N7894

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 607 OF 2019

THE STATE

-V-

JORDAN TEMONA

Daru: Koeget, J
2019: 19th June

CRIMINAL LAW- Indictable offence Manslaughter – section 302 of the Criminal Code Act – Accused pleaded guilty to the charge – application to change guilty plea to not guilty pursuant to section 563 of the Criminal Code Act 

EVIDENCE – Accused raise defence of self defence under section 269 of the Criminal Code Act – Accused attacked by deceased with a bush knife within close range – accused fired arrow at the deceased in defence of his own life – State offers no evidence in rebuttal – leave granted – not guilty plea entered under section 563 of the Criminal Code Act – Trial ordered and State offers no evidence – State fail to discharge onus when accused raised the defence of self defence – No case submission at close of State’s case – Acquittal of accused. 

FACT

On the 20th May 2018 at about 3’00 clock in the afternoon, the deceased armed with a bush knife began chopping young coconut leaves in anger as he had been drinking alcohol for two days.  A by-stander named Howard Temona shouted at the deceased and told him to stop chopping young coconut trees but he continued so Howard Temona armed with a bush knife confronted him.  Another by stander named Peter Pawar intervened and disarmed the deceased by removing the bush knife from his hand.  The deceased walked away to his house in the village.
 
A few minutes later the deceased returned, armed with another bush knife and began chopping young sago palms belonging to his sister Sarenda Sirina.

The accused armed with bow and arrows and in company of his brother Watson Temona confronted the deceased.  The deceased ran to the accused and swung the bush knife at him and it struck the arrow he held with a bow.  The accused used another arrow with a metal tip and fired it at the deceased.  The arrow struck the deceased on the left hand side of the body below the left collar bone and it penetrated into the flesh.  The deceased collapsed and died as a result of the arrow wound.

Cases Cited:

State –v- Paul Rape Kunid [1976] PNGLR 96
Poka Pep (No.2) –v- The State

Counsel:

D. Mark, for the State
J. Kolowe, for the Accused

19th June, 2019
Application to enter plea of Not Guilty

1.	KOEGET J: INTRODUCTION: The accused is charged with one count of Manslaughter pursuant to section 302 of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 262.  

2.	The accused pleaded guilty to the charge so a “Provisional Guilty Plea” was recorded.  The Defence Counsel raised an objection on the basis that the guilty plea was inconsistent with instructions from his client so by application sought leave of the Court under section 563 of the Criminal Code Act to enter a “plea of not guilty” on behalf of his client.  This was because the accused raised the defence of self-defence under section 269 of the Criminal Code Act.

LAW

3.	“Section 563:  Entry of plea of Not Guilty.

Notwithstanding anything in this code, counsel for an accused person may, with leave of the Court and after the accused person has been - 

(a)	informed of the offence with which he is charged; and
(b)	ask to plea to the indictment,

enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the accused person.”

EVIDENCE

4.	The accused stated he was attacked by the deceased once with bush knife and on second occasion the deceased charged at him at very close range so he fired the arrow to defend himself from the attack.  At that instant he had no choice but to fire that arrow at the deceased to protect himself.

Verdict

5.	The application was granted and the Court entered a “not guilty plea” on behalf of the accused and so a trial commenced. At the commencement of the trial, the State offered no evidence and closed its case.  The Defence counsel made a “No Case to Answer Submission” on the first limb of the principle in the case of the State –v- Paul Kundi Rape [1976] PNGLR 96.  The Defence Counsel submitted that there was no evidence connecting the accused to the offence charged so the accused had no case to answer.  This submission succeed and the Court held that the accused had no case to answer so he was discharged from the indictment forthwith.  He was also discharged from Daru Corrective Institution Services (CIS) forthwith as well.

ORDERS

(1)	The accused has no case to answer so he is discharged from the indictment forthwith.

(2)	The accused is discharged from Daru Corrective Institution Services (CIS) forthwith as he has no pending cases.

Accordingly Ordered.

________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer of Accused