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

State v Hoffa (No 1) [2022] PGNC 428; N9770 (20 June 2022)

N9770

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 1209 OF 2019

THE STATE

V

FREDDY HOFFA
(No 1)

Wewak: Miviri J
2022: 14^th 17^th, 20^th June

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Wilful Murder S 299 CCA – Trial – death undisputed –Internal Head & Puncture of Lung – intent to kill – Role of Accused – Identification – Circumstantial Evidence – No Other Reasonable Hypothesis Other than Accused Shot Deceased with Gun – Whether Balance Discharged – Balance Discharged – Guilty of Wilful Murder – Bail Refunded forthwith.

Facts
Accused argued and fought with the deceased. They cut each other. They continued Accused shot him with homemade gun intended to kill him and did so.

Held
Accused in possession of a homemade gun.
Accused fought deceased both injured bush knives used.
Treatment at hospital.
Continued Argument Accused shot deceased with gun.
Intent to Kill
Killing
Guilty of Wilful Murder
Bail refunded.

Cases Cited:
Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558
Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980
Beng v The State [1976] PNGLR 471
Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498
Morris v The State [1981] PNGLR 493
Bonu and Bonu v The State [1997] PGSC 11; SC528
State v Merriam [1994] PNGLR 104
Koroka v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 131

Counsel:

F. K. Popeu, for the State
A. Kana, for Defence

VERDICT

20^th June, 2022

1. MIVIRI J: This is the verdict of Freddy Hoffa of Japarakwa No.2 Yangoru Sausia, East Sepik Province who was charged with wilful murder that he on the 19^th April 2019 at Makun/Malasi here in Wewak wilfully murdered one Jafford Hoffa.
   
2. On that day at the Japarakwa camp Makun/ Malasi he was consuming home brewed liquor together with the deceased Jafford Hoffa and other young men. In the course of the drinking, they started arguing and the deceased got up and got a bush knife and fought the accused who also armed himself with bush knives and they started to fight each other with it. Both received injuries to their bodies and went to the hospital. Then returned and continued to drink but separately. And around 7.00pm to 8.00pm the deceased and his friends walked past where the accused and his friends were drinking. He called out to the Accused to get his money ready. Whereby the accused who was in possession of a homemade gun called out to block the deceased, and he ran at the deceased and discharged a shot from his gun at him. There was a black out and the deceased fell down and died because he was shot. No one saw him until the next morning, because of the blackout. Medical examination report of the deceased showed that he had died from Cardiopulmonary Arrest due to the gunshot wound to the heart and lungs. Accused intended to kill the deceased and did kill him.
   
3. He was charged with wilful murder under section 299 (1) of the Criminal Code Act which reads:
   
   • (1) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person intending to cause his death or that of some other person is guilty of wilful murder.
     
   • (2) A person who commits wilful murder shall be liable to be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
4. He pleaded not guilty to the indictment upon arraignment. It appeared from the evidence that was tendered by consent, Exhibit P1 Pidgin record of interview of the Accused dated the 15^th May 2019, English translation Exhibit P1(a). He stated at question 11, that he had fought with the deceased with knife at 2 o’clock to 3’o clock in the afternoon. He elected to remain silent all throughout it.
5. The next was Exhibit P2 the Statement of Jerry Peter the arresting officer of the case. He was on duty Sunday 20^th April 2019 during the Easter Weekend and was called out on a report of wilful murder committed at Malasi village. It was committed upon one Jafford Hoffa. He was trying to proceed to the scene but suspects were brought in, who were Freddy Hoffa, Peter Pino, and other witnesses. All were questioned and statements were taken. Suspects were detained and their statements were analysed. And Peter Pino was released on the 1^st May 2019 as he was a key witness to be used. And Freddy Hoffa was arrested as the main suspect in the matter. Peter Pino cooperated with Police and gave important leads with Police investigation and assisted police to identify the main shooter, the person who pulled the trigger as he was there at the time on the said location and saw everything. That was essentially the evidence of this witness that was tendered.
6. Next was Exhibit P3 the East Sepik Provincial Health Authority director of Curative Health Services medical report dated the 03^rd day of May 2019 in respect of the deceased Jafford Hoffa’s body, which was identified by relatives and Police. Primarily the cause of death was Penetrating gunshot wound to Heart and Lungs. The date and the time of death was 19^th April 2019 at 8 to 9pm. Significant abnormal findings at examination were young Melanesian male with height of 170cm and weight of 70 kilogram. Sustained laceration just above the left wrist. Sustained gunshot wound, entry wound from the back at T4-T5 level and exit wound at the base of the neck anteriorly. The Heart and lungs were penetrated by the Bullet. In addition, the fracture was also penetrated along with compound fracture of both devicles and sternum at the trachea sternoclariculus joints. It was signed on the 03^rd of May 2019 by Doctor Raphael Malien Government medical Officer.
7. Exhibit P4(a) is photograph of the deceased showing the bullet wound to the victim’s chest, it is the exit point of the bullet out of the body of the deceased. And Exhibit P4 (b) is the entry point wound at the back of the deceased. It is where the bullet entered the body of the deceased. Exhibit P4(c) is the body of the deceased frontal supine as the body was recovered that morning. And exhibit P4(d) is the body as it was lying in the morgue facial with shoulder.
   
8. The tale of this evidence by consent is that the deceased was facing away from his assailant at the time that he was shot. It would appear he was not expecting the shot and was looking away with his back to his assailant. He was shot back on as he and the assailant were within hearing of each other. That is why the entry is from the back evidenced by the entry point of the projectile exhibit P4(a) exit point. To get the wound in that manner the deceased was walking away or had his back to his assailant and it was within range and in sight of the assailant for him to discharge directly hitting the deceased there. It would be by chance that the projectile would get the manner it did the deceased here in a dark night, visibility zero to nothing. In my view these evidence shows the visibility was there for the assailant to get that target as evidenced here. Entry point is right on the back of the chest straight fracturing T4-T5 of the spine into the heart and lungs and out just inches from the neck. These were vital parts of the human body under which were the vital organs, the heart, and the lungs. The shot is calculated and aimed to be able to hit as is shown by the medical report and cleared out by the photographs set out above. It is just below the neck and would penetrate into the heart and lungs as seen by the Doctor in the medical report set out above. Deceased is 170cm tall and the person who shot him was about the same height for the bullet to penetrate as it did. Because this would allow the deceased and the assailant to be on parallel with each other for the latter to shoot as he did to hit the vital organs as set out. Common sense dictates that the assailant given this facts was visible to the deceased. He would be close to the deceased to make that shot without any night vision equipment to shoot as he did. It is clear that both were within sight of each other when the shot was fired into the deceased. And were a short distance from each other for accuracy of the shot. Because a home-made gun fired at a distance would not be as accurate as the wounds set out in the body of the deceased. And that this person was within range of that gun to get a clear shot to the vital organs of the deceased. In a way it is analogous to the observation made in Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498 these primary facts would be pointing to the criminal here.
   
9. This evidence is independent and corroborative of the version that is the truth in the case, and its effect sets out into the open what is the truth in the matter for and against. The medical report prepared by Doctor Raphael Malien Government medical Officer is not interested in whether or not the assailant is guilty or not. It is a professional view based on his profession and school as to the medical cause of death. He is a professional and is giving that evidence from that fact. He is not a relative of the Accused or the deceased. His evidence therefore in my view will bring out the truth in this dispute. Principally because all witnesses for and against are related to both the Accused and the deceased. There is the natural and human tendency to give evidence that is tailored to suit a favourable outcome to the Accused against the deceased, and vice versa.
   
10. For instance, state witness, Kepas Vue is related through his mother to both the Accused and the deceased. She is the cousin of Freddy the Accused. Jafford the deceased is uncle of Freddy the Accused. Peter Pino is a friend of Freddy and from the evidence of the Arresting Officer he was an accomplice in the death here. Henry Hoffa is brother of the Accused so is not an independent witness. Dennis Sawi second witness for the defence case is not independent as contended by Counsel, he would be more inclined to give an account favourable to the accused. And this is clear from the way he has described the injuries of the Accused. He states they shouldered him down with Peter Pino and another. Obviously, the treatment records on that day would give credence to hold this in the favour of the Accused defence. It is therefore independent evidence demarcating that will tell as to which side of the case is the truth, nothing but the truth. That is why the medical report here is that evidence that sets apart who is telling the truth here.
    
11. I have pointed out above inconsistencies that are material and underpinning the witnesses that will undermine their evidence. What will bring out the truth is the independent medical evidence by Doctor Raphael Malien Government medical Officer. And the Supreme Court has stated that assessment of logic and common sense and consistency in evidence are important tests for credibility of witnesses and their testimony. Any serious unexplained inconsistency in evidence and evidence not in keeping with logic and common sense are basis for rejection of such evidence: Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558 (7 July 1998); Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980 (8 July 2009). Therefore, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that Jafford Hoffa was shot with a gun on the 19^th April 2019. And he sustained entry of the projectile that was fired from that gun into his back at the T4-T5 level and exit wound at the base of the neck anteriorly. The Heart and Lungs were penetrated by the bullet. In addition, the fracture was also penetrated along with compound fracture of both devicles and sternum at the trachea sternoclariculus joints.
12. The first witness on oath, Kepas Vue 25 years old educated to grade 12 and part Japarakwa and Tolai East New Britain, recalls that night the 19^th April 2019. Relevantly his evidence both in chief and in cross examination are that they had cooked and had eaten. The deceased had finished from the hospital came and ate his food. Then together they went out to the road outside. They were accompanied by one Junior Baiwan all standing together. And whilst they were standing the deceased was arguing with the Accused Freddy, recalling his injury to his hand as a result of the fight with the accused. He called out to Accused and they were swearing at each other. We were trying to stop them because their houses were close by each other about from the witness box to the wall at the back of the Court, about 10 meters. They were arguing we were surprised when we heard gunshot and we ran away. And the gunshot was after Jafford swore at Accused, Kan you. We did not see who fired the gunshot around the area we were standing. Where we were there were no lights because it was underneath coconut and mango tree. Light is where the church service area was, which is about from the witness box to the bananas outside, about 30 to 40 meters away. The coconut and the mango tree stopped the light from reaching where we were. After we ran away Jafford’s house was burnt down. I do not know who burnt it down as I had run away already by then. He ran to the house of one Mathew Sawi and Junior ran to the road. And without realizing that Jafford went down and that he was dead. Accused was injured on the left hand he showed us 2 fingers and elbow.
13. And then he came back and went across to Aunty Janet Sorowi as someone had hit her ribs. He went to check. And she said Peter Pino did this.
14. Gloria Mombi was the next witness on oath for the State. Her evidence on examination in chief and cross examination was that she is from Japarakwa and lives at Mapun for 10 years. And is employed as a security guard with Pacific Corporate Security Services. She is married with two children a boy and a girl. I was in the house on the 19^th April 2019. Jafford called so I went to their house. I went and gave food to his child. And Freddy went and asked him quietly at the veranda that I will cut the mango and put up my canteen. And Jafford replied No not me, send talk to Bubu man, and if he says, you cut it and put your canteen, you do that. Freddy turned back and told Jafford, you bastard. And he was worried. I am just leaving here I will go back to my father’s place. He gave me his child and they fought. They cut each other with knives. I stood in between and two of them went to the hospital as they were both injured. That is what I saw and heard. I was born from their aunty. When the gun fired his baby had cried, so I went to the other side at Kandige camp. That is where I heard the sound of the gunfire.
15. The next State witness on oath was Peter Pino from Maprik employed at the Motorist Discount Centre Wewak Hill Road, who was working there in 2019. He was asked where he was on that day and he answered that he could not recall. And when asked whether he knows about Makun/Malasi he said Yes. And when asked whether he went there in the evening he denied. And when asked about a story that he gave to Police about incident at Makun Malasi he said yes. I can recall we, Myself and Freddy, went to the hospital in the afternoon when it was still daylight. Because they both, Freddy and Jafford fought and were injured, as a result so we went to the hospital. They were fighting with knives cutting themselves with wounds so we went to the hospital. I heard the gunshot when it was fired and I was afraid so I ran away. We were drinking and this incident occurred, Me and Freddy were drinking. When the gunshot was fired Jafford was at his house. And I was with Freddy. The gunshot was heard after the fighting at night. And it was night so I did not see who fired the gun. But in the afternoon Freddy was holding a gun - a homemade gun. And I saw it when we were drinking during the daytime. When the gun was fired, I was sitting on the road trying to go home when I heard the gunshot. There were no others with guns that afternoon. And there were no others that argued with Jafford only Freddy both argued with each other.
16. The State closed its case and defence made a no case submission which did not stand because lawfully Jafford was shot dead with a gun after the argument with the accused. And the only person with gun was the accused and he was arguing with the deceased before the gun was fired. Prima facie there was a case to answer on the charge of wilful murder. The no case submission was rejected and the defendant was called to give evidence in defence.
17. Freddy Hoffa 46 years old from Japarakwa village Kubalia gave evidence in his own defence. He was married with 3 children and he worked at the airport with Chinese man, Sangyau International. On the 19^th April 2019 he was at home and sleeping in the house. The incident on that day was about 2.00pm to 3.00pm, it was an argument between me and Jafford and then we fought. Jafford is the son of my real cousin sister. Sister of my father’s real brother. Mother is my cousin sister. I went on good terms to see him in peace to talk about something. When I went and saw him, he and two of his friends were drinking. I asked him in a good way, can I build a trade store where he was resident? He responded and yelled at me and said, go and see Bubu first. He hit me on the face and I ran away to my house, He got two knives and was swearing at me to my house. So, I got two knives and came out and met him. And we had a very big fight. We fought until we were out of breath and seriously injured ourselves. And People came in and stopped us and brought us to the hospital. The nature of the injuries was that he cut off my left finger and Right elbow. He showed the scar of both finger and elbow. The cut ring finger is not functioning. I was assisted to the hospital by Peter Pino, Thomas Yawiga, and Dennis Sawi. And at the hospital they stitched my hands and we walked back home. It was about 8.00pm to 9.00pm because it was already dark. Because we went to the hospital all of us rested. In the house my family was there – my parents with my wife and children. And they left me and went back to their homes and I slept in the house. And in the house some time later me with the whole family we heard a gunshot. And we heard a very big noise outside. We came out to the veranda of the house and we saw plenty of people and we saw Jafford’s house was on fire. And we did not do anything we went and slept.
18. When returned from the hospital Jafford was with his friends and swearing only. He was calling out, “Kan, hole Kan, I want my money” and he was calling out and yelling. I didn’t do anything as I was with pain so I was just sleeping in my house. Peter Pino’s evidence was that you had a gun. That is not true I don’t have a gun in my house. When Jafford’s house was on fire it was hard to recognize anyone as it was dark. And in the morning broad daylight at about 6.00am to 7.00am when I became aware of the fact that Jafford was dead. That Jafford would not move away from the subject land as it was family land. He only needed a small piece close to the road. And he did not call Jafford a bastard. My house was set on fire all my properties were burnt up in it including my medical report. And I am right-handed and there is nothing wrong with my fingers only the elbow. I know Gloria she is a cousin sister. And our fight was a big fight only two of us chasing each other. Jafford was injured in the hand. And which was not sorted out as yet. I was in the house did not do anything. I was sleeping. It was Jafford who was drinking and swearing. They ate and then continued to drink at Kepas place and were swearing a lot in the community. Both my hands were injured in the fight earlier so I did not take the gun over and shoot Jafford. And he is my uncle.
19. Second defence witness was one Dennis Sawi 35 years old from Kubalia living at Makun/Malasi unemployed. He confirms that Freddy was seriously injured in the elbow and finger. Three of us took him to the hospital returned and then left him with his family. We do not know what happened after. And I did not hear any gunshot.
20. Third witness for defence was Henry Hoffa brother of the Accused a teacher together with his wife a teacher also at Brandi Secondary School and lived there. He was 41 years old married with three children. April 2019 was school holidays so he was with his family there when the incident happened. But could not recall the incident between the Accused and the deceased. In the evening between 8.00pm to 9.00pm he went to church service. And after that went back to the house. And saw Freddy and the boys he was seriously injured and his elbow and fingers were in bandage. He went to bed when we were looking on. We were there we saw him and he was sleeping in the house we heard the gunshot. I do not know about the deceased arguing with Freddy. That was the evidence of this witness.
21. The last witness one councillor Mathias Porika was disallowed as his evidence was as to the character of both accused and the deceased. It was not relevant as accused was on trial guilt not determined and in the case of the deceased, he would not have the opportunity to rebut the assertions that the witness would make against his character. That closed the defence case.
22. What is in issue now is the identity of the person who shot and killed Jafford Hoffa. The allegation is that it was a very dark night and it could not be seen who the gunman was responsible for the fatal shot that hit Jafford Hoffa in the back of the neck on the spine T3-T4 fracturing it, piercing through coming out just below the neck where the collar bone and the clavicle were. In the process shooting through the heart and lungs killing him within minutes or instantly. The relevant law on identification is in Beng, The State v [1976] PNGLR 471. Essentially that here it was a dark night and identification was not firmed out, so there could not be a conviction on the indictment made out against the accused. He was not seen firing the gun at the deceased. That all witnesses both for the Prosecution and in defence state they could not identify the gunman who shot and killed the deceased. This is the direct evidence. Therefore, the charge could not sustain against the accused and he must be acquitted and discharged.
    
23. Had this were the complete status of the evidence indeed that verdict would have fallen in favour of the accused. But that is not the case here by the evidence and the facts. There is circumstantial evidence relied and led against the Accused. The law relevantly is set out in Pawa (supra), “When a case against an accused person rests substantially upon circumstantial evidence there should be an acquittal unless all the circumstances are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.” It should be the only reasonable hypothesis and no other on the evidence led, “ Where at the end of the prosecution case there are inferences inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, there is a discretion to acquit, but only where an overall view of the case leaves the court with the conclusion that it would be unsafe and dangerous to convict,” Morris, The State v [1980] PGNC 87; [1981] PNGLR 493 (28 May 1980). This is the test that will see out the verdict in this matter.
24. It is undisputed that Jafford Hoffa was shot with a gun from the back on the night of the 19^th April 2019 between 8.00pm and 9.00pm and he died as a result. He was shot within by the gunman from the back that is why the entry wound at the back just at T3-T4 entering into the heart and the lung killing him and exiting from just below the neck Infront. The place where he was shot is not on a public frequented area but next to his own house. Which is about the same distance as from the witness box to the back of the court wall at the back about 10 meters. It was within hearing that is why either could hear what was uttered. That accused as well as the deceased. The swearing could be heard by the Accused uttered by the deceased, because they were within hearing being just next door to each other. That is why the accused was able to hear the swear words, “kan, hole kan. I want my money. Because he was calling out and yelling. Which is consistent with the evidence of Kepas Vue that both the accused and the deceased were swearing at each other. And it was because deceased was also injured at the hands of the Accused in the earlier fight. And the accused was similar having sustained the injuries that he testified to at the hands of the deceased. That is why the evidence of Kepas Vue continues “We were trying to stop them because their houses were close by each other about from the witness box to the wall at the back of the Court, about 10 meters. They were arguing we were surprised when gunshot and we ran away. And the gunshot was after Jafford swore at Accused, Kan you. We did not see who fired the gunshot around the area we were standing.”
25. So, if this is the scene that is painted by the evidence short of seeing who fired the gun, it does not make sense when he says we were trying to stop them because their houses were close about 10 meters. Would there be any need to stop them if one was the only one calling out, whilst the other accused was inside his house sleeping. There would be no reason for this witness to voice as he does particulars set out above. Because it is not consistent with the truth, that he expressed in that manner because both were within sight calling out swearing at each other carrying on from what they left off with their injuries to each other from the earlier fight with the bush knives. It was fresh that is why the deceased was calling out to the Accused who took the challenge and played it out. If the wounds were still with pain after being sutured that is the more to be ignited as was the deceased. And in similar terms would be the accused. He does not have a medical report to verify the extent of injuries so that he was crippled as his own brother made it out to be. His evidence is not independent because he is more inclined to give evidence in favour of his brother the accused. That is why he does not dispose to what the deceased was doing to prompt his brother the Accused. He is a witness who has picked and chosen certain evidence and not the rest so that it is tailored for his brother’s favour. Here stating when he came, he went and slept we saw it. And which is tailored in with the accused own evidence that of the whole family seeing and hearing everything as he heard and saw. Here is a desperate man who is trying to create distancing from the offence. So, the evidence of his brother Henry does not advance his evidence any further.
26. Because in my view there was lights for them to see to shoot the deceased, because common sense dictates that one does not shoot targets in the dark and secure a hit as is the case here. It is either the target is visible or if not, that clear for one to be able to come up close to discharge the fatal shot. And here that is more than probable, because if it was dark, accused would not venture out as he did. He was assaulted and cut up by the deceased with a bush knife. He would be cautious in the way he approaches the deceased having suffered at his hands with wounds that he showed in court. Therefore, it was not as dark as painted by the witnesses there were lights enough for the accused to see that he had the upper hand because the deceased was with his back to him and not armed. And this lights in my view were coming from the Church gathering that was on. How else could the accused make out the deceased and shoot him if there was no light? He was satisfied with the amount of light to be able to fatally shoot the deceased as he did.
27. So, he acted as is alleged he shot him with the homemade gun that was in his possession seen by Peter Pino in the afternoon. That is why accused ran out boldly calling out “blockim em blockim em” And then he shot him in the back because then the deceased may have realized that accused had the gun but when he ran, he was late because the accused discharged in that instant shooting him as set out by the medical report. That is a fatal mortal wound it does not come with a guess that the body must be here or could be here. It comes with clear sight of the body visible to be able to pick out the most lethal and venerable part of the body to discharge so that a kill is made. If it was dark, it could not have been possible to shoot the deceased. There was light enough because the accused was up close enough to make out and shoot the deceased fatally killing him instantly. And his height makes up so that both he and the deceased are parallel for him to make that killing shot. The heart and lungs do not get shot just like that in the dark without night vision equipment. And this is a homemade gun not a factory-made gun so, it must be certain for the accused to shoot as he does.
    
28. The reason that Kepas Vue does not disclose the final bit in his evidence is because he is related to the accused also. He is not speaking the truth because the gun is discharged after the deceased utters to the accused Kan you hole kan. I want my money. There is no other person with motive to attack the deceased that night except the Accused. There was no other person with a gun who had grudges with the deceased immediately at that vicinity. Here he cut the accused with two bush knives in the day for which he was treated at the hospital and released. And the immediate area is where both Accused and deceased live. It is not a public frequented area and it is at night-time and there is the swearing by the deceased which ends with a gunshot that kills him. He is swearing at the accused who is in possession of a homemade gun seen by Peter Pino earlier. There is no evidence it has been taken off the accused. There is no other who had a homemade gun there immediately only the accused was, who had suffered at the hands of the deceased hours earlier on in the day. And he was fighting with the deceased earlier that day. And the deceased was carrying on that swearing at him which ended abruptly with a gun shot with the deceased dead, but the gun man not seen. It is clear that evidence has been manufactured left out by Kepas Vue and Peter Pino and Henry Hoffa brother of the Accused .
    
29. There is no other reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. He alone had the motive to shoot and to attack the deceased. He alone had the grudge against the deceased who had cut him up with the bush knife earlier for which deceased was also cut and he was complaining swearing at the accused over it. He was swearing at him immediately after which the gun fired in response and they ran away. The person who fired the gun is the accused. He alone had possession of that gun since the afternoon. It was not disposed off, there is no evidence to this effect. He was in that position and did shoot the Accused as alleged. I ask myself is it reasonable given. In my view it is reasonable given these primary facts and there are no other reasonable explanations open other than his guilt Bonu and Bonu v The State [1997] PGSC 11; SC528 (24 July 1997).
    
30. There was no witnesses except for the behaviour of the prisoner leading up. Here the witnesses have purposely left out the details to see out the accused because they are related to each other. The only person with a motive against the deceased who had a deadly weapon a homemade gun was the accused. And he had the opportunity and did use the weapon on the deceased. His case is not like the case of State v Merriam [1994] PNGLR 104 relied on there being opportunities as corroboration for the sexual offences that were supposedly committed by the prisoner. Here their evidence does not end with opportunities but very strong motives coupled so that there is no other reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the Accused. Further here the primary facts show guilt only as the rational inference not as observed in Koroka v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 131, the accused discharged the homemade gun that was in his possession earlier which he used against the deceased who swore at him. And he sighted the deceased to calculate and fire that shot to hit him mortally from which he died. There was an intention to kill by the Accused and he carried it into reality by aiming at his chest hitting him in the heart and lungs to kill him almost immediately.
31. In all the circumstances I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he had the intention to kill and did kill the deceased Jafford Hoffa, I convict him of Wilful Murder as indicted.
32. I return a guilty verdict of murder against Freddy Hoffa.
33. I order that his bail moneys are refunded forthwith and he is remanded to await his sentence at Boram CIS.
    

Orders Accordingly

__________________________________________________________________

Office of the Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State

Office of the Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Defendant