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

State v Yanda [2025] PGNC 420; N11546 (20 October 2025)

N11546

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 310 OF 2025

THE STATE

V

PETER YANDA

WAIGANI: MIVIRI J
20 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GBH S319 CCA – Plea – Punch To Face – Bush knife used Left Forearm Cut – Broken Distal 3^rd of Ulna – Serious Life-Threatening Injury – No Residual Injuries – Prevalent Offence – Law into Own Hands – 3 years IHL.

Facts
Accused punched his wife in the face injuring her. Then he picked up a bush knife from inside the house came out swinging intending to cut her neck, but she lifted her left hand securing a cut on the forearm. She sustained a broken bone there also.

Held
Cut Left forearm Lacerated.
Fracture of Ulna.
Serious life-threatening injury.
Determined attack.
Prevalent offence.
Guilty plea.
First time offender.
3 years IHL.

Cases cited
Tardrew, Public Prosecutor v [1986] PNGLR 91
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239
State v Dua [2013] PGNC 8; N4957
State v Imbol [2024] PGNC 286; N10954
Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017
State v Joshua [2022] PGNC 477; N9979
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564

Counsel
L. Jack & S. Wak for the State
F. Bomal for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. MIVIRI J: Peter Yanda appears to receive his sentence after pleading guilty that he on the 05^th October 2024 at Hohola Port Moresby National Capital District punched and then cut his wife Pas Peter with a bush knife causing her grievous bodily harm pursuant to section 319 of the Code.
   
2. He pleaded guilty that on the 05^th October 2024 at 8.00pm he was drinking beer with Pas Peter his wife, the complainant with friends and family at the White House Settlement Hohola. As they were drinking, he suspected his wife for some time that she was having an affair with another man. He became angry and confronted the complainant and demanded an explanation. As she was attempting to explain, he punched her with his folded fist on her face. She received facial injuries and serious swelling on her face with a black eye as well.
   
3. The fight was stopped by bystanders and accused walked off. He went to their house picked up a 1.5m bush knife and returned to the complainant. Without her knowledge he swung the bush knife aiming at her head. As he did, she raised her left hand intending to block the swinging knife. But was cut in the left wrist sustaining a very deep cut. She was bleeding very heavily and lost consciousness as a result. She was rushed to the Port Moresby General Hospital. She sustained a fractured left distal 3^rd of Ulna.
   
4. His conduct in so inflicting amounted to assault occasioning grievous bodily harm pursuant to section 319 of the Code. That is in the following, “A person who unlawfully does grievous bodily harm to another person is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.”

5. This is a persistent attack enduring the injuries that are set out by the photographs provided by the complainant supported independently verified by the medical report of Doctor Sonny Kibob of the Port Moresby General Hospital emergency department dated the 06^th October 2024. They are very serious and life-threatening injuries that a de facto husband has inflicted on the wife, The home is the basis of a community, a suburb, a Province and the State. He not only punched her but continued despite being stopped with an offensive and a dangerous weapon, a 1.5-meter-long bush knife. This weapon has seen a lot of cases that have come before this Court during this circuit maimed, or disabled, and dead by its use. It is readily available in the home at the fingertips of everyone in the home and everywhere. And this was the case equipping a security guard the husband here to inflict that injury on the wife.
   
6. A security guard like a policeman is an enforcer of the law and the rule of law. He ensures by his duties public order and goodness, abiding within the law. Here is a serious breach by a security guard who is employed by Pacific Corporate Security Services. Obviously, he is equipped with knowledge of the law to be able to be employed in that firm. Here his actions do not foretell that he is indeed a security guard. He has not protected, defended, the life of another person. He has chosen to punch and cut up that person who he calls his wife. His conduct is very serious because this offence is random and very prevalent. It must be addressed with stern deterrent and punitive sentences. Life is lived only once and grievous bodily harm is a component of murder to sustain. It is therefore not a light matter to say he has pleaded guilty and is a first-time offender aged 36 years old at the time of the offence, now at sentence 37 years old. And who has expressed remorse for the offence. It is in his favour but does not derail the seriousness of the offence. Originally from Kondomanda, Ambum, Enga Province he was married to the complainant for four years. She has children from a previous union, but not with the prisoner.
   
7. Once again illicit consumption of Alcohol and spirits has climaxed in criminal behaviour between a defacto couple, the assailant the supposed husband now to be sentenced over battery and assault of the wife, complainant. Both leading normal lives but for the consumption of alcohol for a birthday. And to celebrate a birth is a joyous occasion not to be succumbed into violence as here. She was beaten with a fist to the face securing a swollen left eye depicted by annexure 1 photograph tendered. Illuminated further by annexure photograph 2 very swollen right eye. Then annexure photograph 3, 4, and 5. The Xray attached shows fracture of the distal 3^rd of the Ulna confirmed by medical report dated the 06^th October 2024 issued under hand of Doctor Sonny Kibob of the Port Moresby General Hospital Emergency department.
   
8. He states that, All the above injuries were subjective to the nature of the object and force used during the injuries to the left forearm. Patient Pas Peter could have had an adverse outcome of limb threatening injuries if medical intervention was delayed.” And he details the injuries as: 1. Hemodynamically stable and in a lot of discomfort. 2.Left periorbital swelling. 3. Laceration on the left forearm. 4. Marked reduction in the left forearm at wrist joint. 5. Weakness of the left forearm with power of 3/5.” These are very serious and life-threatening injuries inflicted on the complainant by the prisoner. He took the law into his own hands and inflicted these injuries which could have easily costed her life. There is no in flagranto delicto but suspicion over her talking to her former husband leading. He took her by surprise in inflicting the assault upon her. She out of grace lifted her left hand to defend, protect herself and got the injury.
   
9. He has asked to compensate her. It is my view that compensation must be genuine and real. It is not put up to avoid the consequences of the law due. It will have real footing to lasting peace orderliness in the life of the complainant and the prisoner. I do not have material in that regard to go down that path before me. I have a self-serving view portrayed in record of interview of the prisoner. That is not enough to go down a path of alternatives to imprisonment. The exercise under section 19 (6) of the Criminal Code for purposes of consideration of alternatives to imprisonment is based on substantive matters before the court. I do not have the luxury nor the practicalities to go that way in favour of the prisoner. The complainant has made no voice in like view. So, he is acting without acceptance by her in this regard. I do not have material to follow the law set out in Tardrew, Public Prosecutor v [1986] PNGLR 91. I will suspend sentence if there are alternatives real before me. I do not have that in any way or form before me. The sum is that it will not come out in the sentence due here.
   
10. This offence draws as its maximum penalty imprisonment term of seven (7) years for the crime. It isn’t the worst offence of grievous bodily harm: Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92 so a determinate term will be imposed. Which will be based upon his own facts and circumstances to sum the proportionate sentence due him for the crime, Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38. That means in effect the sentence must fit the crime that he has committed, Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653. And relevant in this regard are the views I set out above. Because his facts are not as serious as those seen by this court in State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239, this court imposed the maximum penalty of 7 years cumulative where both wives were cut with a bush knife almost killing them, but they survived because they were taken quickly to the hospital but came out with serious residual injuries. Both were undressed naked accused of adultery by the prisoner cut by bush knife almost killing both. I do not have those facts set out here warranting. A determinate term is in view against the prisoner.
    
11. That is the extreme here it would equate next to it. It would not fall as counsel have sited a range of two and half to three years imprisonment with part suspension. This is a security guard in likeness to a policeman who maintains orderliness in society and the immediate area where engaged. He has no excuse, nor does voluntary consumption of alcohol excuse his conduct. It does not make light the gravity of the actions that he undertook on this day. The guilty plea is in his favour but does not derail to give a sentence other than what the law calls. It will not fall similar with State v Dua [2013] PGNC 8; N4957 because there is no presentence report to go along that path here. Nor would it go similar with State v Imbol [2024] PGNC 286; N10954 as that case does not equate the injury here. This persisted attack after being subdued. And it is by a security supervisor against his wife.
12. I do not think that it would be a mathematical formular that traverse the landscape of grievous bodily harm that anyone because it is grievous bodily harm must have part of their sentence suspended as a matter of course. The discretion in the sentencing Judge is never shackled. No one case is the same and will be subject only to the will of the legislature inscribed here of imprisonment. It is not prescribed that part of the sentence should always be suspended. And to adhere to tariff and range will be legislating not the territory of the Courts: Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017. Murder, Manslaughter is a stepping stone by this offence, and it is no light matter to simply suspend sentence. There must be proper basis demonstrated to go that path, State v Joshua [2022] PGNC 477; N9979 sealing the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564. I would fall into error without a presentence report or basis in law to go via a suspended sentence. Yes, there is defacto provocation, but it does not eradicate that he is security supervisor who can resort to the law. Life is not revolved around one woman or man. In the same way that the complainant has chosen he can simply do that walk away from the life with her. But it does not pay to take the law into one’s hand. The court will not encourage by the sentences that it imposes.
    
13. I consider in the aggregate that the sentence proportionate meeting the facts and circumstances here due is three years imprisonment in hard labour. I so impose that upon the Prisoner. He will serve that in jail minus the time he has been in custody on remand. He will serve the balance in jail forthwith.
    

Ordered Accordingly

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