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

State v Hiri [2017] PGNC 153; N6821 (26 April 2017)

N6821

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 1648 OF 2016

THE STATE

V

SLYVESTER HIRI

Kiunga:Koeget, AJ
2017: 20^th & 26^th April.

CRIMINAL LAW- Indictable offence – Murder under section 300(i)(a) of the Criminal Code Act – guilty plea – maximum sentence is imprisonment for life – court’s discretionary powers under section 19 of the Criminal Code Act.

FACTS:

On the night of 31^st of December 2015, between eight o’clock and eleven o’clock the accused and the deceased were at Matkomnai village. The deceased in this case is the son of the accused.

The deceased went to his maternal uncle’s house to ask for more beer. He was told there was no more beer left so the deceased walk down the stairs to the ground.

It is alleged that after short while on the ground, the deceased was crying in pain under his maternal uncle’s house.

The villagers went to the location where the deceased cried in pain and saw him lying on the accused’s laps. The accused was seen crying over the deceased.

The deceased was rushed to Matkomnai Health Centre where he died due to loss of blood from the wound inflicted with a knife. The accused admitted stabbing the deceased with a kitchen knife that he took from his house. The stab wound was under the deceased’s left arm.

Cases Cited:

Manu Kovi –v- The State (2005) SC789
The State –v- Alois Lagu (2011) (N4354)
The State –v- Thress Kumbamong (2008) SC1017
The State –v- Maria Tuu (2008) N3706

Counsel:

Ms J. Aihi, for the State.
G. Tine, for the Accused.

26^th April, 2017

1. KOEGET AJ: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged with one count of Murder pursuant to section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act chapter 262.
   

ARRAIGNMENT:

2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge so he was convicted accordingly.
   

ISSUE:

3. The issue for the court to determine is what is the appropriate sentence to impose upon the accused.
   

LAW:

4. The law in relation to murder is as follows:
   

“300. Murder.

(1) subject to the succeeding provisions of this code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder -

(a) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other person;

Penalty: subject to section 19, imprisonment for life.”

ALLOCATUS:

5. On allocatus, the prisoner had this to say:
   

“True I killed my son. I say sorry to the mother and her brother”. The sorcerers killed him and then sent him to me. I have not been in trouble before. This is the first time I have committed such offence”.

PERSONAL PARTICULARS:

6. The prisoner is from Grengas village in Kiunga but lived at Matkomnai village also in Kiunga. He has no formal education and he had lived all his life in the village so he is a subsistence gardener.
   
7. He is 52 years old and married with six children. The deceased was the eldest child. The ages of his children range for 15 years to 30 years old.
   
8. He has four brothers and five sisters and he is the first born in the family.
   
9. He was employed by OTML as Village Power House Operator for 4 years prior to the commission of the offence.
   

AGGRAVATING FACTORS:

10. The attack was a vicious attack on an unarmed person. The prisoner inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased with knife and as a result he died instantaneously.
    
11. The offence was committed in the village and a life is lost. The actions of the prisoner demonstrate that he had no love for his own son.
    

MITIGATING FACTORS:

12. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge and saved valuable time of the Court. He was remorseful and pleaded for Court’s leniency.
    
13. He has been in custody awaiting disposal of this case for one year and six months so he had led an unblemished life for 50 years. He is a first time offender.
    

SENTENCE:

14. The sentence for such an offence is life imprisonment. In my view this is not the worst type of homicide case to attract imposition of the maximum sentence prescribed under the section.
    
15. The prisoner is remorseful and pleaded for leniency. He has lived an unblemished life for 50 years and this is the first time he has been in trouble.
    
16. The prisoner took the knife from his house and followed the deceased to his maternal uncle’s house. He alone knew the reasons why he took the knife and followed his son in the night to the maternal uncle’s house.
    
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Manu Kovi –v- The State (2005) (SC789) suggested range of sentence for such offence between 16 years to 20 years. This is not an accident or a killing of the deceased on the spur of the moment.
    
18. The prisoner took a knife from his house and followed the deceased to his maternal uncle’s house and waited underneath when the deceased was upstairs. The prisoner stabbed the deceased when he went down to the ground so the prisoner has planned to carry the knife with him and to be at the location where it was easy for him to use that knife to stab the deceased. So there were some degree of planning to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased.
    
19. The prisoner had led unblemished life for over 50 years and so credit is accorded for that fact alone. In my view, the appropriate sentence to impose upon the prisoner is 15 years in hard labour. By then the prisoner should be within the average life span of people in Papua New Guinea.
    
20. Since he has been in custody for one year and six months, this period is deducted and the balance of 14 years and six months are to be served at Ningerum Corrective Institution Services.
    

________________________________________________________________Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State

Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused