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

State v Wonot [2014] PGNC 211; N5522 (25 February 2014)

N5522

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 571 OF 2013

THE STATE

V

JOHNSON PATO WONOT

Kokopo: Oli, AJ.
2013: 5th, 12th December
2014: 25th February

CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Offender Stands before the Court Charged with Grievous Bodily Harm - Sentence following Plea – Offender injured his wife with iron rod to her right leg and extensive degree of fire burns to her neck area –pose potential risk of developing contractures (that may cause deformity to the neck)

CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Consideration on appropriate Sentence – Victim is wife of the offender suspected of extra marital relationship – Considered mitigating factor – Victim sustained and suffered injuries considered mild to moderate degree in nature as per Medical Report – Considered custodial sentence is appropriate –Sentence to 4years IHL Less Pre-Trial period in custody at Kerevat Correctional Institution.

Cases Cited:

State v Patrick Kimat [2005] PGNC 33,
State v Henry Idab [2001] PGNC 39.
State v David Saun [2003] PGNC 90.
State v Kopiwan Pupuni [1998] PGNC 24
State v Toparan Walangur [2003] PGNC 34.
State v Mann [2009] PGNC 217

Counsel

Ms Sheila Cherake, for the State
Mr Philip Kaluwin, for the Accused

SENTENCE

25th February, 2014

1. OLI, AJ. The State presented an indictment in Court on 12th December 2013 against the accused Johnson Pato Wonot of Nangananga Village, Kokopo East New Britain Province. He stands charged that on the 27th day of December 2012 at Nangananga Village in Kokopo District, East New Britain, Papua New Guinea did grievous bodily harm to one WINNIE RONNIE, thereby Contravening Section 319 of the Criminal Code Act as amended to date.
   

PLEA OF GUILTY

2. The accused upon being arraigned by Court with the indictment presented by the State under section 319 of the Criminal Code Act told the Court that he did admit assaulting the victim who is his wife and further told the Court that he was sorry for what he did against the law and the Constitution of Papua New Guinea and he informed Court that his relatives have paid some compensation already to victim and her relatives and ask the Court for leniency. The Court enters provisional plea of guilty.
   

FACTS

3. The brief facts' surrounding the circumstances of the charge of grievous bodily harm committed by the accused is that on 27th December 2012 at about 7am, the accused was at Nangananga Village, Kokopo East New Britain Province, the accused was very suspicious of his wife committing adultery and assaulted her with an iron rod. He also got a burning piece of firewood and laid it on the victim. As a result the accused was arrested and charged with the present indictment under section 319 of the Criminal Code Act 1974.
   
4. The accused after hearing the brief facts presented to the Court was asked whether he has anything to say in reply and he said he wants to make a short reply and told the Court; "I did admit committing the offence and the reason for so doing was that the victim (my wife) was committing adultery with other men and so I lost my cool and assaulted her. That is all"
   
5. The Court enters the provisional plea of guilty against the accused as charged and the defence counsel seeks leave of the Court to obtain a Written Pre-Sentence Report by the Resident Community Correction Officer Ms Miriam Ronald before Defence Counsel could address the Court on sentence. The State Prosecutor has no objection and matter adjourned for the Written Pre-sentence Report to be filed before the Court in the next (7) days when the Court will resume to receive submission by both Counsels on sentence on 12th December 2013.
   

LAW

6. The prisoner admitted committing the offence under section 319 of Criminal Code Act 1974 of which the prisoner is charged with and indictment is presented against the prisoner under the said section and reads:-

319. GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

A person who unlawfully does grievous bodily harm to another person is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

7. The maximum penalty reserved for the worst case scenario is seven (7) years imprisonment and comes down the scale to medium to minimum to less culpability in nature to one year and other soft options available as suspended sentence and recognizance or place on good behaviour bond or where possible consider other punishment options under section 19 and section 601 of the Criminal Code Act 1974 as the case be.
   
8. However, the victim was admitted to Tapipipi Health Centre at Toma Vunadidir Local Level Government area where Health Extension Officer attended to the victim and provided a thorough Medical Report dated 28th December 2012 provided hereunder.
   

MEDICAL REPORTON THE VICTIM

9. The Victim after the assault was taken to the Tapipipi Health Centre on the 27th December 2012 and was presented to the Officer In-Charge Health Extension Officer Mr Sylvanus Ariija who attended to the victim. The Health Extension Officer having attended to the victim made the following clinical medical observations resulting from sustaining multiple physical injuries inflicted by her husband, the prisoner are outline in his Medical Report dated 28th December 2012 is provided hereunder.
   

Medical Report on the Victim includes:-

1. "Noted extensive degree of fire burns over the left lateral aspect of the neck with oozing serums and exudates and related to have sustained from a fire.
   
2. The extent of the fire burns measured 14cm in length and 6cm width.
   
3. She was unable to fully turn her neck to the right due to stiffness.
   
4. Swelling and haematoma was noted over left facial area due to sustaining multiple punches.
   
5. The ribcage were painful and tender on examination due to being hit with an iron rod bar as claimed by the victim.
   
6. There was tenderness over the spinal area radiating to the head as well.
   
7. Both limbs were tender due to being hit with an iron bar. The bonny tissues were normal.
   
8. An apparent penetrated wound was noted over the right lateral aspect of the lower leg and related to have been shot with an iron bar that involved the internal tissues.
   
9. The extent of the wounds measured 2cm deep and 1cm length.
   
10. The other systemic examinations were normal.
    

The medical management administration of recommended treatment for the above injuries sustained by the victim involved the following:-

1. Paracetamol 500mg oral 6 hourly for alleviation of pain; and
   
2. Amoxycillin 500mg oral 8 hourly for 5 days.
   

The general observation upon medical examination concluded that the victim (Winnie) was apparently psychologically depressed due directly as a result of the assault and therefore appeared that she would not enjoy life fully than a normal individual for some time. The medical examinations revealed that Mrs Winnie (victim) sustained mild to moderate degree of soft tissue injuries and therefore the recovery would be gradual.

However, the injuries caused by fire pose potential risk of developing contractures (that may cause deformity to the neck)."

8. The defence did not challenge the content nor the nature of the Medical Report in its totality by OIC Health Extension Officer Mr Sylvanus Ariija of Tapipipi Health Centre, Toma Vunadidir Local Level Government area. The medical report confirms that the nature of the physical injuries sustained by the victim (Winnie) inflicted by the accused were assessed to be in the range and category of mild to moderate degree of soft tissue injuries and therefore the normalcy recovery would be gradual.

9. I take note of the medical assessment by the Health Extension Officer of the serious nature of injuries sustained range from mild to moderate degree appears to me that the charge under Grievous Bodily Harm serious nature of injuries sustained pendulum scale swings not lower than the mid-way but swings towards the extreme range scale but not to the extreme serious level. If the medical expert view on the nature of injuries sustained by the victim are any clear indicators of the nature of the wounds inflicted are quite serious, what then is the social indicators on tolerance level from the village community representative reflective view from both victim and prisoners family in the area where this offence was committed against the victim by her husband, the prisoner?
   
10. I now will look at the Pre-Sentence Report by the resident Community Correction Officer Ms Miriam Ronald, as the reliable source of social tolerance indicator level on this category type of crime at the village community is the collective reflective view; from both family as one reliable source of social indicators tolerance level, in particular in view of the allege offence of Grievous Bodily Harm committed by the prisoner against the victim.
    

PRE-SENTENCE REPORT BY COMMUNITY CORRECTION OFFICER ON PRISIONER

11. The Community Correction Officer Ms Miriam Ronald with Probation Service within Department of Justice & Attorney General provided a very succinct and detailed Pre-Sentence Report on the prisoner by collating a family representative interview report she conducted with Victim and her family members and with Prisoner and his family members including a non-family member a former Nangananga Village Ward Councillor. The Pre-Sentence Report comprise of the following: - (i) Victim, (ii) Mrs Roddy Ronnie - Victims biological Mother, and (iii) Ms Simaima Sekry - Victims Aunty. Those interviewed from prisoners family includes: - (i) Prisoner, (ii) Ms Edna Turnakil - Prisoners Cousin Sister (iii) Ms Tavune Dorine - Prisoners Elders Sister, (iv) Ms Alice Tatavana - Prisoners Cousin Sister and independent input from non-family member (v) Mr Misiel Tolili – Former Nangananga Village Ward Councillor.
    
12. The collective family residual representative view from Victim herself and her family members as well as those from Prisoners family members apart from prisoner himself strongly express very positive apprehension of fear toward the prisoner on his immediate release back to their Nangananga village community.
    
13. The soft sentencing option like suspended sentence and Good Behaviour Bond options other than custodial sentence is highly rejected by both families as they fear for their normal quite enjoyment of life will be continued to be affected by antisocial behaviour by the prisoner. Hence, early release back to community is considered by the both families is not an appropriate rehabilitative sentencing option for the prisoner.
    
14. The negative fearsome impression about the prisoner was also echoed by Mr Misiel Tolili – Former Nangananga Village Ward Councillor, who was involved in mediation settlement in the past with prisoner's continuous assault on the victim that eventually landed him in the current serious charge of Grievous Bodily Harm against the victim now before the Court. He is of the view that appropriate rehabilitation punishment would be custodial sentence and is the way to go to really change the prisoner and may deter others as lesson well learnt from the prisoner's case.
    
15. Whilst the former Village Councillor agrees that the prisoner and his family is yet to pay appropriate compensation to the victim and her family, there is still an outstanding customary obligation on "Bride Price" is yet to be attended to by the prisoner and his family now that he is behind the bar.
    
16. The author of the Pre-Sentence Report Ms Miriam Ronald also conclude after weighing out pros and cons of those family members express concern collective views; and also consider prisoners genuine view on his express desire to be considered for an non-custodial sentence as a soft rehabilitative sentencing option. However, Community Correction Officer is quite convinced that from both family concerns,the prisoners early release from custody is not an option as they reflect on their past experience with the prisoner that without his presence they feel so ease at peace and enjoy quite natural enjoyment of normal life now is much better than when the prisoner was around.
    
17. The former Village Ward Councillor and both family members of victim and prisoner still recall frequent unkind assault memories by prisoner to his wife and to his elder sister and his younger brothers, as well, and they can still remember their past experience is still fresh in their mind. Since, the date the prisoner was taken into custody at Kerevat Correctional Institution, the family from both victim and prisoner's side have felt and express feeling of freedom at last from prisoners continuous assault on them, at last a peace once a upon a time was enjoyed was lost, is a real peace and harmony restored since prisoners being in custody.
    
18. To put it in another word, peace and harmony once upon a time they enjoyed was hijacked by prisoner's uncaring behaviour towards them when he was around. However, now that he is under custody this has restored that lost peace and harmony in their respective family setting now. This experience is so traumatising with both family but more so with the victim who expresses fear of returning to join prisoner as her husband after his release from custody is a matter that she and her family will address and will give a serious thought to it at an appropriate time into the near future before prisoners release after serving his term of imprisonment at Kerevat Corrective Institution.
    

DEFENCE SUBMISSION ON SENTENCE

19. The Defence Counsel submit on sentence that the Court should take into account and take note of the following traditional mitigation factors that prisoner has pleaded guilty to the charge that reserve Court judicial trial time and cost to the State. He was a good church goer with Assembly Of God (AOG) before he committed this offence as a first time offender and cooperates with the police and pleaded guilty to the charge upon indictment to this Court on a charge of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) under s. 319 of the Criminal Code Act 1974. And prisoner expresses great remorse for what he did and further said that his family has paid some customary compensation of local traditional currency of 130 fathom shell money.
    
20. However, in considering what an appropriate sentence is, in this case, the defence Counsel made particular reference to number of case laws on Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) in this jurisdiction. The Defence Counsel submit that it is trite law that the maximum sentence of seven (7) years is reserved for the worst case scenario on Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) and this principle was referred to in the case of State – v – Patrick Kimat [2005] PGNC 33.
    
21. However, in this case the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge under s.319 of Criminal Code Act 1974, and was convicted and the Court imposed 12 month IHL. The sentence was suspended and placed on Good Behaviour Bond (GBB). In another case of State v Henry Idab [2001] PGNC 39, the victim suffered 85 % injury from a bush knife wound. Sentence imposed was 3 years, however, court considered the nature of gravity of aggravation was less serious. In another similar case of State – v- David Saun [2003] PGNC 9, the injury sustained by the victim was a 30% less use of one eye. The Court imposed a 3-year suspended sentence and placed on strict conditions and on Good Behaviour Bond (GBB).
    
22. In another similar case of State v Kopiwan Pupuni [1998] PGNC 24, the Court imposed 3 years imprisonment IHL and part sentence was suspended and placed on Good Behaviour Bond (GBB). Finally, in another generic case on sentence for a charge laid under s. 319 of the Criminal Code Act 1974 for Grievous Bodily Harm, is the case of State – v –Toparau Walangur CR 1760 of 2003 (unreported case).The victim was initially charged with attempted murder but was reduced to Grievous Bodily Harm GBH) where the victim in this case sustained fractured tarsal bones and cut through his soft tissue and lost his left foot through medical surgical amputation intervention procedure on 14th January 2003 after victim had developed gangrene and decay on his left foot from bush knife wound inflicted by the prisoner.
    
23. The Court imposes a custodial sentence for a term of 4 years IHL. And the Court further Ordered imprisonment for 2 years 8 months 4 days being part of that Sentence less 2 years 8 months 4 days of pre-trial custody period, leaving nil sentence to serve. The Court further ordered that the offender be released from Corrective Institution upon entering into Recognizance with strict conditions imposed for the period of suspended sentence pursuant to sections, 19 or 601 of the Criminal Code Act 1974.
    
24. The Defence Counsel in his final summation address on sentence submits that the Court should consider and apply the prisoner's case within the sentencing ranges in the following cases of (1). State –v – Patrick, (2) State – v – Saun and (3) State – v – Kopiwan. In these cases the victims' injuries range from a loss of one eye use by 30% to serious bodily injuries including loss of a hand/wrist. However, with the present case on foot the victim did not suffer serious injuries like the above three case precedents. The prisoners in the above three comparative cases, however, receive custodial sentence with partly suspended sentence with strict conditions attached, Hence, defence counsel submit that this case ought to fall in line with the sentencing range as referred to the above three cases in respect to the appropriate sentencing range in this case.
    
25. The Defence Counsel made brief reference to the tireless effort put in by the Community Correction Officer from the Probation Division and concluded that the prisoner is not a suitable candidate for probation. The defence counsel submits that they take an exceptional view, in contrast, to the view expressed in the Pre-Sentence Reports recommended by the Community Correction Officer of prisoner's non-suitability for probation. The defence counsel kindly ask the Court to consider that prisoner is only a normal human being and do have his strengths and weak points in life; and this was one such weak point but must not be written off as unfit candidate for probation.
    
26. The Defence Counsel further submit that prisoner, if given the opportunity to change, will change his bad ways after learning from this very traumatising experience, hence, prisoner should be considered for a second chance and be given alternative imprisonment sentence. Whilst Court has a duty and has discretional power to consider and take note of Pre-Sentencing Report, the defence counsel submit that the Court has the ultimate power to disregard the Community Correction Officer's Pre-Sentence Report recommendation before the Court; is not only the reliable material document to rely on, but Court must take an holistic view of the case in its entirety and make a well informed assessment on prisoners suitability on probation. The defence counsel further submit that this case is less serious than the three case precedents referred to above, hence this case should be considered within the appropriate sentencing range as a right penalty proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the prisoner. Hence, defence counsel submits that the appropriate penalty the Court should consider is a suspended sentence with Good Behaviour Bond with strict conditions attached.
    

PROSECUTION SUBMISSION ON SENTENCE

27. The State Prosecutor in response to Defence Counsels submission on sentence echoed the same sentiment by Defence Counsel that the maximum penalty in the Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) case of seven (7) years is reserved for the worst offender indicted under s. 319 of the Criminal Code Act 1974. However, State submit that the Court should not treat this case lightly because the matter falls within the serious category of Domestic Violence track and wife bashing perpetrators should receive serious punishment from the Court to send a right message as appropriate deterrent signal to the community and public at large.
    
28. The State further submits that Court should deal with this case with some serious deterrent punishment because the Pre-Sentence Report by the Community Correction Officer has recommended against the prisoner as suitable candidate for Probation. The Community Correction Officers recommendation was basically influenced by the input from victim and her family members as well as the prisoners family members collective views, as well as the former Village Councillor.
    
29. The Medical Report on victim's injuries is also reflective of seriousness of the charge that results in some permanent irreparable deformity on the victim's neck area. Whilst prisoner was a good church goer before committing this offence, the Pre-Sentence Report did not reflect very positively about the prisoner because whilst he was with his wife he was describe as habitual wife basher and very violent person to his brothers and sisters within the his own family unit. Hence, Pre-Sentence Report will have very little bearing and sympathetic positive impact from the Court.
    
30. The State finally submit that whilst prisoners family have made some compensation payment of 130 fathom local currency shell money, though it is disputed on the amount by victims family as 120 fathom only as local currency shell money. The victim's biological mother prefers 1,500.00 fathom worth of traditional local currency shell money as compensation would be sufficient. However, the circumstances of this case so requires and warrants that punishment ought to be none other than appropriate custodial sentence.
    
31. The State submit that despite Defence Counsels attempt to paint the crime scene backdrop and nature of the injuries were less serious, the Court in exercising its discretional power in imposing what is an appropriate sentence in this case, cannot be moved from its deterrent role to the community and public at large as a matter of public duty and public policy according to the rule of law. Hence, this case deserves a serious punishment of custodial sentence.
    

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE FACTS

32. The Court is faced with the unfortunate task to consider what is an appropriate sentence to impose in the circumstances of this case? It is indeed a very difficult question to answer in my quest for what is an appropriate sentence in this case. Whilst I appreciate the fact that I am asking a very difficult question I am also mindful of the fact that in asking a question such as this, I am compelled to find at least similar range of case precedents on Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with the similar set of facts, though circumstances may vary but at least this judicial attempt and initiative will get my mind closure to what may be at least the appropriate sentence for the prisoner in this case.
    
33. My personal judicial search to address my mind to the issue as to what is an appropriate sentence will in return response and get right signals from relevant case laws and social concern tolerance level indicators reflected in the Pre-Sentence Report by resident Community Correction Officer with Probation Service within Department of Justice &Attorney General. The Pre-Sentence Report, in my view, will act as a tool to measure thermometer tolerance level within the said community and its immediate environs within the Toma Vunadidir Local Level Government area.
    
34. My literature review on the subject matter on what is an appropriate sentence in this matter is certainly is not an easy task. I am happy to have skim through a sea of numerous cases in the similar cases as this case on foot on Grievous Bodily Harm. However, I am indebted to this one particular case that I will refer to hereafter that; I find it relevant to fall within the same or similar set of facts though particular circumstances may vary that have assisted me to find an appropriate sentencing range in this case is the case of State – v – Mann [2009] PGNC 217, where his Honour Injia CJ held that:
    

"A sentence of 5 years imprisonment is appropriate less pre-trial custody. There are no special circumstances warranting suspension of any part of the sentence"

35. The offender in this case had a dispute with the victim in which the victim said he will kill the offender. The offender cut the victim in fear of his life. At the time the victim was holding a baby in his arms. The offender chased the victim and cut him twice, once on the right shoulder inflicting a deep and extensive wound from which he lost a lot of blood. The local health centre did not have adequate facilities and the victim was rushed to Port Moresby General Hospital where he received emergency treatment for 24 hours. The medical report stated that the victim "is expected to make steady recovery, but the offender be held responsible for near murder".
    
36. The case on foot depicts the similar setting where offender accused the victim for committing adultery with other man in the village. The offender returned home the next morning after night drinking at about 7am and because he was very suspicious of his wife committing adultery and assaulted her with an iron rod. He also got a burning piece of firewood and burnt the victim in the neck area. The unique feature of this case is that the offender used iron rod to fracture victims leg as well as use of burning firewood to burn victim in the neck area that resulted in permanent deformity.
    
37. The medical report confirms that the nature of the physical injuries sustained by the victim (Winnie) inflicted by the offender were assessed to be in the range of mild to moderate degree of soft tissue injuries and therefore the normalcy recovery would be gradual. However, the injuries caused by fire pose potential risk of developing contractures that may cause permanent deformity to the neck.
    
38. The prisoner is charge with Grievous Bodily Harm emanating from the Domestic Violence family setting related offences are prevalent in the village community and therefore ought to be taken and considered very serious anti-social behaviour by the Court. The Court therefore has a matter of public policy and public duty is tasked with the unequivocal societal duty to send that stern warning to the public because of its prevalent occurrences in the villages in the said Local Government area.
    
39. However, foremost the Court owe it to the weak partner in the marital relationship that husband treat their wife or partner with due respect and due care and attention as equal partners at all time during the subsistence of the marital relationship. If there are issues of concern with the marital institution, the parties are at liberty to explore and resort to avenues of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) forums that are available at village community level and at formal court systems, as well. However, a party resorting to violence as a vehicle to do "bush justice" in order to achieve "quick fix justice" cannot be allowed to plaque the village community normal traditional social acceptable behavioural level at all time. Therefore, the perpetrators who are caught in the criminal justice system through domestic violence net will always face the full brunt of the law. Hence, case such as this will attract serious custodial sentence track as proactive deterrent rehabilitative option without any soft conditions attached to it.

.
CONCLUSION

40. The Court takes into account of the following consideration as mitigating factors in favour and on behalf of the prisoner as follows:
    
    1. Provocation in non-legal sense.

The prisoner's action to attack the victim was provoked by his long suspicion of victim (his wife) having adulterous affairs with some other man. There is no evidence to suggest that prisoner has reported this matter to his Village Court Magistrate to deal with the matter before he dealt with it in the manner that lands him behind the bars.

There is no evidence that he did report the matter to family court to charge victim with her adulterous partner for committing adultery. It appears to be a speculative mind game to find reasons to harm victim who is his wife rather than trying to really solve the problem through community justice process through traditional settlement authority at the village level.

2. Plead Guilty to the Charge.

The prisoner pleads guilty to the charge and assault the victim after had been in a drinking party all night and next morning when he return home about 7am he was still of suspicious of victims extra marital relationship and assault her with a iron rod on her leg and burn her with burning firewood on her neck area.

3. First-time Offender

The prisoner is a first-time offender and State confirm that prisoner do not have any prior conviction.

4. Co-operation with Police.

The prisoner co-operate with the Police as demonstrated in the Record of Interview and his confessional statement he made during the Record of Interview.

5. Remorse.

The prisoner thought that he can express his anger by taking the kind of action that he took but later realised after he taken into custody and upon his plea before the Court told the Court that he was sorry for what he did by breaking the law of the land and the Constitution of Papua New Guinea. And ask for leniency on sentence as his family has paid traditional shell money of 150 fathom as compensation already to victim and her family.

6. No Prior Conviction.

The antecedent Report provided by Police does not show any prior convictions at any level of Courts against the prisoner.

41. The Court however, having to take into account the prisoners general mitigation considerations that feature in prisoners favour as referred to above and may warrant a sentence with part suspended with strict reporting conditions attached. However, I take an exceptional view to that sentencing option because this case has the exceptional nature of the assault on the victim and that there was a total rejection by both victim and prisoner's family therefore prisoners early release on soft suspended sentencing option to get back to his village community and back to his own families.
    
42. The victim and prisoners families' echoed a longer custodial sentence as appropriate and relatively a period long enough to have an effective rehabilitative and reformative impact on the prisoner is highly desirable. The Court do consider and take into account prisoners early release rejection message by both families and also by Pre-Sentence Report by Community Correction Officer that considered prisoner is not a suitable candidate for probation.
    
43. When all these considerations and factors are put together, they all point in one direction and that is a period of custodial sentence but not less than half of the maximum term provided and reserved for the worst kind of offender(s) charged under s. 319 of the Criminal Code Act 1974.The cry from the victim's family and the prisoner's family of total rejection of prisoner's early release back to them in their village cannot be treated lightly as the offence committed out of domestic violence family related setting environment.
    
44. Therefore, the Court view the appropriate penalty would be to put prisoner through a positive deterrent rehabilitative proactive option without any suspended sentence and without any reporting conditions attached to it; the Court therefore imposes custodial sentence in the circumstances of this case as appropriate in order to send a right deterrent signal to the prisoner and to the community at large for any potential offenders in the future from the same area or in the immediate environment in the same Local level Government area and or district as the case may be.
    
45. In view of the prisoners action to inflict double punishment strategy by inflicting harm on the victim by hitting her on her leg with the iron rod and put burning firewood to victim's neck area and cause her permanent deformity to her neck area, when in fact prisoner knowingly inflicted wound on the victim, who was his wife. The Court in the circumstances of this case could not find any other exceptional situation that may warrant an application of a suspended sentence is indeed not only suitable but not desirable in this case. Hence, the appropriate sentence, I find in this case is custodial sentence less the pre-trial custody period.
    

SENTENCE BY THE COURT

46. The Court sentences the prisoner to four years imprisonment in hard labour (IHL) less the Pre-trial period in custody.
    

ORDER

47. The prisoner is sentenced and ordered to serve his term of imprisonment at Kerevat Corrective Institution for the term of four (4) years IHL less the Pre-Trial custody period.

________________________________________________________________
The State Prosecutors Office: Lawyer for the State
The Public Solicitors Office: Lawyer for the Defendant