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

State v Tawas [2025] PGNC 356; N11499 (25 September 2025)

N11499

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 212 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

SAKARAO TAWAS

WABAG: ELLIS J
12, 25 SEPTEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – MURDER - s. 300(1)(a) CCA – Plea – Victim struck in the neck with a bush knife – Reaction to the collection of nuts from a small pandanus tree – First offender – Serious and prevalent offence – Deterrence – 18 years IHL.
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Remarks regarding Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 789 which was followed and applied

Brief facts
The offender struck the victim in the neck with a bush knife when an argument erupted over the collection of nuts from a pandanus tree which the accused claimed was his. While the victim was lying on the ground, the accused struck him again.

Held
Guilty plea
First offender
Protection of Life
Prevalent Offence
18 years IHL
Period on remand deducted
Balance to be served

Cases cited
Apo v State [1988] PNGLR 182; [1988] PGSC 4
Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 789
Simbe v The State [2004] PNGLR 38; [1994] PGSC 18
State v Andreas [2021] PGNC 306; N6981
State v Bakamani [2021] PGNC 275; N8983
State v Kanufa [2024] N10792
State v Kiaro [2020] PGNC 277; N8610
State v Laiam [2016] PGNC 61; N3995
State v Luke [2022] PGNC 573; N10068
State v Nguntsnga [2024] N10737

Counsel
P. Tengdui for the State
L. Toke for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Sakarao Tawas of Waimas village in the Tsak Valley, within Enga Province, was initially charged with wilful murder but the prosecution accepted his plea of guilty to a charge of murder, based on section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1974. It was necessary to rehear the plea as it was heard by another judge who passed away before delivering judgment.
   
2. Section 300, so far as is presently relevant, provides as follows:
   

“(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 ...”

Findings of fact

3. The evidence placed before the Court was a statement by the offender, which was admitted as Exhibit A, and the 43-page Police brief, which became Exhibit B.
   
4. From that evidence, the following findings of fact are warranted:
   

(1) On 5 February 2020 the offender was going to collect pandanus nuts.

(2) He saw the victim’s brother climb a pandanus tree and collect nuts from that tree, which he claimed was his.

(3) The victim was standing at the foot of that tree.

(4) After the offender asking them why they were collecting pandanus nuts from his tree, an argument erupted.

(5) During that argument, the offender chopped the victim on the side of his neck with a bush knife.

(6) That cause the death of the victim.

(7) While the victim was lying on the ground, dead, the offender chopped the victim a second time, again on the left side of his neck.

Allocutus

5. Since that uncontested evidence supported a conviction, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions. The effect of what he said was to (1) accept that he had done wrong in the eyes of God, (2) admit that he did not respect the laws of this nation, (3) apologise to the deceased, his family and the accused’s community, and (4) note that this was his first offence. He concluded by asking the court to have mercy on him.
   

Defence submissions

6. It was contended that this case fell within the second of the four categories set out in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 789 (Kovi), for which the specified range is 16 to 20 years. Aggravating factors were conceded to be that a sharp object was used and that there was excessive force. Mitigating factors were said to be the plea of guilty, the offender being a first-time offender, and that he surrendered to the Police the day after the murder. It was submitted that the offender had expressed remorse and had admitted the offence in his section 96 statement (Exhibit A). There was said to be no pre-planning, the offender acted alone, and there was some provocation. Reference was made to Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182; SC4. A submission was made that a term of 16 years (being the bottom of the range suggested for category 2 in Kovi) should be reduced by 3 years to 13 years, with a further reduction for the time the offender has already spent in custody.
   

Prosecution submissions

7. Written submissions lodged prior to the first hearing of this plea were marked for identification (MFI 1). After summarising the facts, it was accepted that the maximum penalty should be reserved for the most serious case, as established by Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.
   
8. Aggravating factors were said to be:
   

“1. The offence is a very Prevalent Offence,

2. A dangerous weapon was used namely a bush knife,

3. The prisoner chopped the deceased more than once.

4. The deceased was chopped on a vulnerable party of the body namely his neck.

5. Deceased was unarmed at that time and posed no threat to the prisoner.

6. The attack on the deceased was vicious.

7. Deceased was lying unconscious on the ground when the prisoner chopped him a second time.

8. There was a strong desire to do grievous bodily harm to the deceased.

9. A life was terminated prematurely.”

9. Mitigating factors were said to be the plea of guilty, the expression of remorse, and this being a first offence. There was also said to be “provocation in the non-legal sense” and that there was no pre-planning.
   
10. By reference to Kovi, it was submitted that the present case had elements of categories 2 and 3 and fell between the higher range of category 2 and the middle of the range for category 3. Reference was made to the sentences imposed in State v Luke [2022] PGNC 573; N10068, State v Bakamani [2021] PGNC 275; N 8983, and State v Andreas [2017] PGNC 306; N6981 of 25, 20 and 22 years respectively.
    
11. In addition to providing copies of those three reported decisions, copies of further decisions were provided: Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38; PGSC 18 (where a sentence of 14 years was confirmed), The State v Nguntsnga (2024] N10737 (where a sentence of 18 years was imposed), State v Kiaro [2020] PGNC 277; N8610 (a case in which the sentence was 13 years), State v Laiam [2010] PGNC 61; N3995 (where the sentence was 15 years), The State v Kanufa (2024) N10792 (in which a sentence of 19 years was imposed), and Apo v State [1988-89] PNGLR 182; PGSC 4 (an unsuccessful appeal from a sentence of 6 years in response to a plea to a different charge, namely manslaughter). A copy of Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 was also provided but that only served to confirm that the maximum penalty should be reserved for the worst type of offence.
    
12. No additional, oral submissions made for the prosecution at the rehearing.
    

Relevant law

13. In Kovi, the Supreme Court suggested a range for sentences for offences, including murder. The clear intent of Kovi was to provide a frame of reference, by setting out four categories, to enable the Court to know the applicable range for a sentence and then impose a sentence that takes into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case being considered.
    
14. That decision had consequences including (1) promoting uniformity of sentences, (2) enabling decisions to be made more quickly, an important consideration when there is a substantial backlog of cases, and (3) removing the need to trawl through other decisions, which is often not helpful since each case depends on its own circumstances.
    
15. Simply stated, Kovi established, at an appellate level, the sentencing range suggested by first instance cases which can only provide guidance as such first instance decisions do not bind other judges.
    
16. As a decision of the Supreme Court, Kovi is binding on National Court judges and should be followed and applied unless and until it is overruled or amended by a subsequent appellate decision. Accordingly, the appropriate course to take in this case to ascertain the category, then consider the aggravating and mitigating factors.
    
17. The four categories set out in Kovi for a charge of murder are set out below:
    

Category 1 12-15 years

Plea No weapons used.

Ordinary cases. Little or no pre-planning.

Mitigating factor with Minimum force used.

No aggravating factors. Absence of strong intent to do GBH.

Category 2 16-20 years

Trial or plea No strong intent to do GBH.

Mitigating factors with Weapons used.

Aggravating factors. Some pre-planning.

Some element of viciousness.

Category 3 20-30 years

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Special aggravating factors. Strong desire to do GBH.

Mitigating factors reduced in Dangerous or offensive weapon used

weight or rendered insignificant eg. gun or axe.

by gravity of offence. Other offences of violence committed.

Category 4 Life imprisonment

Worst case - Trial or plea Pre-meditated attack.

Special aggravating factors. Brutal killing, in cold blood.

18. It should be noted that cases often do not fit neatly into those four categories. However, the sentence imposed should be consistent with those categories, having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors.
    
19. It is convenient to here note two submissions which the Court does not accept.
    
20. First, while relevant prior convictions will usually be an aggravating factor, the fact that an offender has no prior convictions is not a mitigating factor. Secondly, while an offender acting in the company of others will usually be an aggravating factor, an offender acting alone is not a mitigating factor.
    

Consideration

21. When assessing what category is appropriate in this case, it is noted that (1) there was no pre-planning, in that the offender used a bush knife after an argument erupted, (2) there was a strong desire to do GBH, reflected in the making two blows to the neck of the victim, one after it appears he had already died, (3) that conduct was an undoubtedly vicious attack, and (3) the weapon used was not a gun or an axe, but a bush knife.
    
22. The prosecution submission that this case falls between the upper limit of category 2 (20 years) and the middle of category 3 (25 years) is accepted. The defence suggesting that the starting point is the lower limit of category 2, namely 16 years, is rejected as that would contradict what was set out in Kovi.
    
23. The circumstances of the offence are that this is yet another case where a bush knife was used to inflict a fatal wound, in this case to the neck of the victim. That was the result of the offender carrying a bush knife at the time when an argument erupted. The victim was about 19-years old at the time of the offence, according to the autopsy report. He was not armed when he was struck and he was struck by the offender a second time, after he had fallen to the ground following the first blow.
    
24. Submissions did not deal with the circumstances of the offender in any detail. On 30 June 2023, when interviewed by the Police, the offender said he was aged 38. That suggests he is now about 40 years old. In that interview he said he was educated to grade 3, was not employed, and was married with one child.
    
25. This case is yet another instance of death being caused by the use of a bush knife. While there was some provocation in that the victim appears to have been involved in the collection of pandanus nuts from a tree which the accused claimed was his, that did not justify the response of the offender.
    
26. There is no sensible alternative but to impose a custodial sentence for this serious and prevalent offence to show respect for human life and the need for deterrence. The Court considers the appropriate course is to start with the mid-point of the applicable range, dictated by the circumstances of offence and the nine aggravating factors quoted above, then discount for the plea of guilty and expressions of remorse.
    

Sentence

27. For those reasons, the Court considers that imprisonment with hard labour for 22½ years would be appropriate if the accused had been found guilty following a trial, being the mid-point between 20 and 25 years. Making an allowance of 20% for the plea of guilty and the expression of remorse reduces that sentence by 4½ years to 18 years.
    
28. At the hearing on 12 September 2025, it was agreed that the accused has already spent 2 years 2 months and 2 days in custody. However, the additional time spent in custody up to today increases that time to 2 years 2 months and 15 days. That gives a remaining period to be served of 15 years 9 months and 15 days.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor