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

State v Inguba [2019] PGNC 87; N7741 (7 March 2019)

N7741

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 864 0F 2016

THE STATE

V

SIMION INGUBA

Lae: Pitpit J

2018: 14^th February
2019: 07^th March

CRIMINAL LAW – Wilful Murder – Criminal Code, Section 299 (1) (a) –not guilty plea –Following trial, the Prisoner was acquitted from the primary charge of wilful Murder but found guilty and convicted on the alternative charge of Murder pursuant to section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act, 1974

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Section 300 (1) (a) Criminal Code Act, 1974 - a young first time offender – armed with dangerous weapons – in full view of the men, women and children of the Gitua village – defilement of the Rule of Law – chased down the decease – cut him on the left leg rendering incapable of escaping – when those with the more serious intent came slashed, cut and beheaded the deceased to death – No expression of remorse by him

Cases Cited

Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653

Counsel

Ms.P.Matana for the State
Mr.J. Huekwhain for the offender

SENTENCE

07^th March, 2019

1.PITPIT J: Simion Inguba you were indicted with one count of wilful murder of one Joe Monai. This charge was brought under section 299 of the Criminal Code Act 1974. You had pleaded not guilty and your case had proceeded to trial. Following trial, you were found not guilty and was discharged from the charge of Wliful Murder but was found guilty and convicted on the alternative charge of Murder under Section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act. This now is the decision of the court on sentence.

The Law

Section 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 ; or
• (b) ......
• (c) ...... etc
• (d) .......
• (e) .......
  

Penalty : Subject to section 19, imprisonment for life.

2. The main issue to be determined by the court is what would be the appropriate penalty or punishment to be imposed on you in this case.

3. To assist the court in this task, the court had been greatly assisted by the two counsels of the parties in their respective submissions on the principles in guiding the court on its deliberation on sentence.

4. The first principle submitted was that stated in a number of the Supreme Court cases, but one that readily comes to mind is the case of Lawrence Simbe –v- The State [1994] 38 wher e the Supreme Court was considering whether the trial judge in the first instant had erred when he had in the view of the Appellant, failed to take into account or give sufficient consideration to the deceased’s de facto provocation of attempting to entice the appellant’s wife when the Appellant had strike the deceased with a blow to the chest which was of such force that it had fractured all the ribs, in effect smashing the rib cage. Supreme Court found the conduct of the Appellant as intentional on an unarmed man who had no idea that he was in some danger.

5. The Supreme Court there went further to say; The court has often repeated the concern that people too often take the law into their own hands , and we must repeat that assertion . The Supreme court observed that the trial judge had been consistent with his own tariff. In that he had given similar sentence in another case but it went on to say. We say that it is not a matter of a tariff for a particular types of murder but rather, that its case must be decided on its own facts. Bearing in mind the various factors involved in each case, the gravity of the attack and the concern of the court at people who take the law into their own hands.

6. Returning to the present case, the facts as alleged by the State and adopted by the defence in its address on sentence were that on the 17^th day of September,2015, at Gitua Village here in Morobe Province, the accused persons, SIMON INGUBA and RICKEY CHARLES TAU, wilfully murdered one JOE MOANI.

7. At the time the accused persons were in the company of other persons namely OSCAR BUANZINU INCUBA, GEROGE ZINAI, STEVEN BUAZINU INCUBA plus some other persons.

8. The State alleges that on the 16^th of September, 2015, there was a dispute between the accused family and the deceased family, which continued on the 17^th of September, 2015.

9. On the 17^th of September, 2015, the deceased and his brother, TIM LAU, were walking to Tim’s house when the grouped of mentioned above surrounded them. This grouped of men were armed with bush knives and other weapons.

10. They chased the deceased and his brother. They caught the deceased and decapitated his head from his body.

11. The State alleges that Simon Inguba used a bush knife to chop the deceased on his left leg causing the deceased to fall and the deceased lifted his hands begging them to stop.

12. It is alleged that Rickey Charles Tau was part of the group that chased the deceased with bush knives and chopped the deceased body into pieces.

13. The State alleges that the action the accused contravened Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1974. In the first alternative, the State alleges that the accused contravened Section 300(1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act. And in the second alternative the State alleges that the accused contravened Section 302 of the Criminal Code Act.

14. The State further invokes Section 7 (1) (c) of the Code against both accused persons.

15. The incident prompting the charge had occurred at Gitua Village, Tewae/ Siassi District, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea on the afternoon of 16^th September, 2015. Two young girls going to the deceased’s house were harassed along the way by two boys from the prisoners side. A fight between the deceased and one of the boys from the offender’s family The matter had been reported to the village court magistrate who had then advised the parties that the matter would be attended to immediately after the Independence celebration. On the morning of the next day 17^th September 2015, between the hours of 9.00am and 10.00am, the deceased and his brother Tau Lau were on their way to Tau Lau’s house, when they were surrounded by a group of men with the accused when they saw them coming so they armed themselves with dangerous weapons including tramontina bush knives offender was with a group of people who were armed with various dangerous weapons in the company of other per sons surrounded by namely Oscar Buanzinu Inguba, George Zinai, Steven Buazinu Inguba plus several other persons.

16. It is alleged by the State that the accused Simion Inguba you upon catching up with the deceased, used a bush knife to chopped the deceased on the left leg causing him to fall to the ground. That when the deceased was on his knees with his hands raised and begging his chasers to stop, the State alleged that the accused Ricky Charles Tau using his bush knife then chopped the deceased on the chest.

17. This was a barbaric kind of killing, done in broad daylight, and in full view of the village community. All those present. It was in clear defiance of the Rule of Law.

ANTECEDENTS

18. The offender has convictions.

ALLOCATUS

19. The offender was given the opportunity to say what matters the court should take into account when deciding on punishment. He decided to exercise his right to remained silent and said nothing on allocatus.

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

20. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of reasonable doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (SaperusYalibakut v The State (2006) SC890). The facts to which the offender pleaded guilty suggest that there was no high degree of intention to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim. What you were found to have done was strategic, you had chopped his leg and that had rendered him immobile and left him at the wimp of those that came later to chopped him to pieces.

21. This offence is very common and prevalent, throughout the country. It was done without any respect for the sanctity of life as a divine gift

22. The prescribed maximum for this offence is Imprisonment for Life. However I am told that Maximum must be reserved for the most serious or the worst of its kind of offences. Your conduct in so far as you are concerned is serious but not to the extent of those of your group who had intended to kill the deceased. Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL

23. Your lawyer had submitted that your case falls under the 2nd category of Manu Kovi, I find that your case as the State had submit falls under the 3^rd category. That is, there was strong desire to cause grievous bodily harm, dangerous weapons were used, and the attack was in defiance of the Rule of law, and without respect for human life.

24. In my opinion the offence calls for a strong deterrent and punitive sentence. To that end I have decided that a period of 25 years imprisonment is appropriate and warranted.

25. I will order that:

1. The Prisoner is sentence to 25 years imprisonment after he was found guilty and convicted on the charge of Murder contravening s.300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act.
2. Pre-custodial period of 3 years, 5 months, 2 weeks and 3 days is to be deducted from the time awaiting trial in CS custody at Buimo.
3. The balance of 21 years, 6 months, 1 week and 4 days is to be served IHL in CS custody at Buimo.

Sentenced accordingly.
_________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Offender