N10731

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 1482 OF 2021

THE STATE

V

ALEXANDER GENIA
(No 1)

Waigani: Miviri J
2024: 20th, 22nd & 27th March

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Wilful Murder S299 CCA – Trial – Self Defence – Undisputed Fact Death of Deceased – Accused Stabbed Deceased with a Knife Repeatedly – Whether Accused Acted in Self Defence – Court Order Retrieving CCTV footage – Search Warrant Accompanying – Evidence Lawfully Acquired – Reliance on CCTV Footage – Manager of Premises Installed & Police Informant Statements Tendered –Footage of Camera 1 – Res Ipsa Loquitor – Reliability & Credibility of – Circumstances Inconsistent With Self Defence – No Apparent Threat to Life Limb of Accused – Wilfully Bumping Deceased with Vehicle – Chasing Stabbing Deceased in Vehicle with knife Repeatedly & Randomly – Intent to Kill Deceased – Killing Deceased – Guilty of Wilful Murder – Remanded.

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Wilful Murder S299 CCA – Trial – Scientific Evidence – Interior of Subject Vehicle Confirmed with human Blood – Exterior of Vehicle Drivers Seat and back Seat Confirmed Human Blood – Deceased Stabbed In Vehicle – Murder Weapon – Second Suspected Murder Weapon Black Handle Stainless Steel Kitchen Knife 27.5 Centimetres – Obtained from Accused – Confirmed Human Blood On It – Intent to Kill – Killing of Deceased – Author of Death of Deceased – Motive to Attack Deceased – Money of Deceased In Hands of Accused – Firearm of Deceased Intended to be Registered – No Registration Money In Hands of Accused Used – No Other Reasonable Hypothesis Other Than Guilt of Accused – Guilty of Wilful Murder – Remanded.

Facts
Accused repeatedly stabbed the deceased. His life was not threatened nor was he acting to preserve his life or limb. Stabbed Deceased killing him. He intended to kill the deceased and killed him.

Held
No Self Defence made out on the balance.
Intent to kill.
Killing.
CCTV footage and other evidence prove beyond doubt.
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Guilty of wilful Murder.
Remanded. 

Cases Cited: 

Papua New Guinean Cases
Tapea Kwapena v The State [1978] PNGLR 316
Kassman v The State [2004] PGSC 9; SC759 (20 August 2004)
Regina v Ulel [1973] PNGLR 254
State v Murumbi (No 1) [2022] PGNC 433; N9793 (22 July 2022)
Mai and Avi, The State v [1988-89] PNGLR 56
John Jaminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318
Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558 (7 July 1998)
Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980 (8 July 2009)
Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659 (11 December 2017)
Balbal v State [2007] PGSC 16; SC860 (22 February 2007)
Angitai v The State [1983] PNGLR 185
Kitawal v State [2007] PGSC 44; SC927 (22 February 2007)
Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498
Bonu and Bonu v The State [1997] PGSC 11; SC528 (24 July 1997)
Morris, The State v [1981] PNGLR 493
James v State [2020] PGSC 39; SC1937 (24 April 2020)
Kuanande, The State v  [1994] PNGLR 512

Overseas Cases

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67, HL 
Barca v. The Queen [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 C.L.R. 82 at p. 104; 50 A.L.J.R. 108 at p. 117. 

Counsel:

L Jack, & S. Suwae, for the State
D. Kaiyok, for the Defendant

VERDICT
27th March 2024 
1.	MIVIRI J: This is the verdict after trial of Alexander Genia of Lalaura, Rigo, Central Province, who was indicted with one count of wilful murder of one Geoffery Paul Bull pursuant to section 299 (1) of the Code.

2.	He was arraigned that he on the 19th September 2019, at about 9.00pm he went to the BS Mart carpark at section 55, allotment 07, Soare Street, Gordons, National Capital District to meet Geoffrey Paul Bull in relation to a prior business deal. That property was a guarded property and there was only one security guard on duty that night. The Accused met the deceased in the carpark and were waiting for a third person to arrive. And they were there until the early hours of the morning of the 20th September 2019. The Accused sat in the driver’s seat of the vehicle of the deceased, who was on the off-sider’s seat. Deceased came out and walked to the front of the vehicle and the accused ran him over with the vehicle. 

3.	The deceased managed to get up from there and ran, the Accused came out of the vehicle and the deceased chased after the accused who avoided and armed himself with a knife. The deceased jumped back into the vehicle and attempted to drive off. Unfortunately, the accused ran up to him in the driver’s seat and begun stabbing him with the knife repeatedly. A struggle ensued with the deceased stepping out of the vehicle and putting up a fight, but he was overpowered by the accused who repeatedly, and at random stabbed him until he collapsed to the ground. Whilst there he continued to try to fight for his life when guards outside the gate heard the commotion. They entered the premises to see what was happening. They assisted and stopped the accused from what he was doing.

4.	The autopsy report revealed that there were abrasions to the head of the deceased and his knees. There were two fractured ribs and more than 11 stab wounds all over his body, as well as a puncture wound to the left lung. He had died from the multiple stab wounds to the chest.

5.	Alexander Genia ran over Geoffery Paul Bull from behind him with the vehicle, then proceeded to arm himself with a knife and stab the deceased more than (11) eleven times all over his body, he intended to kill him and did kill him contrary to section 299 (1) of the Criminal Code Act. 

6.	He entered a not guilty plea contending that he had acted in self-defence against the deceased. He feared that the deceased might hurt him or kill him, so he acted as he did to save himself from the deceased. 

7.	The effect of this plea was that the deceased had met his death because he was stabbed by the Accused repeatedly with a knife. And that there was no intent to kill him but all that was then culminating in the death of the deceased was so that he could save himself from the deceased. Therefore, the List of Exhibits that were prepared by the State will be tendered and marked exhibits, subject to any views against by the defence. And beginning is Exhibit P1, Affidavit of Doctor Philip Golpak dated the 21st September 2019. A medical professional, a doctor registered under the Medical Registration Act, he was qualified with a Bachelor’s degree in medicine and surgery (MBBS) and master’s in medicine from the University of Papua New Guinea. He was employed by the Department of Health holding the position of Specialist Pathologist with the Port Moresby General Hospital working for over 20 years in that position. On the 21st September 2019 at about 12.00pm he was on duties at the Port Moresby Mortuary Section of the General hospital.

8.	 He conducted the postmortem of the deceased Geoffrey Paul Bull, 56 years old to determine his cause of death. He was assisted in that by one Albert Waso. Significant abnormal findings were Multiple incision wounds to the body. And he concluded that death was as a result of the multiple incision wounds to the body. And the autopsy report he prepared in respect and relating is annexure “A” to his affidavit now Exhibit P2. Materially this was in fulfillment of the Coroner’s Act which relevantly at the outset was in these terms; “In my opinion based on what I have observed myself, my experience and training and the information supplied to me:

A	Time and date of death	: 12:25am, 20/09/2019
B	Place of death:		Pacific International Hospital (PIH)
C	Cause of death:		
	1.	Direct Cause:
		Disease or condition directly leading to death:
A)	Multiple Incision wounds to the Body.
antecedent causes:
Morbid Conditions, if any, giving rise to the above cause, stating the underlying condition last:
9.	It is important to set out in detail the report summary which state that the deceased was rushed on the 20th September 2019 at about 12.35am to the Pacific International Hospital Emergency Department by TSI Security. He had sustained multiple stab wounds on his body, the chest (left and right) ribs and face. The Doctor tried to revive him but was too late and the deceased was pronounced dead.

10.	“At Autopsy the external examination revealed abrasion 80 x 50mm on left frontal temporal region. There was abrasion 100 x 30mm on right side temporal parietal region. There was 70mm incision wound on upper lips midline. There was incised wound 25 mm on left side of chest 2nd intercostal space, penetrating into chest cavity, 50 mm away from midline anterior. Another 50 mm incision wound on left side of chest 5 mm from midline anterior. Again, there was 25 mm incision wound on 4th intercostal space 90 mm from midline. There was 30 mm stab wound on left shoulder posterior aspect 20 mm deep. There was multiple small incision wound on left hand both posterior and anterior aspect. There was 50 mm incision wound on right lower quadrant abdomen penetrating into the cavity. There 60 mm incision wound to the right thumb palmer aspect 60 mm deep. There was 40 mm incision wound on right forearm posterior 30 mm above the wrist. Again, there was 40 mm incision wound on right hand posterior aspect. There were small abrasions of both knees anterior. There was 30 mm incision wound on right side chin (under). There was 30 mm incised wound on the back of 7th intercostal space 15 mm depth. There was 75 mm incised wound on left Shoulder posterior aspect. There was fractured rib on left 4th and 5th anterior. There was a puncture wound on left upper lobe of right lung. The internal examination revealed puncture wound on left upper lobe anterior. Other systems were normal. 
It is my opinion that the cause of death is due to multiple incision wounds to the body.”

11.	In the pathology summary he sets out the following significant and gruesome injuries that must, in my determination be set out in this judgment to see the extent of the injuries that Geoffrey Paul Bull sustained, when the accused was simply trying to defend himself from threats to life and limb posed out to him by the latter. That is threats to life and limb within the meaning of the law set out in Tapea Kwapena v The State [1978] PNGLR 316. In summary Alexander Genia was faced with a deadly weapon there was no time for niceties. He reacted instantly, he had no time to reason as to what to do, it was either his life and limb or that of Geoffrey Paul Bull. And he maintains that from his unsworn statement from the dock. That evidence is unsworn so does not carry the same weight as the sworn evidence of the State: Kassman v The State [2004] PGSC 9; SC759 (20 August 2004) and Regina v Ulel [1973] PNGLR 254, approved and followed in State v Murumbi (No 1) [2022] PGNC 433; N9793 (22 July 2022). The evidence of the State in particular the medical evidence shows a one-sided injury on the deceased. 

12.	I determine that it is therefore undisputed and established beyond all reasonable doubt that all the facts set out in the arraignment above are what happened on that night at that location at that time, authored by the accused leading to the eventual death of the deceased. The Question posed for my determination is whether or not, the accused acted in that manner he did to save his life from an imminent and pending danger to his life and limb in the hands of the deceased targeted at him?

13.	In my view it is illogical and against common sense that the accused for a man who was attacked and prone to be attacked by the deceased with a lethal weapon does not demonstrate the injuries that he received from the hands of the deceased prompting his reaction. He has not taken the pain to illuminate that by evidence before me. In what way was the deceased holding his life in peril with a gun, or a dangerous weapon. His assertion of that fact posed by the deceased with a gun to his head is not followed in evidence of that fact. The scenes from the CCTV footage will be discussed shortly, but it begs whether these will depict what the accused portrays here. In short if it comes his way, his defence will be established. If not, there will be no defence and he will be left with the assertions of the State, that he intended to kill the deceased. And did kill him carrying into being that intent. Therefore, satisfying section 299 (1) of the Criminal Code. 

14.	It is important in this examination to set out the summary word for word of the Doctor. His observation is independent. He is not interested in whatever outcome to the proceedings. He is schooled and is a professional. His observation and clinical findings and summary will form whether the deceased died because the accused was defending himself, or acted over and beyond, therefore committing an intent to kill and killing of the deceased. These are the summary as seen by the doctor: 

“ 1.	Puncture wound on left lung upper lobe, anterior.
2.	Incised wound 25 mm on left side of chest 2nd Intercostal space, penetrating into chest cavity, and 50 mm away from midline anterior.
3.	50 mm incision wound on left side of chest 4th intercostal space 5 mm from midline anterior.
4.	25 mm incision wound on left 4th intercostal space 90 mm from midline anterior.
5. 	Abrasion 80 x 50 mm on left frontal temporal region of the head.
6.	Abrasion 100 x 30 mm on right side head, temporal parietal region.
7.	70 mm incision wound on upper lips, midline.
8.	30 mm stab wound on left shoulder posterior aspect 20 mm deep.
9. 	Multiple small incision wound on left hand both posterior and anterior aspect.
10.	50 mm incision wound on right lower quadrant of the abdomen penetrating into the cavity.
11.	60 mm incision wound to the right thumb palmer aspect 60 mm deep.
12.	40 mm incision wound on right forearm posterior 30 mm above the wrist.
13.	40 mm incision wound on right hand posterior aspect.
14.	Small abrasions of both knees anterior.
15.	30 mm incised wound on right side of the chin (under).
16.	30 mm incised wound on the back of 7th Intercostal space 15 mm depth.
17.	75 mm incised wound on left shoulder posterior aspect.
18.	Fractured left rib 4th and 5th Anterior.”

15.	Remarkably these are the level of injuries that were exerted and carved out upon Geoffrey Paul Bull before he met his death eventually from these injuries that were authored by the accused levelled out in Exhibit P2, seven pages Autopsy Report of Geoffrey Paul Bull dated the 21st September 2019; Exhibit P3, Medical Certificate of Death of Geoffrey Paul Bull dated also the 21st September 2019. I pose and ask whether this is a case of the accused trying to defend himself to save himself from imminent and posed threat to his life limb, or that of a loved one. In this regard it is relevant to see the excerpts of the CCTV which will advance the case of the Accused or destroy his case.

16.	It was adduced by lawful order Exhibit P4, Court Order issued by the Waigani Grade V District Court presided by Principal Magistrate his worship, Cosmos Bidar dated the 01st October 2019 issued in the following terms: In the matter of Peter Kusup -Police Informant- AND BS Mart Ltd Gordons, NCD -Defendant-
“1.	Application is granted search warrant for the Manager, BS Mart Ltd, Gordons, NCD to be issued.
2.	That the Management and all employees of BS Mart Ltd Gordons, NCD to co-operate with the Informant.
3.	That the conduct of the Search to retrieve all the CCTV footages that you may find that contained information relating to this matter to assist Members of Police Force to do their investigation (See the Search Warrant Order Attached).
4.	A court Order the applicant to serve on the Respondent compels the respondent to comply with the orders stated in the search warrant.
5.	Costs be in the cause.
Ordered the 	:	01st October	2019
Entered	:	01st October 2019
						
						By the Court.”
17.	This Court order emanated from a notice of motion Exhibit P4, supported by an affidavit sworn by Detective Chief Inspector Peter Kusup Officer In Charge of Criminal Investigation Division Boroko Police Station, Exhibit P6 which annexed the search warrant that was directed to searching the property of the Respondent in the homicide investigation declaring that the CCTV relating to the Wilful Murder at section 55 Allotment 07 Soare Street Gordons in Port Moresby National Capital District had footages records of the conversation between the Accused Alexander Genia and the deceased Geoffrey Paul Bull be retrieved particularly of the 19th and 20th September 2019. The subject warrant was dated the 1st October 2019. It satisfied the requirements of the Search Act giving effect to the Constitutional right to privacy. It made legitimate the obtaining of the CCTV footage. As it was not illegally obtained as in Mai and Avi, The State v [1988-89] PNGLR 56. Its admission in Court as evidence was lawful and that is the position now established beyond all doubt. And that it was upon he who alleged to prove the cause against, here the accused. It was served the Manager one Solomon Tarrobal whose evidence was also tendered and marked as Exhibit P7, basically confirming receipt of the subject and of providing the footage requested and ordered of those particular dates. Materially it was his evidence that, “I have CCTV cameras installed in and around the premises of BS Mart and I am in charge of the CCTV camera. The incident that happened on the 19th and 20th of September 2019, took place in the hours of darkness which I have no idea that the camera recorded everything.

18.	I was only notified in the morning when I arrived at my workplace and that was in time the police homicide members arrived and requested to see the CCTV, so I allowed them to have a look at it and there they confirm the camera captured the murder that took place at BS Mart Car Park Area.

19.	BS Mart has no idea of the person involved in the murder as we are only a tenant to the property at section 55 and allotment 07 at Soare Street Gordon. Otherwise, I spoke with the Homicide Detectives, and they gave me a Search Warrant Number 591/19 and they retrieved the copy of the CCTV Footage for the 19th and the 20th September 2019 for their evidence in Court.” 

20.	Here it is relevant to consider the often-used civil concept, in my view which addresses adequately and comprehensively the impact of the CCTV footage of camera 1 from BS Mart. This is the concept “Res Ipsa Loquitor”, the thing speaks for itself. What is recorded by that camera is self-explained. To play back what it has seen is beyond any question probing by this Court. The images played out what is not possible with a human being’s evidence. There is no emotion attached to its recording. It cannot be told to go one way or another. Nor can it forget what it saw that night between the 19th and the 20th September 2019 in the time that it has displayed. It sees all, hides no one, accused, deceased, witnesses including Hugo Ningeara and his guards, and the Police who came later to the scene. It does not cloud to favour the prosecution or the defence. It simply gives what was recorded. It cannot equate what the accused has tried to paint to his advantage in the light of the serious allegation that have come upon him. It will not give an unsworn statement from the Dock, nor can it give a sworn statement it simply without force or intimidation account electronically what it has recorded. It is not to the best of its knowledge but simply discharging the electronic programming. It is not in a public frequented area but private property overseeing by Solomon Tarrobal Exhibit P7. It directly hovers and is stationed where the crime was taking place.

21.	It simply followed the electronics set settled in it to come out with the images that will equate and be second to none. There is no question posed against its electronical programming, nor the playback and timing in it. Its recording is what was in view of its electronical imaging it has done, the images that unfolded before it on that night 19th and 20th September 2019 between the timing its images, when Geoffrey Paul Bull was attacked and bumped with his own vehicle driven by the Accused. And the attempt by Geoffrey Paul Bull to escape the attack of the accused by getting desperately into the driver’s seat with his back to the Accused who came from the rear and started violently to stab him with ferocity and vigour, demonstrating intensity, in rapid succession. That is images by the camera positioned and installed as is seen playing no weapons in the hands of the deceased, or violence against the Accused by the deceased to draw his reaction with the knife. The echo is in the photographic evidence taken by Vincent Tapungu, photograph 47, 48, and 49 exhibit P8 and also P9 of the same photographs.

22.	And Exhibit P15 is the CCTV footage of camera 1 from BS Mart. There are four MP4 files, first dated 21st September 2019 timed 8.22am, numbered 20190920002846; second dated 21st September 2019 timed 8.23am, numbered 20190920010856 and third dated the 20th September 2019 timed at 4.52pm, numbered 20190919234839 and fourth of the 21st September 2019 timed at 8.21am and numbered 20190920000001. Relevantly and materially, the first file shows the accused in a reflective orange vest over his short black sleeve collar T Shirt with short blue trousers opening the door coming out from the Driver’s seat of the Red Toyota Landcruiser Station Wagon registered number BDR 636, which appears to be in his control. That vehicle belongs to the deceased Geoffrey Paul Bull, but the accused is in the driver’s seat as he exits out from it. He is there in the driver’s seat all throughout and is in direct control of the vehicle. Because the deceased is never in the vehicle. He walks around the area and whenever he comes to the front of the vehicle the brake lights of the vehicle light up. It is as if the accused wants to start up the vehicle. This happens a number of times. It is as if the accused is calculating the right moment when he will bump the deceased with the vehicle. He comes out lights himself a cigarette stands outside it and smokes. He finishes his smoke and then goes back into the vehicle. The deceased walks around and then come to the driver’s side where he stands and talks with the accused who is seated always throughout in the driver’s seat. 

23.	And this is the position he is in after he reverses the vehicle so that it is facing to the gate to go out. After he does, it is he who is always in the vehicle in the driver’s seat. There are instances where the accused winds up the glass and is inside the vehicle alone whilst the deceased is walking outside, sometimes to the front of the vehicle, where as he does the brake lights come on as if the Accused is stepping to change the gear from park or neutral to forward. And that is the observation at 39.02 on the run of the first file. Here the deceased is alongside the passenger door of the vehicle then moves to the front where the brake lights go out and the vehicle jerks forward deliberate and calculated move by the accused intent on bumping the deceased down. Which he does bumping him from the right side down making him fall under the moving vehicle. Exposing his body in that position to the tyres of the vehicle to run over him. Or be hit by the undercarriage of the vehicle. It is to use the Latin phrase res Ipsa loquitor, here let the scene speak for itself, whether or not the Accused was being threatened of his life or limb to act as he did, to run over the deceased and continue over him. In this scene he has the deceased at his mercy to do as he pleases. That is the case because he chases and follows him with the vehicle momentarily but is stopped because of the adjourning wall. Here he comes out of the vehicle calmly and collected without any emotion that he has just bumped the deceased down with the vehicle. He brakes because the lights show this from the back, and he reverses back over the deceased. Who comes out from underneath and straightens out and runs to avoid being bumped to the side. The Accused follows but is prevented by the wall of the house. He opens the door comes out calmly without haste but when the deceased attempts to grab him, he successfully avoids and runs to the passenger side of the vehicle. The deceased realizing that he cannot get the accused attempts to get into the driver’s seat and to attempt to drive away. But that is unsuccessful as the accused returns now armed with the knife in his dominant left hand that he has retrieved out from his shoulder bag hung to the front over his right making accessibility to it convenient and handy. Because he is seen in the scene trying to avoid being grabbed by the deceased and at the same time is trying to open the small bag he has slipped across his left shoulder down to rest on his right side. He is left-handed so it is conveniently in that location for his ease to get the knife that is within since the start of the images on the CCTV. He retrieves that knife within and comes from the back attacks the deceased with it stabbing him as he is sitting within the driver’s seat wrestles him out and onto the ground as he is continual stabbing him at random. The deceased is no match having been bumped with his vehicle violently to the ground seconds earlier. Comparably he is heavily built no match for the accused who moves swiftly to deliver the repeated blows with the knife. It would appear that the deceased has been fatally stabbed so does not struggle as strongly as initial, because he succumbs and falls to the ground kicking desperately with his legs to no avail. With what is remaining in him he attempts to slide under the open and ajar drivers’ door, all to be violently dragged by the scruff of his collar to the side with the door by the Accused who continues to mercilessly stab him on the back as he in that position. Undeterred that security personal have come from outside into the scene he continues to stab him.

24.	It is clear from this footage that the accused has been preplanning what he is going to do to the deceased. He deliberately takes the key and turns the vehicle around facing the drive out gate. Moments before he bumps down the deceased with the vehicle, the brake lights are on, then they are off the vehicle is in motion picking up speed and bumping the deceased in that speed. Ten seconds lapse before he puts the vehicle into reverse running over the deceased who gets up in haste to run to the side followed by the accused in the vehicle. He is stopped in his tracks because there is a wall that the deceased runs to. It is not the scene that the deceased has a weapon which necessitates that he be bumped with the vehicle to disarm him. That is not the case. It is a calculated intent to maim and disable the deceased so that he is not in a position to fight back against the intent of the accused to kill him. This is evident when the deceased is wrestling with the Accused from stabbing him. The Accused is the aggressor and the stronger of the two. He is stabbing at a random indiscriminately at very close quarters body. It is as if the deceased is a pig that must be slaughtered to be eaten. The totality of these evidence is that there is nothing apparent and identifiable that shows the Accused to be acting in self defence against the deceased. In the totality of the CCTV viewed in all four MP4 files there is not one iota of scene depicted out in all showing that the Accused life limb is threatened in any way by the deceased. All throughout the deceased is unarmed unaware of the sinister and gruesome mode that he has set in place playing out the pieces to eventually kill him. He is talking with the accused unsuspecting that the accused has already made up his mind to kill him in the course of that night.

25.	Because the record of interview exhibit P11 conducted with police on the 20th November 2019, the accused denies that the deceased paid him. That is contrary to Exhibit D1 statement of Billy George brother-in-law of the deceased. He states that the Deceased paid him K 5, 150.00 in a Westpac Cheque that was cashed at Westpac Bank by the Accused who took K 5000.00 and K 150. 00 was given him Billy George. His evidence is clear that the registration of the firearm of the Deceased at the Firearms Registry Police Headquarters never took place. And time and again when this witness checked with the accused, he said there were problems with signature and would be registered as that was done. Up to the time of the meeting at the scene of the murder it was not settled that the firearm of the deceased to be registered through the assistance of the Accused was not done. Even the receipt of the K 5000.00 did not see this out. So, there was motive against the deceased in the hands of the accused. Which is denied by the Accused at Question 15 of the record of interview.

26.	In the record of interview, He confirms meeting the deceased at Apec house in his vehicle. And having the gun pointed to his head there, remaining with the deceased in his vehicle from 2.30pm to 10.30pm in the night, Question 22 therein. Accused explains that he faked the call to his brother because deceased had a gun to his head. And from there proceeded to Gordons to the yard of his father, Allan Tan. And that the deceased came in his own vehicle Toyota Land cruiser VX Station Wagon Maroon in colour registered number BDR 636. Accused came in a hired vehicle from Sammy’s Hire Cars, a Toyota Mark 2 Sedan registered number BFJ 136 there. He waited for the arrival of the deceased who came in twelve (12) minutes later there. It is an enclosed area with a fence accessible by a gate that is closed when the entry is made. This is clear from the CCTV footage. It means the deceased is within the confines of the premises of the Accused father, at Section 55 Allotment 07 at Soare Street at the discretion of the Accused to do as he pleases. The evidence is clear from the admissions of the Accused and the CCTV footage that the area is manned by a single security guard, who is conveniently sent by the Accused to get betel nut and drinks outside of that area. Deceased is there at the mercy of the accused.

27.	It can also be inferred that the accused now has the upper hand no doubt if anything happened to him, the security employed by his father within that premises will be aware because he is within the premises. And his father could be alerted of that fact through the security man. So that if the deceased had indeed threatened him, he was walking into a trap following the accused in there. And if indeed he was threatening the accused there would be the CCTV that would record everything between them. As happened here there is a security company Tactical Solution TSI next door, whose member Hugo Ningeara came in with his guards disarmed the accused and tried to take the deceased to the hospital but that he died. In my viewed given these facts the accused was no longer under any threat in any form or way. And this is the view I form from his behaviour in the CCTV footage. The location is within a fenced enclosure property of his father. He is at an advantage, and it is no coincidence that he brings the accused to that property. If anything, bad or illegal was to happen help was at his fingertips. He did not go further and draw the threats to the security guard he chose to send to get betel nut and drinks. In the record of interview exhibit P11 accused is adamant that all he wanted to do was to get out of the situation. That what he did was out of fear when he bumped the deceased. And that he wanted to find out if he had a gun that he pointed at him earlier, so that he can disarm him. It was a black 15 rounds firearm. And then he admits that the subject black handled knife belonged to the deceased that he had earlier removed off the vehicle of the deceased. And that he stabbed the deceased because he was reaching for a firearm. And he sums that it was fear that had built up from the gun that was put to his head and then when he went and threatened the family of the deceased. And accused was in fear of him knowing his background connections with police and the gangs.

28.	It is also remarkable that the gun that the accused suspected was under the shirt of the deceased does not come out as a result of the Accused bumping him with the vehicle. Nor is it in the hands of the deceased who now realizes what the intent of the accused is against him. There is no sight of any weapon in the hands of the deceased when he is bumped by the vehicle, when he regains up from that from under the vehicle, when he is pursued by the vehicle driven by the accused to the side wall. When they are chasing each other around the vehicle. Importantly when the accused comes with the knife deceased does not get a gun or a weapon to defend himself. He is for all intent and purposes at the mercy of the accused who is evidentially determined more than ever depicted laid out by the gruesome injuries the doctor has counted set out above. It is clearly a case of intent to kill and killing executed to precision. Because the subject weapon is not found by Hugo Ningeara or the police when they come. It is an enclosed area it is not found. It was never there as contended by the accused.

29.	What has happened here is that the accused has deliberately told lies out of a conscious sense of guilt. He knows very well he has no defence at all. That there was no self-defence at all settled by the CCTV footage. Which is immediate and plays out the commission of the offence perpetrated by the accused. That corroborates the version of the prosecution affirming the contentions of the state: John Jaminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318. It means it is safe to find that there is no self defence by the accused against the deceased. Common sense denotes that there will be injuries as a result of the attack upon the accused by the deceased. It is logically that the accused must have some injuries consistent with the fact that he was defending himself from the deceased. It was his life or the deceased. Here the injuries are received by the deceased. They are such that no man could survive similar. It is excessive force beyond self-defence and self-preservation. To my mind the medical evidence leaves no plausible explanation consistent with common sense logic so as to uphold what the accused contends. There are very serious unexplained inconsistencies that do not hold up his evidence. It is basis for me to reject his evidence. I rely on fact in law that 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). Here Therefore, common sense and logic denote that accused would be injured from the attack set upon him by the deceased. And this would be seen in the CCTV footage that is recorded materially of that time. There is nothing that helps the plight of the accused in the CCTV footage that he was defending himself from an imminent danger to his life or limb. He as the aggressor and started all with bumping the deceased with his own vehicle that accused was always in control of leading to the eventual stabbing of the deceased.

30.	Even if Exhibit P12 the confessional Statement of the Accused made on Sunday 22nd September 2019 obtained by Senior Constable Yaku Gwampom in the presence of First Constable Jackson Timbi is considered, it will not derail any serious dent against the State case. He reasons and details there, the threats to his family by the deceased. He has not volunteered nor called evidence independently verified with his family called as witnesses to that fact, that the deceased had also threatened them. Because He is accused of a very serious offence and if it sustains, he will be imprisoned for a long term. He must have independent verification of the assertions that he makes against the deceased, Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659 (11 December 2017). It is good law and makes sense and is observed also in cases of sexual cases Balbal v State [2007] PGSC 16; SC860 (22 February 2007). The defence have simply in the light of this assertions not gone further to call evidence from his wife, his in-law and the others he says were witnesses to verify the threats that were issued by the deceased. Because he says in there that his brother-in-law one Laena was spoken to by the deceased with the others, that accused owed the deceased K 35, 000. 00 for a deal that if he continued to avoid the call of Geoffrey Paul Bull, he would come down shoot him, burn his house down, marry his wife and claim his two kids. It would not amount to provocation within the meaning set out by Angitai v The State [1983] PNGLR 185, because he has not acted on the sudden before there is time to cool off his passion. No time has been clearly settled to believe that even this aspect would explain and mitigate. There is no evidence credible to sustain this fact in favour of the accused. What is set out by the CCTV footage is a determined persisted attack timed to terminate the life of the deceased, and that was attained when the deceased laid in his own pool of blood on the vehicle outside inside on the seat where he was drained of his life inscribed drawing from the hands of the accused. The rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67, HL part of our law Kitawal v State [2007] PGSC 44; SC927 (22 February 2007) has seen no lights for the cause of the Accused. 

31.	And with the sworn evidence from Hugo Ningeara, 41 years old, 6 years of Seminary Studies who was the Acting duty Manager of TSI Security. He had worked for 10 years for that Company. On that date he saw a man was sleeping on top of another and stabbing him with a knife. The gate was closed so he stood and watched with his guards. One of the men was calling out for help so we opened the gate and rushed inside and went to the man sleeping on top of the other stabbing him and removed the knife off him. He called police who were nearby to come because it was now a crime scene. When Police arrived, he identified the accused to police as suspect and handed over the weapon, knife. He helped the victim in his own vehicle to Pacific International Hospital, but he died. He searched his vehicle found his contact called Mt Hagen and spoke to the relatives of his passing who then called those in Port Moresby. There can be no doubts that the Accused had intended to kill the deceased. And he carried that intention into reality.

32.	Even if the case was viewed circumstantially, picking from the assertion of the accused that the deceased had a gun pointed to his head in the vehicle at APEC house, there is nothing that leads from that to the scenes painted out in the CCTV footage consistent. Much of the time it is the accused who has freedom and free hand to take the deceased as he does eventually. The deceased for a man who has placed a pistol moment earlier to the head of the accused appears to put his own life in peril by walking directly in front of the subject vehicle, his vehicle now with the engine on with the accused in the driver’s seat. What the accused asserts is self-serving and does not have common sense and logic backing him. What is reasonable and apparent is that there was no such act by the deceased against the accused. That is why he has left his vehicle in direct control of the accused, who is in the driver’s seat. There is no pistol because the only pistol is that found by police in the possession of the accused. The only rational reasonable hypothesis is that provided by the State, which is the guilt of the Accused: Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498, And this is so because the circumstances of death are played explicitly out in the CCTV and leave no other reasonable hypothesis other than his guilt. He is caught in action with the kitchen Knife Exhibit P10 confirming blood on both this knife and the bayonet type knife, both termed as murder weapons by Brian Takoboy Biotechnologist with Police Forensic Gordons. It is his action and no other, he alone is with the deceased to carry out the crime. He is not on the same footing as in Bonu and Bonu v The State [1997] PGSC 11; SC528 (24 July 1997). Here viewing what is set out in the CCTV footage the question, and the only question for the court is whether the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference that all the circumstances would enable it to draw, Morris, The State v [1981] PNGLR 493. Which approved and endorsed Barca v. The Queen [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 C.L.R. 82 at p. 104; 50 A.L.J.R. 108 at p. 117. 

33.	In my view that is the only reasonable hypothesis on all the material that I have set out above. I have no doubts in my mind after due consideration of all that the only inference given is that the accused Alexander Genia intended to kill Geoffrey Paul Bull and did kill him. It is clear and can be inferred from the general 
circumstances of the offence, accused by bumping the deceased showed evidence of animosity which is relevant in the determination of his mental status: James v State [2020] PGSC 39; SC1937 (24 April 2020). The CCTV details these out very explicit and there can’t be no other conclusion open given, other than accused intended to kill the deceased and put into action that fact by his overt acts. It is beyond all reasonable doubt that he is the author of the death of the deceased Geoffery Paul Bull. And there cannot be any doubts of this fact because Exhibit P8 Statement of Vincent Tapungu dated 05th November 2019 detailing and annexing 1 to 103 photographs shows that the Accused was well prepared to kill the deceased. Photograph number 78 and 79 is driver seat in his vehicle green and yellow strip bayonet type sword cover. Photograph 81, 82 to 85 is the black case, a semi-automatic blue in colour gun with ammunition. It was a licenced firearm in his name Alexander Genia which was in the glove compartment of his own sedan. Accused expected what he was to do, and he prepared himself to see that out. These evidence that fact overt. Both the arresting officer Senior Constable Yaku Gwampom in Exhibit P13 and First Constable Jackson Timbi Exhibit P14 show a consistent and credible line of inquiry in the investigation that were mounted to eventually charge and bring the accused to court. There is no ring of truth in the assertions that the Accused makes. I reject his evidence and prefer that of the state for the reasons I have set out above.

34.	In the light of all I have set out above, I consider that section 269 Self Defence against unprovoked Assault, here the accused has not been assaulted by the deceased at all. It has no application to the case of the accused. In the case of section 270 Self Defence against Provoked Assault, Geoffrey Paul Bull has not in one of the excerpts of evidence I have set out above assaulted the accused in any way or form whatsoever. He has perpetrated no violence, or any violent action necessary to prompt the accused to react as he does. There is no evidence at all that the accused feared for his life and limb to react as he did of all the evidence set out above. In my view he has not satisfied section 270 (2) because he is the instigator of the assault upon Geoffrey Paul Bull. He bumps him with the deceased’s own vehicle. Then he follows with the stabbing of the deceased in his vehicle witnessed by the CCTV camera and Hugo Ningeara with the motive painted out by the evidence of Billy George exhibit D1, there can be no doubt that Alexander Genia begun the assault upon the deceased. And it was his intention to kill the deceased and he did kill him. Intent is personal unto the accused, and maybe deduced from the totality of the evidence: Kuanande, The State v [1994] PNGLR 512. I find no reason not to follow in view of all set out above. He intended to kill and did kill the deceased.

35.	I find him Alexander Genia guilty that he intended to kill the deceased Geoffery Paul Bull and did kill him. He was not acting in his defence within the definition set out above of self-defence. And at that time, he was armed with the black handle stainless steel kitchen knife 27.5 centimetres in length which was obtained off him at the scene of the wilful murder by the witness Hugo Ningeara and given to police. It is the same that is depicted in the Exhibit P9 (96) detailed by Senior Constable Vincent Tapungu Exhibit P8 photograph 96. It is confirmed by Biotechnologist Brian Takoboy, Exhibit P10 with blood independently verifying the CCTV footage, Hugo Ningeara, and the photographs. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that that is the murder weapon used by the Accused to inflict all the injuries set out by the medical evidence above. Because it is consistent with the measurements in the wounds set out by the Doctor which I have detailed above. I find as a fact that is the weapon which caused all the injuries to the deceased. And which was in the hands of the accused as he stabbed the deceased seen by the CCTV footage and the witness Hugo Ningeara. And that it is not the bayonet type knife because the depth and length of the wounds do not echo the blade of the bayonet in width and length. It is more consistent with the black handle stainless steel kitchen knife 27.5 centimetres in length. That is the murder weapon. The other was at the scene picked up by the accused as he explains in his record of interview. 

36.	I return a verdict of guilty of wilful murder on the indictment dated 20th March 2024 presented against the accused Alexander Genia of Lalaura Rigo, Central Province, who was indicted with one count of wilful murder of one Geoffery Paul Bull committed on the 20th day of September 2019. He will be remanded to await his sentence.

Orders Accordingly,
__________________________________________________________________
Office of the Public Prosecutor:  Lawyers for the State
Office of the Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Defendant