PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2025 >> [2025] PGNC 408

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Mangiyea [2025] PGNC 408; N11557 (23 October 2025)

N11557

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


CR NO 440 OF 2025


STATE


V


TINA MANGIYEA


GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
2 SEPTEMBER,16, 23 OCTOBER 2025


CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Criminal Code, s 302, Manslaughter-Domestic Setting-Co-wives-Use of knife-single stab wound to the chest- 10 years imprisonment


Cases cited
Henry v State [2020] PGSC 147; SC2063
Kumbamong v The State [2008] SC1017
Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Kaumin (2024) N10961
State v Koli [2023] N10183
State v Mark (2022) N9563
State v Dolo [2021] PGNC 246; N9110
State v Robin [2021] PGNC 165; N9022
State v Roth [2019] PGNC 33; N7770
State v Aosa [2017] PGNC 244; N6907
State v Dabube [2017] PGNC 177; N6825
State v Waieng [2017] PGNC 126; N6775
State v Peter [2017] PGNC 124; N6772
State v Maie [2016] PGNC 406; N6722
State v Pok [2014] PGNC 305; N5606
State v Mara [2010] PGNC 140; N4133
State v Jako [2010] PGNC 119; N4110
State v Karapus [2009] PGNC 59; N3640
State v Kelly [2009] PGNC 34; N3624


Counsel
S Joseph, for the State
V Move, for the offender


SENTENCE


  1. WAWUN-KUVI, J: Ikime Kola had three wives. The deceased was his second wife, and the offender was his third wife. Between 1:00 am and 3:00 am, the offender fought with Ikime Kola. During the struggle, she slashed his hand. He yelled that she had stabbed him. When Ikime Kola cried out, the deceased woke and left her room. Seeing Ikime Kola injured, she grabbed a piece of firewood and struck the offender. The offender, already armed with the knife, plunged it into the deceased's chest. The deceased succumbed to her injury.
  2. The offender was later arrested and charged by the police.
  3. The State indicted her on the charge of manslaughter under s 302 of the Criminal Code. She pleaded guilty to the charge based on the foregoing allegations. I must decide the appropriate penalty.

Penalty


  1. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The penalty is subject to section 19 of the Code.
  2. I remind myself that the maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious case: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

Guidelines


  1. Counsels have referred me to the Supreme Court case of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789, which sets out the sentencing guidelines for homicide cases. I am reminded that guidelines do not curtail my sentencing discretion and that the overriding consideration is the peculiar circumstances of the case.
  2. Ms Joseph, for the State, submits that the case falls within the second category of the Manu Kovi (supra) guidelines, which attracts a sentence within the range of 13 and 16 years. Ms Move for the offender submits that the offender be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, which is within the range of 3 and 7 years. A range that has not been prescribed in the Manu Kovi guidelines. Similarly, here as in previous cases, I remind counsel that where there is proper consideration of the facts against the guidelines and comparable cases, there should not be a disparity in the sentencing range submitted by counsel. This position is affirmed in Henry v State [2020] PGSC 147; SC2063 said:

“as to the further period of five years imprisonment that was added as a deterrent, the primary judge did not rely upon any case authority in which a similar deterrent period of imprisonment had been imposed. We are not aware of any such cases, and none were able to be brought to the attention of the Court by counsel. Whilst we agree with the primary judge’s comments concerning higher and stiffer penalties being warranted, the appellant is entitled to be sentenced in accordance with the principles and sentencing trends that had been followed to the time of his sentencing.”


[Emphasis added]


  1. It is the duty of counsel to assist the Court with recent authorities and comparable cases.
  2. The facts of this case show that the offender was armed with a knife. She did not seek out the deceased. The events can be described as spontaneous. She stabbed the deceased once in response to the deceased striking her with a piece of firewood. She immediately ran off after stabbing the deceased. They were both married to Ikime Kola, indicating killing in a domestic setting. These facts place the case in the first category of Manu Kovi guidelines, which attracts a sentence in the range of 8 and 12 years.

Comparable cases


  1. Ms. Joseph submits the following cases:
  2. Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702: This was an appeal on sentence. The appellant suspected the deceased of having an affair with her husband. She travelled from her village to her husband’s residence. She found the deceased lying on the couch watching TV. The deceased was seven months pregnant. She stabbed the deceased twice in her chest. The sentence of 9 years was confirmed.
  3. State v Mark (2022) N9563, Toliken J: The offender pleaded guilty. The offender was the third wife. The deceased was the fourth wife. She was at home with her 7-month-old baby and father-in-law. The deceased and her friend were picking up the husband’s phone, which he had left at the offender’s home, and returning her phone. Without any exchange of words or fighting, the offender stabbed the deceased in the neck when she was not looking. She was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
  4. State v Maie [2016] PGNC 406; N6722, Koeget AJ: The offender pleaded guilty. He was among a group totaling 40 who went in search of the deceased. It was believed that the deceased was a sorcerer who was responsible for the death of many people. When they found the deceased, they pulled him out of his canoe. An accomplice cut his head off with a bush knife. The offender and others then cut his body. He was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.
  5. The cases submitted by Ms. Joseph do not correlate with the range that she proposes. The case of State v Maie [2016] (supra) is not comparable as it involves allegations of sorcery with multiple offenders. There were also multiple wounds indicating a vicious attack. The cases of Marangi v The State [2002] (supra) and State v Mark (2022) N9563 are comparable and indicate a range between 9 and 11 years consistent with category 1 of the Manu Kovi guidelines.
  6. Ms. Move submits the following cases:
  7. State v Koli [2023] N10183, Toliken J: The offender pleaded guilty to killing her husband in a domestic setting. Her husband was a corrections officer. She was at home peeling vegetables for dinner when he arrived home drunk and started an argument with her. He then started assaulting her. During the assault she used a knife and stabbed him in his underarm. She was sentenced to 9 years. Five years of the sentence was suspended.
  8. State v Roth [2019] PGNC 33; N7770, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife causing her death. He had continuously beat her causing her multiple injuries. He was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
  9. State v Aosa [2017] PGNC 244; N6907, Miviri AJ: In a domestic setting, the offender stabbed his wife in the chest with a scissor after suspecting her of being unfaithful. He was sentenced to 15 years on his guilty plea.
  10. State v Dabube [2017] PGNC 177; N6825, Koeget AJ: The deceased pleaded guilty. She was assaulted by her husband daily. He was a drug addict. He came home and kicked the food she had cooked. She picked up their child and left. He followed her and assaulted her. She threw a knife at his feet. He cut his ankle. He died from blood loss. She was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
  11. The cases submitted by Ms Move do not involve co wives but instead spouses killing spouses in domestic settings. The range of in those cases is a term of imprisonment between 8 and 16 years which is inconsistent with Ms Move earlier submissions that an appropriate range is between 3 and 7 years.
  12. I have found the following comparable cases involving disputes between co wives, girlfriends or mistresses which resulted in death:
  13. Warome v The State [2020] PGSC 73; SC1991: The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years. The appellant’s husband was missing from the family home for four consecutive nights and days. It was her husband’s pay week, and he had left his prolonged absence without any explanation which had caused her distress, discomfort, and anxiety. Sometime between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm she went in search of her husband. She went to his uncle’s house and opened a locked door to a room. She took the knife from the kitchen to open the door. She turned on the light to find in surprise her husband naked in bed with another woman. She stabbed the woman once in the left breast and on the hand. She also punched her husband before she escaped. The sentence of 10 years was confirmed. However, the Supreme Court found that because the sentencing court did not take into consideration the conduct of the husband, which was a significant and strong mitigating factor, suspended 3 years of the sentence. The Supreme Court having suspended the sentence on that basis cautioned that the approach that was taken was not intended to set a precedent as each case must be determined according to their own peculiar facts and circumstances.
  14. Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017: The Supreme Court partially upheld an appeal against a sentence of 9 years, by wholly suspending the balance after deducting the pre-trial and post-conviction period of 2 years, 1 month in detention. The offender went looking for her husband at the deceased’s residence. When she got there, she found the deceased sitting on a chair in the living room of her house drinking coffee. The offender suggested that the deceased go and live with her and her children in her house so that their husband could look after all of them under one roof. Rather than giving any consideration to the proposal, the deceased verbally insulted the offender and then armed herself with a knife that was there on the table and started to attack the offender. On realizing she had no way of escaping, the offender wrestled the knife from the deceased and stabbed the deceased on her head and back many times causing the deceased to collapse and die instantly. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
  15. State v Kaumin (2024) N10961, Miviri J: The deceased and offender have a common de facto partner. They and their partner were all sitting together when the women argued over him. The offender stabbed the deceased on her elbow. The deceased died from blood loss. She was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
  16. State v Dolo [2021] PGNC 246; N9110, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her co-wife. She stabbed the deceased in the neck causing her death. The offender and the deceased had an argument which led to a physical altercation. The deceased struck the offender on the head with a stone. The offender crossed the road to get away. The deceased followed her. When she approached the offender, the offender took out a small kitchen knife and stabbed her once in the neck. The deceased died because of the injuries sustained. The offender was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. 2 years of the sentence was suspended.
  17. State v Robin [2021] PGNC 165; N9022, Berrigan J: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her co-wife. She stabbed the deceased in the back with a knife. The offender and the deceased were married to the same man, and all were living in the same accommodation. The women argued over space. The deceased struck the offender on the head with a bilum, causing the offender to fall. The deceased then ran off. The offender ran after the deceased. The deceased tripped and fell. The offender stabbed her in the back whilst she was on the ground. The offender was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Three years of the sentence was suspended.
  18. State v Waieng [2017] PGNC 126; N6775, Liosi AJ: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her husband’s girlfriend. She had suffered 8 years of fighting and arguments over her husband’s continued relationship with the deceased. She and her husband had four children. Her husband would often leave them without support and go live with the deceased. She had obtained a preventive order for the Village Court against them. That order did nothing to stop the relationship. She then went to the District Court to file for Adultery. She withdrew the case because of threats from her husband. She then sought assistance from the Welfare Department. On the day of the offence, she went in search of her husband because he failed to return home the previous night. She saw the deceased, and they argued. An argument led to a fight. The offender produced the knife she was armed with and stabbed the deceased twice in the back and once in the chest. The deceased died because of those injuries. Compensation was paid. The offender was sentenced to 10 years. Time spent in custody of 2 years was deducted. The 2 years of the balance was suspended.
  19. State v Peter [2017] PGNC 124; N6772, Liosi AJ: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her co-wife. The deceased is the first wife, and the offender is the second wife. The relationship was not a happy one. The deceased would at times leave the family home and her children in the care of the offender. Their husband would go and bring her back. On the date in question, the deceased started an argument with the offender. A fight ensued. During the fight, the offender picked up a knife and stabbed the deceased on the right side of her head above the ear. She then stabbed the deceased in the back, which penetrated her left lung and heart. The offender was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance of 3 years was suspended.
  20. State v Pok [2014] PGNC 305; N5606, David J: Following a trial, the offender was found guilty of manslaughter. She was charged with willful murder. The offender and the deceased were both co-wives of the same husband. The deceased was older. They resided in houses approximately 15 to 20 meters apart. When the offender and the common husband returned to the village early in the morning, the common husband requested that the offender boil his tea and prepare sweet potatoes. The offender refused. She informed the common husband that because he was going to the deceased's residence to sleep, the deceased should cook. Hearing this, the deceased berated her, and an altercation ensued between the two of them. The deceased went back to her house, got a kitchen knife, disguised it, went back to the offender's house, and attacked her with it. The offender, who was larger than the deceased, fought her, wrestled with her, and eventually overwhelmed her. She then took the deceased's knife and stabbed her once on the left side of her neck. Shortly after, the deceased passed away from blood loss. She was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
  21. State v Mara [2010] PGNC 140; N4133, Makail J: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her husband’s girlfriend. She has discovered her husband with the deceased. She fought with the deceased. The deceased was armed with a knife. The offender wrestled the knife from the deceased and stabbed her once in the back which penetrated her lung. The deceased died from the injury she sustained. Compensation was paid. She was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody of 2 years was deducted. No part of the sentence was suspended.
  22. State v Jako [2010] PGNC 119; N4110, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her co-wife. Both women were living with their shared husband at the time of the offence. They had a history of quarrelling. On the date of the offence, the offender stabbed the victim with a kitchen knife three times on her body. She was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance of 3 years was suspended.
  23. State v Karapus [2009] PGNC 59; N3640, Makail J: The offender pleaded guilty to the stabbing of her husband’s 17-year-old girlfriend. Her husband had abandoned her, and she was left to raise four children on her own. On the day of the offence, she returned from the garden carrying food and her baby when the deceased insulted her and made obscene gestures at her. She took the matter to the village court, but her husband and the deceased would not turn up. The deceased mother and father were pushing for the deceased to marry her husband. She took out a knife and stabbed the deceased three times on her body. The deceased died as a result. She was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
  24. State v Kelly [2009] PGNC 34; N3624, Makail J: The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her co wife. Offender is the first wife, and the deceased is the second wife. The husband abandoned the offender and their three children and went to live with the deceased in the deceased village. Prior to the date of the offence the offender had a heated argument with the deceased and their husband. On the date of the offence, the offender armed herself with a kitchen knife and went to the deceased home. An argument ensured. The argument led to a fight. During the fight, the offender stabbed the deceased in the neck. The deceased died as a result. The offender was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted. No part of the sentence was suspended.
  25. The foregoing cases show a range between 9 and 12 years. The sentencing trend of the more comparable cases demonstrates that sentences are within the 1st category of the Manu Kovi guidelines in manslaughter cases.

Antecedent


  1. The offender is 30 years old and hails from Warakar Village, Banz in Jiwaka Province. She has a five-year-old son. Her father is deceased, and her mother is alive in the village. She has one brother who also lives in the village.
  2. She was educated up to year 8 at the Fatima Primary School. Prior to the commission of the offence, she was employed as a shop assistant. She attends the Lutheran Church.
  3. She has no medical concerns and is in good health.

Allocutus


  1. The offender stated in allocutus:

“In the eyes of God above and in your honours eyes I am sorry for breaking the sixth law of God. In Gods eyes and in your honours eyes I am sorry for breaking the Constitution of this county. In Gods eyes and in your honour’s eyes, I am sorry for giving this problem to the deceased, her children and her family. In Gods eyes and in your honour’s eyes, I am really sorry for giving this problem to my family and to my child. In Gods eyes and in your honour’s eyes, I am sorry for taking your time, the CS time and counsels’ time. In Gods eyes and in your honour’s eyes, I am sorry. This offence won’t happen if the couple did not consume alcohol and come to my house, it was 12 in the night, and the offence already happened. I left my child and there is no one to take care of him.”


  1. In considering whether the offender is remorseful, I find the statements by Kidu CJ in Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 of assistance. He said:

“Remorse and contrition are factors weighed in the matter of sentence in favour of accused persons, particularly if they are manifested in a plea of guilty. Whether remorse or contrition are shown by a plea of guilty depends upon the time and circumstances in which the plea is advanced. The earlier the expression of remorse or contrition after the commission of the offence the more favourable it will be for the accused. Remorse and contrition expressed at the trial weighs very lightly. It is easier to believe remorse expressed earlier than remorse expressed at the time of the trial, especially in serious cases like this one.”


  1. Given that the offender cooperated with police and made admissions and that she pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, I accept her statement in allocutus as a genuine sign of expression of remorse.

Culpability


  1. The offence was not premediated or planned. The offender’s initial conflict was with their co-husband. She stabbed the deceased in response to the deceased striking her with firewood. However, according to the facts the deceased did not attack her over a dispute about their common husband but instead because she had awoken from her sleep seeing her husband stabbed and the deceased armed. While not premediated, she had the opportunity to leave after inflicting the injury on the co-husband but did not. Her level of culpability is therefore mid-range.



Victim Impact Statement


  1. I thank the probation officer Ms. Jocabeth Kalagune who assisted with the victim impact statement. She spoke to the deceased brother Gutowe Scotty who stated her sister had four children. Two are from her previous marriage and two are with Ikime Kola. They are now being raised by his mother. The death of the deceased caused a financial burden which they were not prepared for. He asks that the offender be sentenced to prison.

Factors in Aggravation


  1. Factors in aggravation is that a life has been lost which cannot be replaced. She was a mother of four children who are now left in custody of their grandmother. The offender used a weapon to cause her death. The offence is prevalent.

Factors in Mitigation


  1. Factors in mitigation are that the offender is a first-time offender, she pleaded guilty, she cooperated with police and made admission, she was remorseful, and she committed the offence out their joint husband’s actions.
  2. I do not accept that she paid compensation. The pre-sentence report demonstrates that the offender’s husband paid compensation to his in laws.

Consideration


  1. The offence which the offender committed is prevalent. Most of the deaths occur out of frustration over the joint husband’s time, resources and his selfishness. The man is always the common dominator between the women and often moves on with his life while leaving behind devastation and heart ache. Here the husband has moved on with his life and his children from each of the women are now being raised by their grandmothers. Having said this, each person is responsible for their own actions. By their own actions they must be held accountable. It was the offender who made the decision to stab the deceased instead of walking away. She must live now with the consequences of her decision. A life has been lost. The loss is permanent. Four children are left without a mother; a mother is without a daughter and a brother without a sister. The offender will eventually return to her family.
  2. In considering all the foregoing matters discussed in this decision I impose a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
  3. According to the charge sheet the offender has been in custody since the 17 August 2024. She has been in custody for 1 year, 2 months and 6 days. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence period is deducted, and the offender shall serve the balance of 8 years, 9 months, 3 weeks and 1 day.
  4. The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended. I have considered the principles in Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564 and Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91. I have also considered the principle in Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412 where the same factors that were used to reduce sentence cannot be used again to suspend sentence.
  5. The people interviewed in the offender’s community say that they do not know the offender. They only know the deceased as being the wife of Ikime Kola. The Probation Officer was unable to contact the offender’s family in Banz because she did not provide any contact details.
  6. The deceased brothers ask for a custodial sentence. In cases of violent offences, the views of the victims are important when considering suspension: State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211 and State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723 followed.
  7. The offender is young and in good health and there is nothing to suggest that imprisonment will cause her hardship.
  8. Considering that the offence is prevalent, that a life has been lost and there is very little in the pre-sentence report that would support suspension, suspension is not appropriate.

Orders


  1. The Orders are as follows:
    1. The offender is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
    2. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence period of 1 year, 2 months and 6 days is deducted, and the offender shall serve the balance of 8 years, 9 months, 3 weeks and 1 day at Bihute Correctional Institution.
    3. The CR file is closed.

Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2025/408.html