N11206

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 671, 672, 1357, 1358 OF 2021

THE STATE

V

MANU PETER & ISO NORM

WABAG: BERRIGAN J
6, 7, 10, 11, 21 MARCH 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – WILFUL MURDER – Identification Evidence – Credibility – Not Guilty. 

Cases cited
Biwa Geta v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 153
Jimmy Ono v The State (2002) SC698
John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115
State v Kande & Ors (2021) N9132
The State v Francis Vau Kamo (2006) N2991

Counsel
P Tengdui for the State
L Toke for the accused

DECISION ON VERDICT

1.	BERRIGAN J:   The accused are jointly charged with two counts of wilful murder, contrary to s 299(1) of the Criminal Code (Ch. 262) (the Criminal Code).

2.	It was alleged that on 27 November 2020 Peter Manu and Iso Norm were at Lyamal, Laiagam, Enga Province. The deceased, Pas Yangopen and Karat Kambiam were also at Lyamal, where a peace ceremony was being organised to take place the next day. Between 6 and 7 pm the deceased were returning home following the Okuk Highway, when they were met by the accused in a Toyota Land Cruiser utility which Manu Peter was driving and Iso Norm was offsider, with others in the back. They passed the deceased on the road and after a while the vehicle returned from the opposite direction and as they approached them again, the accused Manu Peter, stopped the vehicle alongside the victims. In that instant, he got out of the vehicle with a gun and shot the deceased, Pas Yangopen, who was standing with Augusta Pepaip on the driver’s side of the road. At the same time, the accused Iso Norm, got out from the other side of the vehicle with a gun and shot Karat Kambiam, who was also on that side of the road. The accused fired second shots at each of the deceased, then got into their vehicle and drove away. The deceased died instantly at the scene. The accused escaped to Madang where they were subsequently arrested.

WILFUL MURDER 

3.	To establish the offence of wilful murder contrary to s 299(1), Criminal Code the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused: a) killed the deceased; b) unlawfully; and c) with the intention of causing his or her death or the death of some other person. 

STATE CASE  

4.	There can be no doubt that Pas Yangopen, 32 years of age, and Karata Kambiam, 31, both of Wanepap, Laiagam, Enga Province, suffered terrible deaths at the hands of another person or persons. 

5.	According to the postmortem reports conducted on 28 November 2020 by Dr Anthony Kuglame, Laiagam District Hospital, Pas Yangopen died from two bullet wounds, one at the lower aspect of the left orbitol ridge, that is the bony ridge above the eye socket, and a second one at the left ear canal. There were no exit wounds. 

6.	Karata Kambiam, 31 years of age, also suffered two bullet wounds, one at the left temporal region and one at the neck which exited at the back of the neck. No other wounds were noted.

7.	There is also no dispute that the accused travelled together from Madang in a white Land Cruiser utility and were at Laiagam at the date and time of the killings. Furthermore, that they left soon afterwards and took the vehicle to Mt Hagen where they left it before travelling back to Madang by PMV.

8.	The issue in this case is one of participation.

9.	The State called two witnesses. Augusta Pepaip is from Wanapep village, Laiagam. On 27 November 2020 she went to Amaral where they were going to pay compensation for her father who was killed in a tribal fight. That particular day her relatives were asked to get the compensation, so they went over to their place. Compensation was going to be paid the next day. Some stayed back for the compensation and others went back to the village. At about 6 pm she left Lyamal with the deceased and walked towards their village. Just the three of them went ahead and some others came after them. Pas is her brother.  Nothing happened but she saw the two accused driving up and down the national highway. They were driving a white open backed Land Cruiser with wires on the side. Pas went ahead and she came after him and Karat after them. The vehicle came and stopped and Manu got out of the driver’s side and on that particular day they were expecting pigs and money so she was expecting that he was going to give them something but he opened fire at Pas. At the same time Iso opened fire at Karat. Pas was shot twice and Karat once. She was in a state of shock and cannot recall what happened next or how she got back to her village.  

10.	Christopher Kondo is also of Wanapep village, Laiagam. He is of the Ambai tribe. On 27 November 2020 he was at Lyamal because the Waio were going to pay compensation to his relatives. Yangopen of the Ambai tribe was injured in a tribal fight and had since died. The fight was a long time ago when he was a toddler, and he does not know who the Waio were fighting against. The compensation was deferred to the next day and so he was walking home on the main road with Yanis Yane between 430 and 5 pm when a white land cruiser open back with wires on the side must have gone that way and when it returned it saw Pas and the vehicle stopped. He saw the first shooter open the doors and shoot. He was surprised and wanted to see what was happening. After that the person on the other side took some steps forward and shot at the other one and he fell. Christopher realised that they were shooting at his relatives and so ran into the bush. He could not see who the driver was as the vehicle door blocked him off. The other person he saw because he took two to three steps and shot at Karat. It was Iso Norm. He belongs to the same area and they stay together. He is a tall man. Christopher saw Pas and Karat fall down and lie on the highway. A neighbouring village brought the bodies to his village. He saw Pas’ body brought that night.  Karat’s body was brought the next day around 10 or 11 am. 

DEFENCE CASE 

11.	The accused do not deny that they drove from Madang together and were not far from the place of the alleged offences on 27 November 2020, but they say that they were at Tiok, their small village at the time. They were there because Manu had to return the vehicle to his brother in law in Mt Hagen. There was tension building between the Waio and Miok clans and they took the opportunity to return to the village to plan for compensation in December to try to bring some peace. When they heard gunshots, they were afraid and fled their village because their enemies are very close by. The State witnesses are lying. They are leaders in their community, and they are a target. They dropped off the vehicle in Mt Hagen before returning to Madang. 

12.	It is submitted that the eye witnesses were unreliable. The witnesses at Tiok should be believed. On the evidence of all the witnesses, including the State witnesses, the accused were justified in leaving the village that night.  The State cannot explain why if the bodies were killed at the same location at the same time they were not recovered the same night. 

13.	Manu Peter is from Taluma village in the Pilikambi LLG of Laiagam, Porgera District.  Iso Norm is from Yelelya village in Taluma in the same District. Both are from the Miok clan of the Makol tribe. The accused each gave evidence and called two alibi witnesses. 

14.	Manu Peter is 38 years old. He has a Bachelor in Health Management and is based in Madang. He was previously working with World Vision but is now with Care International PNG.  He and Iso left Madang around 2:30 pm on Thursday, 26 November 2020 and arrived at Mt Hagen at about 10 am. They drove on to Yaibos where he gave them some coconuts and betelnut from Madang and stayed there until about 2 pm when they left and went to see Iso’s family at Laikamunda where they gave them coconut and betelnut. From there they made their way up to Taluma and arrived at their own small village of Tiok. They were driving slowly. The road was not in good condition, and they arrived between 6 and 7 pm at Tiok. He stopped at his house which is a few metres from the place where people come to do marketing and mingle together. There were lots of people, about 20 to 30 present. They greeted their family members and told them to send word to others so that they could come and discuss compensation for Christmas 2020. The compensation was for a man from the Kulip clan who had fought with the Mioks against their enemies, the Waio clan. They told the ladies there to prepare food. He gave K50 to Buka Henry, his small brother’s wife, to buy rice and prepare food. They were there for about 20 to 25 minutes when they heard gunshots on the other side towards Laiagam, the place where their enemies are. He could not actually tell how many, at least one or two. They still had tension between Miok and Waio and were scared for their safety and security and so they left and drove towards Wabag. He was afraid because he is one of the educated leaders from Miok tribe and according to Engan custom they usually target leaders or educated people and so they made a decision to run away and leave that place because of the tension. The Miok and Waio villages are close to each other. 

15.	In their custom they compensate those who have assisted them in the fighting and have been killed and then they look at compensating those on the enemy side. The Waio always want Miok to compensate their men first instead of compensating people from outside so when Waio heard that they were going to compensate a man from Kulip there was a rumour that Waio will target Miok and that is why they went there to talk to their boys and to settle and bring peace to the community.

16.	After leaving Tiok he was tired so decided to stay at his mother’s village, Lakolam, where he received a phone call telling him that Miok killed two Ambai men so they must be careful.  He was unsettled and told Iso that they would go all the way down to Mt Hagen. It was raining and the road was not clear, so they were driving slowly. He dropped Iso at one of his cousin’s places and he drove the vehicle to his in-law around midnight. 

17.	The car belongs to his in-law’s line, and he uses it in Madang. It was hired by his company. His in-law told him that he needed the vehicle during December, so they took the opportunity to come to Tiok. A lot of people have died on both sides of the Miok and Waio fight. Every Christmas he wants peace in the community and so he travels to the village to try to make compensation. 

18.	He stayed with him and early in the morning he gave him the key. He did not tell him about anything, and he did not tell him to hide it. He left and got on a bus to Madang. On his way to Madang he heard at about 5 pm that police went and got the vehicle and arrested the owner and he was wondering why. Whilst he was still on the road, he heard that the Ambais were accusing him of hiring a vehicle to kill a man with Iso and escape. That made him scared so he stayed in Madang where he is married and employed.  

19.	The main purpose of accusing them is to ruin their name as leaders of their little community. He was not aware of the compensation being organised by Waio and he had no interest in it. 

20.	He disagreed that Waio had stopped Miok from compensating deaths of those who assisted Miok. He disagreed that he was cross then when Waio wanted to compensate a person from Ambai who assisted the Waio clan. Miok was never against Ambai. He was not angry or frustrated. His intention was to gather Miok to compensate those who had been killed assisting their clan so as to maintain peace in the community. Ambai clan is a big tribe in Laiagam District. He cannot remember and is not aware of any issues with the Ambai. Miok normally fight with Waio. 

21.	He didn’t tell anyone that he was coming to his village. They are in Enga. Anything can happen. There was no need to call. He knew that his clan would be gathered at Tiok because there was a big fight earlier and all Miok are in one place. 

22.	Iso Norm is 60 plus years old. He is educated to Grade 10. In 2020 he too was living in Madang and employed by World Vision International, since 2017. 

23.	On 26 November 2020 he had fallen ill at work and applied for annual leave on 26 and 27. Manu was due to return his vehicle to its owner in Mt Hagen in December. There was speculation of a fight between the Waio and Miok clans and so they took the opportunity to come back and speak to the elders and youth and come to some sort of compromise and reach peace in the village. They left Madang between 230 and 3pm. They filled the vehicle with mango and coconut and had three young boys, Nolan, Bau Ipara and another one at the back. They travelled slowly because the road condition was poor.  They arrived at Mt Hagen at about 10 am and then travelled to Yaibos, where his first daughter is married, and dropped off some mangoes and coconuts there. They washed and rested for an hour or two before proceeding toward Wabag and then on to Lakamanda at about 4 pm where his wife and children have been living for the last 20 years. They dropped off coconuts and mangoes before going to Tiok. The road condition was poor, and they reached Tiok between 5:30 pm and 6 pm but he was not really monitoring the time. They drove inside from the main highway 4 to 5 metres and parked the car. It is like a marketplace where the community come to gather. There was a crowd of 20 to 30. They stopped and distributed coconuts and mangos and betelnut. He called Buka Henry and Manu gave her K50 and told her to buy rice from the store and prepare food because they are having a meeting that night. He has been conducting meetings like this for compensation for the last 10 years.  He went to Tiok with Manu and not his village Yelelya because there was a big fight many years ago and all the Miok are in Tiok.

24.	They did not hold a meeting. They were there for about 20 to 30 minutes when they heard a big disturbance, yelling and gun shots. There was speculation of fights to erupt and their enemy Waio is just close to the village. He and Manu quickly decided to get into the car and run away. 

25.	He is a target. In 2010 he was falsely accused of wilfully murdering someone but acquitted by the National Court. In 2011 he was arrested for killing two people he did not kill. He was discharged at the District Court. When he heard gunshots, he knew he would be arrested again.  In each case Tony Tambi, who is the first witness (on the indictment) in this case, brought the complaint against him. Tony is a leader in the Waio clan and his clan killed one of Iso’s brothers so to prevent him reporting the matter to police he has always been accusing him.

26.	After driving for 20 to 30 minutes they heard from telephone calls that two Ambai men were killed, not Waio or Miok.  They travelled to Lakolam where it was confirmed that two Ambai men were killed by their Miok clansmen. There was speculation also that Manu and he were involved. They also received a call that police from Surinki police were tracing them. He thought he was going to be arrested again and he was really scared of the police so he told Manu we have to go back to Madang. He was also worried about his employment. They left Lakolam at midnight and arrived in Mr Hagen at about 3 am the next morning. 

27.	Manu dropped him at one of his brother’s houses and he went to stay with his brother in law who owns the vehicle. They next day they travelled back to Madang by bus.

28.	He and Manu did not drive back and forth to Lyamal. They only went to Tiok. He has no grudges with Pas or Karat. His mother lived in the vicinity of the deceased’s village and his sister got married to that area. There is no dispute at all with Ambai clan. They have a good relationship. 

29.	The State witnesses are accusing him because his enemy, Tony Tambi, wants to put him behind bars because he is an educated person in his clan. He takes the lead in executing compensation payments. The main objective is to disadvantage his clan, the Miok. 

30.	Buka Henry gave evidence that she was at the common market at Tiok, which is located just near her house when the accused arrived late in the afternoon. They parked their vehicle at her yard and came and shared coconuts and betelnuts at the market and they were happy meeting them.  Manu Peter gave her K50 to buy rice and prepare food for them and they only asked for the boys. That is because they normally sit and discuss compensation every Christmas. There was no firewood, so she asked Michael Kandato to help her. The food was still on the fire and when she heard shouting. Sometime later she heard that there was a tribal fight or fighting and that two Ambai clansmen were killed by Miok tribe. The accused left because there was tension between Waio and Miok. She did not hear any gun shots. She denied telling lies to help her brother in law, or because he was the person who supports her family with compensation and other things. She is from Wanapep and the deceased persons are from her tribe, the Ambai tribe, but she is from a different sub tribe to the deceased.  

31.	Mathew Kandato was also there when they arrived at the market. He has never been to school and can’t say what time they arrived. They arrived in a vehicle with wires attached to it. They distributed coconut and betelnut and told stories. Buka told him he had to assist her prepare food and he assisted her fetch water and prepare firewood. They heard shouting that there is fighting going on and the accused left because their enemies are close by, the Waio, who they have been fighting with for many years. The women and children started shouting that they were coming to attack. That was only a short while after the accused arrived. The rice was still on the fire and they were still chewing betelnut. As to whether he heard gun shots, once or twice, or perhaps a bang on roofing iron or something like that. Later they heard that two Ambai were killed by Miok. 

PRINCIPLES 

32.	I make the following assessments having heard and observed the witnesses whilst giving evidence and having regard to their evidence by itself and in the context of the evidence in the case as a whole, together with logic and common sense, and bearing in mind that I may accept or reject any part of a witness’ evidence: Maraga v The State (2009) SC968; James Pari & Bomai Tine Kaupa v The State [1993] PNGLR 173. I remind myself that an untruthful witness may be confident and convincing, whilst a conscientious truthful witness may be hesitant and uncertain: see RD Tuna Canners Ltd v Sengi (2022) SC2232 at [35].  

33.	The principles governing identification evidence are well established. The Court should be mindful of the inherent dangers and the need for caution before convicting in reliance on the correctness of identification.  The Court should examine closely all the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made bearing in mind that recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger, but that even where the witness is purporting to recognize someone he or she knows mistakes can be made. When the quality of the identification evidence is good the matter should proceed to a verdict, when the quality of identification evidence is poor, unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification, an acquittal should be entered:  John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115, Biwa Geta v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 153; Jimmy Ono v The State (2002) SC698; State v Kande & Ors (2021) N9132 at [39].

34.	In assessing the quality of the evidence a court should closely examine all of the circumstances in which the identification was made and critically weigh those factors before relying on the identification evidence.  I remind myself that there is always the possibility that a mistaken witness could be a convincing one and that any number of such witnesses could all be mistaken:  John Beng (supra): State v Kande & Ors (2021) N9132 at [40]. 

35.	Ultimately, the court must be satisfied that the witness is both credible and reliable.  Or “honest and accurate” as per The State v Francis Vau Kamo (2006) N2991.  Relevant considerations include: whether the witness is purporting to identify a person who was a stranger or someone he or she recognised; the length of time that the witness observed the accused (e.g. a prolonged period or a fleeting glance); the emotional state of the witness at the time of the incident; the prevailing conditions (e.g. was it broad daylight or at dusk or dawn or inside or outside?); the line of sight (e.g. did the witness have a clear front-on view or was the line of sight interrupted or did the witness just see the accused from the side?). If there are discrepancies in the identification evidence the court should consider them and assess whether they are explicable in terms other than dishonesty or unreliability:  The State v Francis Vau Kamo; State v Kande & Ors (2021) N9132 at [41].

CONSIDERATION
36.	Essentially, is it the State’s case that this was a deliberate and well-planned killing that involved the accused travelling from Madang to hunt down and shoot the son and relative of an Ambai man who was to receive compensation from the Waio clan. 

37.	On one view the defence case is suspicious.  The accused drove all the way from Madang without telling anyone they were on their way.  They immediately called for a meeting after travelling for many hours. They were very close to the scene at the time of the alleged killings and left almost immediately thereafter. They left the vehicle at Mt Hagen before making their way back to Madang via PMV. 

38.	There were some significant inconsistencies in their evidence, for instance Manu Peter made no mention of bringing with them three boys from Madang although he had given detailed information about that in his record of interview. Iso Norm gave evidence about the three boys but his evidence about whether the boys were dropped at Injupak or Tiok was contradictory.  

39.	There were also some differences in the time at which they left Lakolam and at what stage during the trip to Madang each of them became aware that they were being accused of the killings.  Manu Peter said that he became aware whilst travelling from Mt Hagen to Madang whereas Iso Norm became aware that there was speculation that they were involved as they came down to Mt Hagen.  

40.	As the State submits, if Iso Norm was so worried about being wrongfully accused of another crime that was his opportunity to report to police, if not in Wabag then in Mt Hagen but he did not do so.  

41.	Nor can their alibi witnesses cannot be regarded as independent. Whilst Buka is related to those who died it appears she has little to do with her clan now that she is married to Tiok. In this regard she is married Peter Manu’s brother. Their evidence was limited and there were differences between the two about hearing gunshots but there was nothing inherently contradictory or implausible about it.   

42.	Moreover, if Manu Peter and Iso Norm are both leaders of the small Miok clan, committed to ensuring peace in their community, and there have never been disputes between the Ambai and the Miok, and they had been informed that two of their own clansmen may have been responsible for the killing of two Ambai men, did they not try to find out whether in fact that was the case and, if so, arrange for their surrender to police?  

43.	Ultimately, however, it is the State’s case to prove.

44.	It does not appear to be in dispute that the accused were in fact employed in and lived in Madang for many years. The State did not lead any evidence to dispute Manu Peter’s claim in his record of interview that he was hiring the vehicle from his brother in law through his company for use in Madang nor that he had been asked to return it to him for use in December. 

45.	The State did not produce any evidence, other than the accuseds’ own admissions in the record of interview, to show when they left Madang or last attended work, for instance.

46.	There was no evidence about the time usually required to drive from Madang to Mt Hagen and as a matter of common experience it might be accepted that the roads are sometimes poor. 

47.	There was no suggestion that the accused did not return to Madang and to their normal place of work and remain there until they were interviewed and charged.   

48.	There was no evidence from the investigating officer as to the circumstances in which the vehicle was retrieved in Mt Hagen from Peter’s in law, or its condition at the time.  

49.	The evidence about the compensation ceremony was limited.  Augusta’s evidence was difficult to follow even though on her evidence she was one of the children entitled to compensation.  Christopher had no real knowledge of it. 

50.	There was no evidence as to how far in advance the compensation ceremony had been planned. I would have assumed that it would have been planned in advance but on one view of Augusta’s evidence they were asked that same day to go over and then asked to go back the next day. 

51.	The State led no evidence from the persons who found and retrieved the bodies of the two deceased men. 

52.	Whilst it is not necessary for the State to prove a motive, motive is often a very important circumstantial piece of evidence.

53.	The State led no evidence to establish a motive. The compensation was to be given to the Ambai man’s family for his participation a long time ago in a tribal fight against the Waio. It was not suggested that the Waio had been fighting the Miok at that time. On the face of it the compensation had nothing to do with the Miok.

54.	Furthermore, all of the witnesses maintained that there was no hostility between the Ambai and the Miok. If there was any tension it was between Waio and Miok.

55.	There was  evidence from Manu Peter that there was tension between Waio and Miok because Waio were unhappy that Miok were going to compensate a man from the Kulip tribe before compensating those who had died from Waio.  He denied that the purpose of the killing was to derail the compensation that was to happen the next day. 

56.	Similarly, Iso Norm denied that they purposefully left Madang to be at Tiok in time to kill the direct descendants for whom compensation was being paid so as to disrupt the compensation ceremony that was happening the next day and put the blame on the Waio.  

57.	Even if the accused knew about the ceremony in advance, and travelled from Madang for that purpose, they could not have anticipated that it would be deferred to the following day, although it is possible that they simply took the opportunity to kill when it arose.   

58.	In all the circumstances therefore the evidence of the eye witnesses in this case was critical.

59.	Augusta Pepaip was not an impressive witness. She repeated several aspects of her evidence multiple times but seemed to have difficulty responding to questions beyond that scope and simply repeated her evidence about what happened even if that was not the answer to the question.   

60.	She initially admitted under cross-examination that she stood outside the court room discussing with the other witnesses what they would say and that she told them what she would say.  Of itself that might suggest a naïve and honest witness.  But it was her response to the State’s objection that is concerning. 

61.	She immediately and confidently asserted, despite being reminded that she was under oath, that she did not discuss anything with the witnesses, that there was nothing to say, but she could not talk properly because she had the flu and asked them to get water for her and that was all they were discussing.  Quite apart from the fact that she did not appear to be affected at any stage by the flu, it was an obvious lie and it suggested a willingness to tailor her evidence which was demonstrated elsewhere in her testimony. 

62.	Augusta repeatedly said that she knew the accused because they were from the same tribe but she is from the Ambai subtribe of the Kaimul tribe. There is no dispute that the accused are both from Miok of the Makol tribe. 

63.	She also said that they are from the same village but as I understand it she is from Wanepap and they are from Tiok in the case of Manu Peter and Yelelya in the case of Iso Norm. 

64.	She said that they were her relatives but she did not describe the relationship.  When asked how long she had known Manu Peter she said that she stayed with him in Madang.     

65.	Augusta said that there were lots of cars driving up and down the highway. She was unable to explain why she could not describe any of them other than to say “she did not come to count cars”. 

66.	She was unable to explain why it was that she observed the accused drive past her and her brothers the first time. As she said repeatedly, there were no grudges with the accused and so she never expected anything to happen. So why then did she notice them drive past amongst all of the other cars on the highway in the first place?

67.	Augusta described the vehicle as a white land cruiser with “wires on the side”. What is obvious from one of the photographs of the vehicle is that whilst there might be wires on the side, there was also black wire across the windscreen. She made no mention of that. 

68.	In addition, it appears from the photographs that the entirety of the side windows are heavily tinted and that the upper third and lower third of the windscreen is heavily tinted.  I find it difficult to believe that it would be possible to identify anyone inside the cabin of that vehicle with or without wires.

69.	Augusta repeatedly said that they were expecting compensation and so when Manu Peter got out of the vehicle she expected him to give them pigs and money. But why would she expect that? First of all, the compensation was to be made the following day. Secondly, if she knew that the people in the vehicle were Manu Peter and Iso Norm, why would she expect them to pay compensation? As she said herself later in evidence, they were not expecting compensation from the accused, who were from Miok. They were expecting compensation from “Tony’s relatives” or in other words, the Waio. 

70.	She struggled to describe the respective distances involved. She jumped around in terms of direction when giving evidence in chief. She was unable despite being given repeated opportunity to describe where she was in relation to each of the accused when they shot the deceased. 

71.	She initially said that Pas and Karat were both lying on the highway. When asked how it was then that the bodies were not taken to the village the same day she said that after Karat was shot he cleared the scene and died some distance from where he was shot. Then she said that he died on the side of the road.

72.	She said that Pas was shot once on the back and then on the head. That is inconsistent with the medical evidence. Of course, a witness might not see exactly where a witness is shot on their body in the frightening circumstances alleged. 

73.	What does not make sense, however, is that she said he was shot in the back first and then the head. That is not consistent with her own description of what happened and where Pas was standing in relation to Peter Manu when he was shot. Whilst less significant, she also said that Karat was shot only once when he was trying to turn back. That is not consistent with the medical evidence that he was shot twice. 

74.	Christopher Kondo gave evidence which corroborated Augusta in general terms albeit he was unable to identify Manu Peter at the scene. His evidence about seeing the vehicle, however, was not convincing. He also described the vehicle as an opened back Land Cruiser white in colour with “wires on the side”. 

75.	He initially said that there “must have been a white Landcruiser that must have gone that way and returned”.  He made a comment in very similar terms to Augusta when asked about the vehicle albeit in a different context: “I did not go there to see the vehicle”.

76.	He initially said that Yanis told him that the accused were coming. He then said he could not see the driver but could see Iso Norm as it drove past them. As above, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could see inside that vehicle, particularly when on his evidence it between 6 and 630 pm. 

77.	When asked why he could not identify any of the persons in the back of the ute he said that he was not expecting anything to happen. Why then did he notice Iso Norm inside a darkened cabin as he drove past in the first place?

78.	It is also the case that he was at some distance from where the shooting took place. Counsel could not come to any firm agreement but the State submitted it was 50 to 70 metres, the defence 200 metres. Even at 70 metres, at about 6 to 630 pm, the identification evidence must be treated with caution. 

79.	It is possible that Augusta was deeply traumatised by what she says happened but she was a very poor witness and it would be unsafe to rely on her evidence to convict.  For the reasons outlined above I also have doubts about the credibility and reliability of Christopher’s evidence.

80.	A number of questions also arise. For instance, why if this was such a well planned killing, and especially given that Iso Norm had on two previous occasions been accused of murder, would they, educated leaders of their clan with secure employment, travel all the way from Madang to do the killing themselves? Why would they go to all the trouble of coming in a vehicle that was quite distinctive yet heavily tinted and covered in wire but then drive around and make themselves known to the community of the people that they intended to kill? Why would they attack the deceased whilst it was not yet dark and on the main highway when there were on the State’s evidence many other vehicles travelling up and down and anyone could see them? 

81.	In all the circumstances this Court cannot be satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and each are acquitted of each of the charges contained in the indictment.

Verdict:  	Not Guilty of the wilful murder of Pas Yangopen.
Not Guilty of the wilful murder of Karat Kambian. 
________________________________________________________________   
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor  			
Lawyer for the accused: Public Solicitor