort of manslaughter (killing in a domestic setting, straight after an argument) is 8 to 12 years imprisonment.

(2) A sentence of 10 years was imposed. The pre-sentence period in custody was deducted and 5 years of the sentence was suspended.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
The State v Elizabeth Gul CR 375/2005, 09.05.05
The State v Henson Poponil (2008) N3433
The State v Hiliong Gunaing (2005) N2803
The State v Isaac Ulul CR 203/2007, 16.10.07
The State v Jacklyn Boni CR 786/2005, 08.09.05
The State v John Buku Kailomo CR 920/2005, 24.08.07
The State v John Loangesa CR 301/2000, 21.03.07
The State v Joseph Dion CR 71/2001, 20.05.05
The State v Kila Peter (2006) N3018
The State v Michael Jim Gorogoro, CR 105/2006, 22.02.08
The State v Michael Sapri (2008) N3434
The State v Simon Tikau, CR 1036/2002, 18.09.08
The State v Steven Ruben CR 843/2007, 22.02.08

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear in the judgment:

CR – Criminal case reference
J – Justice
N – National Court judgment
No – number
SC – Supreme Court judgment
v – versus

SENTENCE

This was a judgment on sentence for manslaughter.

Counsel

J Wala & M Ruarri, for the State
M Painap & A Meten, for the offender

27 October, 2008

1. CANNINGS J: Gabriel Sakora is a 30-year-old Manam Island man. He and his wife and six children were living in their village on Manam Island until a volcanic eruption forced them to move to the Madang mainland several years ago. Like many other Manam Islanders they have been living at the Bom care centre in the Bogia District. At 7.00 pm on 25 March 2008 Gabriel Sakora caught his ten-year-old son, Steven Soalili Sakora, playing around with the family's gas light. He got angry with Steven and hit him twice on the back with very strong force. Steven ran away, fell and died soon afterwards, the force of the blows inflicted by his father having ruptured his spleen. Gabriel surrendered to the police the next day. He has pleaded guilty to and been convicted of manslaughter and he must now be sentenced.

ANTECEDENTS

2. The offender has no prior convictions.

ALLOCUTUS

3. When the offender was given the opportunity to say what matters the court should take into account when deciding on punishment, he said:

I say sorry before the eyes of God and the Judge for what I have done. I ask for mercy and for a good behaviour bond so that I can go and look after my children at the care centre

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

4. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890). In that regard, I will take into account that he surrendered to the police the day after the incident and co-operated with the police and made early admissions.

PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

5. A pre-sentence report prepared by the Madang branch of the Community Correction and Rehabilitation Service shows that the offender's wife, who is the mother of their five remaining children, has forgiven her husband and wants him released from prison so that he can return home and help with the raising of the children. The deceased, Steven, was the couple's third-born child.

6. There has recently been a customary ceremony involving the offender's relatives and his wife's relatives. They have reconciled. There is little chance of anyone causing trouble if the offender were to return to the care centre on a suspended sentence.

7. The offender is educated to grade 8 and is a member of the Catholic Church. He has never been formally employed. He is a subsistence farmer.

SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL

8. It was submitted that a sentence of eight to twelve years would be appropriate, as there were many mitigating factors.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE

9. It was submitted that a sentence of at least ten years should be imposed.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

10. To determine the appropriate penalty I will adopt the following decision making process:

• step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
• step 2: what is a proper starting point?
• step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?
• step 4: what is the head sentence?
• step 5: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted?
• step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?
  

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY?

11. Under Section 302 (manslaughter) of the Criminal Code the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The court has a considerable discretion whether to impose the maximum penalty by virtue of Section 19 of the Criminal Code.

STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT?

12. In Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 the Supreme Court suggested that manslaughter convictions could be put in four categories of increasing seriousness, as shown in table 1.

TABLE 1: SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR MANSLAUGHTER DERIVED FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MANU KOVI'S CASE

13. In this case no weapons were used. The killing was in a domestic setting and followed straight after an argument, in the sense that the deceased made the offender angry. I agree with defence counsels' submissions that this is a category 1 case. Therefore the starting point is in the range of 8 to 12 years.

STEP 3: WHAT OTHER SENTENCES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED RECENTLY FOR EQUIVALENT OFFENCES?

14. Before I fix a sentence, I will consider manslaughter sentences I have handed down, where the offender has killed a family member in a domestic setting. These cases are shown in table 2.

TABLE 2: SENTENCES FOR MANSLAUGHTER OF FAMILY MEMBER
IN DOMESTIC SETTING

STEP 4: WHAT IS THE HEAD SENTENCE?

15. Mitigating factors are:

• sole attacker;
• no weapons used;
• he surrender to and co-operated with the police;
• pleaded guilty;
• expressed genuine remorse;
• first-time offender;
• customary reconciliation;
• offender's wife (the deceased's mother) has expressed forgiveness.
  

16. Aggravating factors are:

• directly killed deceased;
• deceased had no condition making him susceptible to injury;
• very serious assault by a father on the very person he is duty-bound to protect.
  

17. In weighing all these factors I place great weight on the guilty plea and the wife's expression of forgiveness. After comparing this case with the other manslaughter cases I have dealt with, I impose a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

STEP 5: SHOULD THE PRE-SENTENCE PERIOD IN CUSTODY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT?

18. Yes. I decide under Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act that there will be deducted from the term of imprisonment the whole of the pre-sentence period in custody, which is seven months.

STEP 6: SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THE HEAD SENTENCE BE SUSPENDED?

19. Yes, this is an appropriate case in which to suspend part of the sentence, in light of the strong desire of the offender's wife (the deceased boy's mother) to have the offender released from prison. I will suspend half the sentence on the following conditions:

(a) must report to the Probation Office within three days after release from custody and settle on a community work program, which must be ratified by the National Court;
(b) must perform at least six hours unpaid community work each week at a place notified to the Probation Office under the supervision of his Ward Councillor;
(c) must reside with his wife and children and nowhere else except with the written approval of the National Court;
(d) must not leave Madang Province without the written approval of the National Court;
(e) must attend his local Church every weekend for service and worship and submit to counselling;
(f) must report to the Probation Office on the first Monday of each month between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm;
(g) must not consume alcohol or drugs;
(h) must keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
(i) must have a satisfactory probation report submitted to the National Court Registry every three months after the date of sentence;
(j) if the offender breaches any one or more of the above conditions, he shall be brought before the National Court to show cause why he should not be detained in custody to serve the rest of the sentence.

SENTENCE

20. Gabriel Sakora, having been convicted of one count of manslaughter, is sentenced as follows:

Sentenced accordingly.
___________________________

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