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

State v Uphas (No. 2) [2025] PGNC 465; N11593 (17 November 2025)

N11593

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 968, 969 & 970 OF 2025

THE STATE

v

GITAS UPHAS,
PRAIS YANGAMBAO &
LIU NANDUI
(NO. 2)

PORGERA: ELLIS J
17 NOVEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – MURDER – s300(1)(a) CCA – Sentence after trial - Three offenders part of a group of about 30 people who attacked victim – Victim punched and struck with stones, wood and a bush knife – Serious, prevalent offence – Need for deterrence – sentence of 25 years IHL for each offender

Facts
A group of men attacked the victim, who was punched and struck with sticks, stones and a bush knife. The resulting injuries caused the victim’s death. Each of the three offenders was a member of that group and each of them played a role in that attack.

Held
(1) Need for deterrence in Porgera.
(2) Kovi, category 3.
(3) Sentence of 25 years IHL for each offender.

Cases cited
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789

Counsel
J. Kesan, for the State
L. Toke, for the defendants

JUDGEMENT ON SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Three men were charged that, on the 29 January 2025 at Porgera Station, they murdered Simion Nita Napal (the victim). They were each found guilty after a trial. The charge was based on s 300 of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (the CCA) which provides for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.
   
2. Gitas Uphas and Liu Nandui, who were both granted bail, failed to attend court this morning. As they deliberately absented themselves from these proceedings, and no adequate reason has been provided for their absence, the Court was satisfied that these proceedings should continue. Having delivered a verdict against all three offenders, the Court proceeded with a hearing on the question of what sentence should be imposed.
   

Allocutus

3. Since the evidence upon which the State relied supported a conviction, an opportunity was provided for the offenders to address the Court, prior to closing submissions.
   
4. As Gitas Uphas absconded and thereby breached the terms of his bail, the Court was unable to hear what he wished to say before sentence was imposed.
   
5. What he said by Prais Yangambao is set out below:
   

I say sorry to this court. I also say sorry to the Constitution of this country. I was drinking beer that time. I have six children plus my wife. This court will punish me for drinking beer and for the murder of the deceased. On the last day God will know that I was not involved in that. I have a lot of children who depend on me so I am asking this court if it can place me on a good behaviour bond.

6. As Liu Nandui absconded and thereby breached the terms of his bail, the Court was unable to hear what he wished to say before sentence was imposed.
   

Evidence

7. In the judgment delivered this morning, following the trial, the Court made the following findings of fact. They are repeated below as they provide the factual foundation for the purposes of sentencing in that they establish the circumstances of the offence.
   

(1) Between 5pm and 6pm on 29 January 2025 a group of as many as 30 people attacked the victim.
(2) Those people had a common purpose of attacking that victim.
(3) After an initial attack, the victim unsuccessfully tried to escape.

(4) However, the attack not only continued, but also continued when the victim fell to the ground.

(5) During the attack, the victim was punched and hit with stones, wood and a bush knife.
(6) Oki Barabas struck the victim on the head with a bush knife.
(7) In contrast, the victim was unarmed.
(8) Each of the three offenders was present and participated in that attack.
(9) Each of the three offenders thereby aided that attack.
(10) As a result of that attack, the victim sustained wounds to his head and body.

(10) The wound to the victim’s head was a crescent-shaped laceration that was 7cm long and 4cm wide, with a depth down to the skull.

(11) The wounds to the body included bruises to the head, chest, back and abdomen, especially to the left flank.
(12) Those wounds to the body of the victim ruptured his spleen.

(13) On 3 February 2025, the victim died from blood loss resulting from those wounds.

(14) From the (a) number of people present, (b) the number of blows inflicted, (c) the use of stones, wood and a bush knife, and (d) the nature of the injuries, it is a reasonable inference that there was an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm on the victim.

(15) Gitas Uphas participated in that attack by being the first to strike the victim, on his upper body, by both punching him and then using a stone, after which he called out “kill that man”, thereby encouraging others to continue the attack.

(16) By reasons of those words used by Gitas Uphas, there was an intention to kill the victim.

(17) Prais Yangambao participated in that attack, in which stones and wood were used, by striking the victim.

(18) The role of Liu Nandui participated in that attack, in which stones and wood were used, by striking the victim.

(19) By their conduct, each of the three offendcrs (Gitas Uphas, Prais Yangambao and Liu Nandui) contributed to the death of the victim.

Submissions for the offenders

8. The submissions that could have been made for the personal circumstances of Gitas Uphas and Liu Nandui were limited by their absence, a matter within their control. Prais Yangambao was said to be aged 35, married, with six children. It was said that he dropped out of school after Grade 6 in 1989 and that he has been running a small-scale business here in Porgera although the nature of that business was not made clear. His parents are both deceased and he was said to be of the Christian Apostolic Faith.
   
9. It was noted that s 7 and s 8 of the CCA applied in this case, to render each offender liable as if they were the principal offender. It was contended that there was an absence of any strong intent to go grievous bodily harm and that, as a result, this case fell within the second of the four categories set out by the Supreme Court in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34, SC789 (Kovi), which was said to suggest a range of imprisonment for 16 to 20 years. It was accepted that a life was lost and that this was a prevalent offence, but it was said that Prais Yangambao has no prior convictions and that he said sorry to the deceased. A submission was made that this was a surprise attack, and that the attack was not pre-planned.
   
10. It was initially suggested that Gitas Uphas had spent “a little less than four months” in custody prior to today. However, when the Court sought further details, it transpired that he was arrested on 4 February 2025 and was granted bail on 28 February 2025 with the result that he spent three weeks in custody prior to today. As Prais Yangambao was arrested on 4 February 2025 and was not granted bail, he has spent nine months and two weeks in custody. The position in relation to Liu Nandui is the same as Gitas Uphas in that he was also granted bail on 28 February 2025 with the result that he has spent three weeks in custody prior to today. The final submission for these three offenders was that a sentence of imprisonment for 16 years should be imposed. However, no reason was given as to why, even if category 2 according to Kovi was appropriate, these offenders should be sentenced, after a trial, to a term of imprisonment at the low end of the range for that category.
    

Submissions for the State

11. It was noted that these three offenders were but some of a number of people who attacked the victim in what was said to have been a planned attack. Reference was made to the medical report which revealed extensive injuries to the body of the victim in addition to the wound to his head that measured 7cm long and 4cm wide.
    
12. The Court was reminded that the blows inflicted on the victim included punches, the use of stones and wood, plus a blow to the head with a bush knife. It was submitted there was both a strong and common intention to inflict grievous bodily harm.
    
13. The aggravating factors were said to be the weapons used, there were multiple blows by multiple people, and that this offence was prevalent in this community. It was noted that, as this was a contested case, there was no room for a discount for a plea of guilty. It was submitted that this case fell within the third category as set out in Kovi in that there was a strong intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, a bush knife was used as a weapon, and the attack was vicious.
    

Relevant law

14. In Kovi the Supreme Court provided guidelines for sentencing by suggested sentencing ranges for the offence of murder under four categories which are set out below:
    

Consideration

15. It is necessary to note that, either because the 30 or so people who attacked this victim had a common purpose, or because these three offenders aided in the commission of this offence, they are each liable as if they were the principal offender.
    
16. There are submissions that were made on behalf of these offenders that must be rejected:
    

(1) That Prais Yangambao said he was sorry to the deceased. In fact, he said no such thing: he said sorry to the Court and to the Constitution. Any such apology carries no weight because those words were accompanied by repeated claims that he did not commit the offence. As a result, it cannot be said there was any expression of remorse.

(2) The suggestion that this attack was not pre-planned is rejected since as many as 30 people gathered to pursue this victim.

(3) There was an absence of any strong intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. This victim was attacked and then, when he tried to escape was further attacked, and the attack continued after he fell to the ground. The medical report amply demonstrates the extensive nature of the wounds. It is a common consequence for multiple blows to the body to rupture the spleen which then causes fatal internal bleeding. In addition, there was a blow to the head with a bush knife. Indeed, the evidence established that Gitas Uphas said “kill that man” which suggests more than an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.

(4) This case falls within category 2 in Kovi. This case clearly falls within category 3 because (a) the attack was pre-planned, and (b) the attack was vicious, and (c) there was a strong intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.

(5) A sentence of imprisonment for 16 years would be quite inadequate punishment for this offence which showed a complete lack of respect for human life, and that lack of respect is supported by the fact that Prais Yangambao sought to be given a good behaviour bond.

17. The Court was unable to consider the personal circumstances of Gitas Uphas or Liu Nandui because they chose to abscond instead of appearing in Court today. The Court has had regard to the personal circumstances of Prais Yamgambao when determining what sentence should be imposed.
    
18. In this case it is important that the sentence should take into consideration the following matters:
    

(1) The number of people who attacked the victim, not just these three offenders but as many as thirty people.
(2) The duration of the attack, which was between 20 and 30 minutes.
(3) The number of blows that were struck.
(4) That those blows were struck with fists, stones, wood and a bush knife.
(5) That the victim was unarmed and outnumbered.
(6) That the attack was clearly pre-planned.
(7) That the attack was undoubtedly vicious.
(8) There was clearly a strong intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.
(9) Gitas Uphas expressed an intention to kill the victim.
(10) The complete disregard for human life.
(11) The prevalence of this kind of conduct and this offence.

(12) The need for general deterrence in this place at this time so that it is clear to everyone living in and around Porgera that this kind of conduct will not be treated as anything but serious by this Court.

19. In view of those matters, this Court would have imposed a sentence of 30 years on Oki Barabas, because he struck the blow with the bush knife to the head of the victim. While these three offenders are liable as if they each delivered that blow, their role was less and, for that reason, a sentence at the mid-point of the range suggested by Kovi is considered appropriate.
    

Sentence

20. For those reasons, the Court considers that each offender should be sentenced to imprisonment for hard labour for 25 years. It is necessary to deduct the periods which the offenders have already spent in custody to determine the period remaining to be served. The relevant details are set out in the following table:
    

Sentenced accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor