N8255

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR  No. 1145 of 2017
CR  No. 1146 of 2017
CR  No. 1147 of 2017
CR  No. 1148 of 2017
CR  No. 818 of 2017
CR  No. 54 of 2018

THE STATE

v

ISSACK MARI, MAX TO’U, TOKSY TONNY,
BEN TONNY & PAPAWE MAKAU

Goroka/Kainantu: Yagi. J
2018: 03rd December
2019: 18th & 25th April

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – particular offence – one count of arson – Criminal Code Act, s. 436(a) - trial – burning down of 224 dwelling houses made of bush materials – multiple offenders acting in concert – local villagers taking retaliatory action – taking the law into own hands - no planning – deliberate and reckless action – no lives put at risk – sentences of 10 years imprisonment in hard labour imposed without any suspension.

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – particular offence – one count of causing bodily harm with intent – Criminal Code Act, s. 315 - trial – using a bush knife – superficial knife wound to the back – acted under provocation – no permanent disability – sentence of 3 years imprisonment imposed.

Cases Cited:

Alois Erebebe & Taros Togote v The State (2011) SC 1135
Alois Erebebe v The State (2013) SC1228
Emil Kongian v The State (2007) SC928
State v Jackson Sari - CR No. 1007 of 2016 
State v Jonah Arre - CR No. 629 of 2018
State v Smith Ureno - CR No. 1066 of 2017
The State v Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261 
Wesley Nobudi v The State (2009) SC 999

Counsel:

K. Umpake, for the State
V. Agusave, for All the Offenders

SENTENCE
25th April, 2019

1.   YAGI. J:   All five offenders are from Karontara village within the Urara community of the Tairora-Gadsup LLG in the Obura Wonenara District. They have been convicted after trial under s. 436(a) of the Criminal Code for burning down 224 building structures at Baroida Coffee Plantation in the Urara area on 12 and 13 May 2017. The details of the factual findings are provided in my written decision on verdict dated 03 December 2018.

2.	The offender, Ben Tonny, was also found guilty and convicted of causing bodily harm or unlawful wounding with intent under s. 315 of the Criminal Code.

Facts

3.	The relevant facts for the present purposes are that; Colbran Coffeelands Limited (the company) owns and operates the Baroida Coffee Plantation (the plantation) situated in the Urara area in the Obura Wonenara District. On 12 May 2017 the people from neighbouring villages including the Karontara village were at the plantation to collect their payments for their coffee cherries which they had sold to the company a few days earlier.

4.	The company made payments to claimants from all other villages except the claimants from Karontara village. The payment was delayed awaiting a report as to damage caused to company properties allegedly by the people from Karontara village.

5.	The  offender, Ben Tonny, was one of the claimants from Karontara village awaiting payment for his coffee cherries. He confronted Mr Nichol Colbran, the managing director of the company, because his name was mentioned by Mr Colbran linking him to the damage the subject of the report.

6.	When Ben Tonny confronted Mr Colbran, a physical confrontation ensured which resulted in both sustaining injuries. Mr. Colbran sustained bushknife wounds to his left leg, hands and back. Ben Tonny sustained wounds to his chest from rubber pellets fired by Mr Colbran. He also sustained a gunshot wound to his left thigh from live bullet fired by Mr Colbran’s son. As a result of the confrontation the people from Karontara village were forced to disperse and did not receive the payments for their coffee cherries.

7.	Consequently, the Karontara people retaliated against the company by burning down building structures on the plantation. A total of 224 buildings were brought to ashes. All the five offenders were involved in the burning down of the building structures. Most of the building structures were the dwelling houses of the employees of the company. 

8.	The houses of the company employees were constructed mostly of bush materials. Most of the company employees live with their families in these houses. They lost everything inside their houses from the fire. The exact number of the company employees and their families affected is also not clear from the evidence.

9.	As to the injuries sustained by Mr. Colbran; according to the photographs these were on his back, the left leg, the right forearm, biceps and elbow and the left forearm. There is no evidence that the injury to the left leg, the right and left hands were caused by the offender Ben Tonny. Indeed the only evidence from Mr Colbran is that Ben Tonny attacked him with a bush knife that cut his back. There is no medical report as to the back injury. The only evidence is the oral testimony from Mr Colbran and a photograph of his back injury attached to the affidavit of Chris Colbran (Exhibit “P11” – Annexure “C”). There is a medical report dated 26 May 2017 by Dr. Jennifer Bunnow, MD of Summer Institute of Linguistics Clinic at Ukarumpa produced in Court during the trial and marked for identification (MFI – 1) but the report was not identified and tendered into evidence. As such this report does not form part of the evidence in the trial and will therefore be disregarded.

10.	It would appear from the evidence of Mr Colbran that the knife wound to his back was not very serious. It certainly was not life threatening. The photograph does not depict a deep cut to the body. According to Mr Colbran he attended the medical clinic at SIL and left shortly thereafter. The wounds were cleaned and dressings were applied before he left. There is no evidence that the wounds required stitches. There is also no evidence that Mr Colbran was physically incapacitated nor is there evidence that the injury is permanent. It appears the injury was a long superficial cut diagonally from the lower back measuring between 12 - 20 inches in length.

Allocutus

11.	I have heard statements from each of the offenders during allocutus. Two of the offenders namely, Issack Mari and Max To’u expressly denounced the guilty verdict whilst the other offenders made statements which carried the tenor of such statement. Each of them spoke about their personal and family background and circumstances, the retaliatory action and vengeance being taken against their village community by the company and the loss and sufferings resulting there from. In other words they too have suffered from jungle justice. Toksy Tonny ask for mercy and for non custodial punishment so that he wants to reconcile with the company in the Melanesian way. Ben Tonny in so far as it relates to the alternative verdict (bodily harm with intent) he too asks for mercy and for non custodial punishment as he wants to reconcile with the victim.

Pre-sentence and Means Assessment Reports

12.	I have read the pre-sentence and the means assessment reports compiled by the Community Based Corrections Office on each of the offenders. The reports are very similar in terms of structure and substance save for minor variations to reflect each of their personal and family circumstances. 

13.	Each of the offenders expressed the desire to compensate and reconcile with the company. The Urara community through the leaders have expressed support for the offenders. However, the company does not want compensation nor believes that reconciliation is a viable or feasible proposition given the past experiences and encounters it had with some of the offenders and the Urara community at large.

Offender’s Background

14.	I now briefly consider the background of each of the offenders.

Issack Mari – He is aged 31 years, married with 2 young children ages 6 and 2 years respectively. Prior to his arrest he was living with his wife and children in a bush material house. His parents are alive and are of old age believed to be in their 50’s. The offender takes care of the aging parents in the village. He comes from a family of 8 siblings and he is the eldest in the family. He is a villager and subsistence farmer. He completed grade 8 education 15 years ago and for most part of his adult life has not been engaged in the formal employment sector except for a relatively short period prior to his arrest was employed as a labourer by the company. He sustains his family through the wages earned from his employment and also by selling live pigs and goats from his small farm and by selling coffee.  He is in good health and practices his Christian faith with the SDA Church. He wants to say sorry to the company with cash and some garden produce.

Max To’u – He is aged 34 years, married also with 2 young children ages 8 and 6 years respectively. He and his family live in a bush material house. His father passed on at old age some years ago whilst his mother is alive but is very old. He comes from a very large family with 11 siblings; 5 of which are deceased. He has no formal education. He worked as a labourer at the plantation since 2015 and has 10 hectares of coffee garden. He is a member of the Salvation Army Church.

Toksy Tonny – He is aged 32 years and is married with 2 children. His parents are originally from Okapa District but have settled at Karontara village and hence consider Karontara village as his second home. He completed grade 10 education at the then Kainantu High School in 2006 however has not secured formal employment since leaving school. His health is reasonably good. He has 1,853 coffee trees which he draws income to sustain a living. He belongs to the Four Square Church. 

Ben Tonny – The offender comes from a family of 6 siblings. He is the second born in the family. Both of his parents are alive and living in the village. He is aged 32 years, married with 3 children who are aged 6, 4 and 3 years respectively. He is in good health and affiliates with the Four Square Church. He attained grade 10 education also at the then Kainantu High School in 2006. Prior to arrest he worked for the company as an Extension Officer for the past 4 years and earned fortnightly wages of K500.00. He lives with his family in a permanent house in the village. He also owns a trade store, 3 other bush material houses, a motor vehicle – a Toyota Dyna, which he uses as a PMV truck which is a source of income. He also has 2 coffee plots comprising 6,600 coffee trees which generates between K1,500.00 – K1,600.00 during the coffee seasons. He is also member of the Four Square Church. 

Papawe Makau – This offender is aged 31 years and comes from a family of 8 siblings. He is married to 2 wives and has 6 children ages between 5 months to 7 years. He has never been to school. He previously worked as a labourer for the company for 5 years and left in April 2017. He supports his family by working on his coffee garden. He attends the Salvation Army Church to worship. 

Law

15.	The offence of arson committed by the offenders is no doubt very serious because the maximum penalty prescribed by law is life imprisonment. Whilst the law imposes a very severe penalty it is also clear that the law vests in the Court the discretionary power to decide on a lesser penalty depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Amongst the factors involved in the exercise of the discretion are the case law precedents. So the question for the Court to decide is what is the appropriate penalty to impose on each of these offenders? 

16.	Recently in State v Smith Ureno - CR No. 1077 of 2017 (dated 02 July 2018 at Goroka) I stated that the leading case on the law on penalty in arson cases is State v Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261. This position has not changed. I have not heard any argument to the contrary from either the defence or the prosecution. In fact the defence counsel in his submission conceded to this legal proposition.

17.	In Samuel Yomb (supra) 6 factors were identified as relevant for the purposes of sentencing. These are:

(1)	Deliberate or very reckless action in putting lives at risk
(2)	Deliberate pouring of kerosene or other inflammable substance and setting fire to building knowing people were inside
(3)	Deliberate locking of door so as to prevent the occupants from escaping
(4)	Deliberate cold blooded planning of the offence
(5)	The value of the house and its contents to the occupants
(6)	The complete lack of provocation offered to the offender by the victims or occupants

18.	I will therefore determine the sentences for each of the offenders in this case by applying these factors.	

19.	The burning down of the building structures in this case involved a lot more people. The evidence showed that the many people from Karontara village were involved collectively as a group. Unfortunately, the 5 offenders were the only ones arrested for the offence. They have been found guilty and convicted pursuant to s. 7 of the Criminal Code.

20.	So the question arises as to how each of the offenders is to be sentenced; whether or not they are to be sentenced for their actions or omissions individually given that the offence was committed with others with the “common intention or purpose” as envisaged by s. 8 of the Code. In a recent decision of the full bench of the Supreme Court in Alois Erebebe v The State (2013) SC1228 the Supreme Court, after reviewing the principles, in effect stated the general rule that offenders should be punished on equal footing irrespective of the role played by the offender should continue to apply. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle which was held in the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Wesley Nobudi v The State (2009) SC 999 and Alois Erebebe & Taros Togote v The State (2011) SC 1135.

21.	I now turn to consider the relevant factors under the Samuel Yomb (supra) guideline.

Deliberate or very reckless action in putting lives at risk

22.	A total of 224 buildings were set on fire. Some of the buildings were set ablaze almost immediately after the incident between Mr Colbran and the offender Ben Tonny at the paying shed. Others were burnt early morning of the following day. The burning of the houses happened at different locations or compounds within the plantation. 

23.	There is no evidence that peoples’ lives were put at risk. The employees who gave evidence stated that some warning and demand were made by the attackers before their houses were set on fire. They were told to pack up and leave. However the warning was done almost contemporaneously to the burning of the houses. In other words, the warning was too late for the occupants to remove the household contents. They could not even salvage any of their possessions inside the house because the fire rapidly consumed the building making it extremely difficult for the occupants to re-enter the buildings to retrieve any of their possessions.

24.	In my judgement on verdict I found that the basis for the offenders and others to burn down the buildings were twofold; firstly because the company management had caused injuries to a fellow villager by using dangerous weapons, and secondly, by denying their rightful entitlement in terms of the payments for the coffee cherries. 

25.	In the circumstances it would appear that the offenders and their accomplices wanted to take revenge against the company, however, the employees were unfortunately caught as ‘meat in the sandwich’ so to speak. It can be sufficiently inferred from the evidence that by chasing away the labour workforce this would have a direct adverse impact on the company operations and bring its downfall as a viable business operation.  Therefore, in my view, there was deliberate intention to burn the buildings however, there was no intention in putting lives at risk.

Deliberate pouring of kerosene or other inflammable substance and setting fire to building knowing people were inside

26.	There is no evidence of deliberate pouring of inflammable substance to set fire. At least in terms of the evidence before the Court fire was lit from the dry kunai material or other substance found within the surrounding.

Deliberate locking of door so as to prevent the occupants from escaping

27.	There is no evidence of deliberate locking of doors so as to obstruct or impede the occupants from escaping.

Deliberate cold blooded planning of the offence

28.	There is also no evidence of pre-planning. It would appear to be a spur of the moment reaction to the drama at the paying shed earlier in the afternoon.

The value of the house and its contents to the occupants

29.	There is no direct evidence as to the full or detail description and the value of each of the houses including their contents that were burnt to ashes. The photographs provided are insufficient to enable an educated estimate. However the evidence generally indicates that most of the houses were the dwelling homes of the company employees some of whom have families and relatives residing in the houses. As I earlier said these was constructed mostly of bush materials.

30.	The loss suffered as a result of the burning of the buildings would be twofold. First, the value of the dwelling house, the personal items including clothes, kitchen utensils, employment tools, etc. For this loss, in the absence of evidence, I would estimate in monetary terms between K5,000.00 and K10,000.00 for each dwelling house. Secondly, the hardship, inconvenience, frustration, discomfort, anxiety, etc and generally the pain and suffering for being without a decent accommodation for a considerable period of time. 

The complete lack of provocation offered to the offender by the victims or occupants

31.	Under this criteria there is no doubt that the company employees were not part of the dispute between the offenders and the company. Therefore I find that the actions of the offenders and their accomplices were totally unwarranted and unjustified because there was a complete lack of provocation offered by the employees. There is no evidence that the company built the houses for its employees and so I consider it safe to infer that the houses were built by employees from their meager resources and hard labour. I find this to be a strong aggravating factor against the offenders. 

Sentencing tariffs and trends 

32.	I agree with Mr Agusave, counsel for the offenders, that the starting point for sentencing in arson cases involving dwelling homes now stands at 10 years imprisonment. This was decided by the Supreme Court in Emil Kongian v The State (2007) SC928. The State through counsel Mr Umpake does not appear to argue a contrary position to this submission.

33.	Taking 10 years as a starting point the next step is to decide whether there should be further loading based on the aggravating and mitigating features in the case.

34.	In terms of the aggravating factors I find the following to be present -

•	The offenders pleaded not guilty, thus putting undue pressure on the time and resources of the State.
•	A very substantial number of houses were burnt to ashes, a record number of 224. It is unprecedented because I am not aware of nor have I found any reported cases involving that great number.
•	The loss suffered by the company employees is relatively substantial given that they are low income earners, not to mention the unbearable suffering and hardship endured.
•	There is evidence of threats and intimidation used against the company employees.
•	The offenders and many others acted in concert, deliberately venturing out in a war-like fashion, armed with weapons such as bush knives, and destroying the houses of innocent company employees.
•	The offence was committed in the late and early hours of the day at times when the employees and their family were preparing their evening dinner or morning breakfast.
•	The offenders and their accomplices failed to take any step to make peace and reconcile with the company and more particularly the employees of the company and at least help rebuild their houses, for instance by supplying appropriate building materials from the bush and providing free labour assistance.
•	The offenders and their cohorts took the law into their own hands. The offence was triggered by the incident that took place at the paying shed between Mr Colbran and Ben Tonny. Firstly, Ben Tonny was injured as a result and so his remedy was either making a criminal complaint to the police or taking a civil complaint before the Court for compensation. He did neither and therefore took the law into his own hands. Secondly, the people from Karontara village have been aggrieved because they did not collect their entitlements. There is no evidence that payment would never be paid at all. In any case if for some reason payment was unreasonably withheld the recourse available is to sue the company for their legal entitlement. This is not a case where the offenders and their cohorts are without remedy at all so as to resort to an illegal conduct. Taking law into own hands now appear to be a norm in society and that is not a civilised way of resolving disputes. This practice or behaviour should not prevail in the community. 

35.	On the other hand I also take into account in favour of the offenders the following mitigating factors -

•	Except for the offender Papawe Makau, all of them are first time offenders with no prior record. Papawe Makau has a conviction recorded late last year for armed robbery which took place many years ago. However, the State does not rely on this conviction for the purpose of sentencing in this case. His record of conviction will therefore not be taken into account. He will be treated as a first time offender.
•	None of the occupants were inside the houses when the houses were burnt nor was there any casualty.
•	No dangerous or inflammable substance such as kerosene was used to commit the offence
•	Each offender expressed remorse, however, there is no tangible action taken to support the remorse. Indeed this was a trial to which each of the accused denied culpability however were found guilty. Even after the verdict they exhibited during allocutus a defiant and arrogant attitude towards the due process and the criminal justice system. In my view such attitude cannot reflect a genuine and sincere remorse.

36.	Having considered the presence of the aggravating and mitigating factors it is obvious that the aggravating circumstances outweighs the mitigating circumstances of the case. 

37.	I have heard and noted the submissions by both counsel. 

38.	The defence counsel, amongst other submissions, referred to two arson cases where this Court imposed sentences. These are State v Smith Ureno - CR No. 1066 of 2017 dated 2 July 2018 in Goroka and State v Jackson Sari CR No. 1007 of 2016 dated 10 August 2017 in Kainantu. Counsel submits the Court should take the same approach and impose similar sentences and that this case is less serious than the Smith Ureno case (supra). It is therefore submitted the sentence should be 6 - 7 years.

39.	The State, amongst others, submits that due to a number of obvious aggravating factors this is a very serious case of arson and cannot be measured by the sentence imposed in Smith Ureno case (supra) because there only two dwelling houses was set on fire. In this case, it is submitted, the actions of the offenders were reckless. Court is also been asked to consider the victim impact statement. The deterrent aspect of sentencing has also been stressed by the State in submissions.  In the upshot the State submits the penalty should be 10 years.

40.	In Jackson Sari (supra) it involved burning of a semi – permanent dwelling house as a result of tribal conflict. The offender, a young man, and the victim are from the same village but different clans. They left their village and migrated to another area and lived there for many years. A month prior to the commission of the offence a conflict erupted between their clans in the village of origin. The conflict spill over to their new found village and the offender and his relatives therefore burnt the victim’s house in revenge for what the victim’s clan had done to the offender’s family and relatives. The offender pleaded guilty, he was a first time offender, he expressed genuine remorse, no further trouble had occurred, no lives were put at risk or lost, there was some provocation. The aggravating circumstances present in that case included more than one building structure burnt (a semi-permanent dwelling house and two bush material house), damage and loss was substantial by ordinary village standard, a family was displaced hence enduring hardship and suffering, frustrations and anxiety, etc and no tangible step towards peace and reconciliation. In sentencing the Court took into account the fact that the offence is very serious and prevalent in the Highlands region where tribal conflict usually result in such offence being committed. The Court further noted that due to the prevalence a deterrent punishment was warranted.  The Court imposed a sentence of 5 years imprisonment in hard labour. 

41.	In Smith Ureno (supra) the offender a highly educated middle-aged married man with impressive tertiary qualifications working as a free-lance consultant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for burning down 2 semi-permanent dwelling houses. The facts are that his hire vehicle used for his consultancy work was damaged whilst been driven by his driver along the main highlands highway. When the damage was reported to him he went to the scene of the damage to investigate as to who were the perpetrators. His inquiry led him to suspect that the perpetrators were inside the 2 dwelling houses. Apparently he was mistaken. He mobilised his group and went into the premises and set fire on the two buildings. They also caused severe damage to the surrounding area including food garden. He pleaded not guilty however was found guilty after trial. The Court found there were many aggravating features in the case including he pleaded not guilty, the total damage or loss was of substantial value, two building structures were destroyed, two family units were displaced and put to considerable hardship and inconvenience, the offence appears to be alcohol related, the offender acted in a group , he was the leader of the group, he took the law into his own hands, he and his group were armed with dangerous weapons, threats were used and the incident took place in the night which disrupted the sleep of the family members including young children. The factors favourable to the offender included the fact that no lives were lost or at risk, there was no planning, it was an isolated incident, there was no further trouble, although he expressed remorse there is nothing tangible to demonstrate the sincerity and genuineness of such, he was a first time offender and he had a favourable pre-sentence report.

42.	In this case there were two hundred plus more dwelling houses burnt to ashes. This is a very substantial number of houses. By the sheer number makes the gravity of the offence beyond the normal range of sentences. In State v Robin Warren (2003) N2418, a group of people armed with weapons went and terrorised the opposing group and burnt down 19 bush material dwelling houses. They were convicted after trial and most of them were first time offenders. They were sentenced to 15 and 16 years respectively. The sentence in that case reflected the seriousness of the case in term of the number of buildings involved. But again the number in that case is incomparable to the present case.

43.	The offenders in this case acted in deliberate and reckless manner causing unwarranted and unjustified loss to the innocent people in terms of their grievance with the company management. The company employees did not deserve that kind of treatment. There is no valid reason or excuse for the criminal behaviour by the offenders against the workers. The offenders took the law into their own hands and conducted themselves recklessly and unlawfully. I reiterate again taking law into own hands is uncivilised, unacceptable in the society, is wrong, is reprehensible and must not be allowed to permeate under any circumstances because to do nothing will result in anarchy and chaos and the rule of law will diminish its value and piousness in society. The Court has the duty to maintain the supremacy of the rule of law.

44.	The impact statement by the company is a concern. It is clear the company has suffered considerable collateral damage in terms of the losses to its business operations. The closure and or suspension of business operations of the company mean that the company would not be able to earn income and hence pay taxes to the government. These taxes in turn are used by the government to provide and sustain basic and essential services such as infrastructure development, health, education, etc to the rural people. Therefore the public at large are affected indirectly.

45.	I have taken note of the desire of the offenders to reconcile with the company, however, the company has expressed firm position that such proposal is not on the table. I note also that the conflict between the company and the offenders and their community seem to be going on for eternity. There seem to be no solution to the conflict in sight. It appears that the sore contention and the underlying issue is the land. Be that as it may I am unable to appreciate any legitimate claim of right or interest asserted by the surrounding community including the people from Karontara village fundamentally because the land is State Lease and the company appears to have indefeasible title. I can only hope that some responsible person or authority maybe able to provide sound and proper advice and counsel to the local community to exercise restraint and live in peace and harmony with the company and in the long term perhaps this may prove to be mutually beneficial. As the saying goes it takes two to tango.

46.	I have taken into account the offenders have been subjected to jungle justice as a result of retaliatory action by the company. They have also suffered heavily. 

47.	In my view the circumstances of this case is even more serious than the Smith Ureno case (supra). In all the circumstances I accept the submission by the State that 10 years imprisonment is an appropriate penalty to do justice in the case. I do not consider that a suspension of a part or whole of the sentence is appropriate given the gravity in the circumstances of the case.

48.	As regards penalty in respect to the conviction against the offender Ben Tonny for doing bodily harm with intent under s. 315 I have already reflected on the nature of the injury suffered by the victim. I found that to be relatively minor. Clearly the offender acted under strong provocation. Although it was a trial, he was initially charged with a more serious offence of attempted murder which the Court found him not guilty. He therefore was justified under the law in defending the charge. He is a first time offender with positive pre-sentence report. The penalty under s. 315 of the Code is life imprisonment. However, I do not consider that the facts and circumstances of his case put him in the top end of the scale despite the use of a dangerous weapon. I do not agree with the State that a penalty of 4 – 5 years imprisonment is warranted in the circumstances. The defence counsel cited the case of State v Jonah Arre CR No. 629 of 2018 (dated 7 December 2018 at Goroka) where a sentence of 4 years was imposed. That case was a lot more serious because of the serious nature of the injuries and the resultant permanent disability. That case involved a young man whilst under the influence of alcohol confronted a law enforcing officer and struck the officer on the head and hand with a hard piece of wood causing very serious head and hand injuries. The officer sustained fractures to the hand. The head and hand injury eventually healed; however, the officer is left with permanent disability to his hand. The hand is virtually useless and he cannot carry out his official duties normally. Ben Tonny also sustained injuries to the body from the confrontation. Dangerous weapons were used against him. The defence submits for 3 – 4 years imprisonment. I consider that 3 years imprisonment is just and sufficient punishment in all the circumstances. The sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence for arson.

Sentences

49.	In the upshot the sentences of the Court are as follows:

Arson Convictions

Issack Mari		-	10 years imprisonment in hard labour
Max To’u		-	10 years imprisonment in hard labour
Toksy Tonny	-	10 years imprisonment in hard labour
Ben Tonny		-	10 years imprisonment in hard labour
Papawe Makau	-	10 years imprisonment in hard labour

Bodily Harm Conviction
Ben Tonny		-	3 years imprisonment in hard labour to be served 							concurrently with the sentence for arson.

50.	Pursuant to s. 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence custody period shall be deducted for each of the sentences imposed on the offenders. 

51.	Accordingly a warrant of commitment against each of the offenders will be issued in respect to the sentences now pronounced.

__________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State		
Public Solicitor:  Lawyer for the Offenders