Unreported Supreme Court Decisions
SC621
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]
SCRA NO. 59 OF 1998
BETWEEN: WILLIAM DOT NORMAN PARKOP & JAMES A. MAKE 
AND: THE STATE
Mount Hagen
Jalina Sevua Kirriwom JJ
23 August 1999
Case Cited
Jim Kas & Two Ors v The State - Unreported Supreme Court Decision of May or June 1999
Counsel
N. Mivini for State/Respondent
Appellants in Person
23 August 1999
JALINA SEVUA KIRRIWOM JJ:  The Appellants were convicted and sentenced by the National Court in Mt Hagen to a term of ten (10) years each.  When they appeared in the National  Court, they all pleaded guilty to a charge of murder under s. 300 (1) of the Criminal Code.  They admitted to killing one of their own clan brothers over a piece of land.  It was a customary land owned by the clan but subject to some dispute between them.  The appellant James Agamp Make admitted to hitting the deceased on the head with a coffee stick and he fell to the ground.  
The Appellants William Dot and Norman Parkop admitted to chopping the deceased with their bush knives on his left thigh and on the right side of his back as the deceased was lying on the ground.  The deceased lost a lot of blood from which he died.  It was a little over a year ago when they were dealt with by the National Court on 24 July 1998.
They appealed against that decision and these are their grounds of appeal:
1.       Defence Lawyer did not present their evidence.
2.       Judge did not hear our grounds.
3.       Sentence too excessive.
Their appeal is against both their conviction and sentence.  The appeal was filed well within time and the question of leave does not apply.  Neither does the question of leave on appeal against sentence apply according to the recent Supreme Court decision of Jim Kas and Two Others v The State - Unreported Supreme Court decision of May or June 1999.
GROUND 1  -  DEFENCE LAWYER DID NOT PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE
This ground is not merited in any sense because the appellants had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder.  There was therefore no need for the Court to hear any evidence either from them or from the prosecution.
If there was any evidence that the defence considered necessary to place before the Court on behalf of the appellants following their pleas of guilty, that could only be in respect of mitigation of penalty if there was any dispute as to certain facts asserted by the prisoners.  But there appears   to  be  no  contention   about   the   facts   presented.   In   the  allocutus, the appellants through their spokesman James Make, expressed their remorse for the killing on their own clan brother.  The trial judge took this factor into account in his sentencing especially the fact that the prisoners were obligated by custom to pay some more compensation despite the fact that they had already paid some ‘bel kol moni’.
This ground is dismissed.
GROUND 2  -  JUDGE DID NOT HEAR OUR GROUNDS
This ground appear to be similar to ground one.  It is unmerited because clearly the judge took into account their own story given by James Make on their behalf  and furthermore heard their lawyer who made a lengthy submission on sentence.
In their written submission that appellant William Dot handed up on behalf of the three of them, the appellants contend that the trial Judge did not take into account the fact that the deceased and his family fought James Make when he told the deceased not to work on their land.  But this story was given to the National Court (see AB21) and even the lawyer mentioned the fact that the appellant James Make lost his thump in that fight between them (see AB24).  
The trial judge did acknowledge that the deceased received a blow to his head from a coffee stick swung by James Make during a scuffle between them.  His Honour clearly noted the close relationship between the parties.  In the first page of his judgement His Honour says:
“The three accused and the victim are first blood cousin brothers.  They had an  internal  land  dispute  which led  to a small scuffle between them.  The land  the subject of the dispute belonged to the three accused but was being looked after by the deceased whilst the three accused settled on the block at Aviamp.  When the victim claimed ownership rights over the land, this dispute arose.  At one stage the land mediators ordered the victim to vacate the land but he and his brothers refused to obey the order and worked on the land thus leading to the scuffle.  During the scuffle, the accused James Make hit the victim on his head with a coffee stick causing the victim to fall to the ground.  Whilst the victim lay on the ground, the accused William Dot then cut the victim on his left thigh with a bush-knife followed by Norman Parkop cutting the deceased on his left back with a bush-knife.”
This clearly shows that the Court took into account the peculiar circumstances of this case when sentencing the appellants to ten (10) years each.
This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed.
GROUND 3  -  SENTENCE TOO EXCESSIVE
Appellants argue that 10 years is excessive.  It must be appreciated that murder under s. 300(1) of the Criminal Code carries life imprisonment.  The sentence of 10 years is well within the range.  This case could have attracted a higher sentence particularly in view of the fact that the deceased was chopped with bush knives in what was otherwise a family dispute.  People must learn not to slaughter each other like animals.  William Dot told this Court that this was an accident.  When you chop up somebody with bush knives after he has been immobilised and dazed or rendered unconscious by a blow to his head with a coffee stick causing mortal wounds and excessive bleeding, that is not an accident.  This was a deliberate act to cause grievous bodily injury that led to the deceased’s death.  This is a very serious case and the appellants  are fortunate to have received only 10 years.  The trial  judge  weighed up all the factors both for and against the prisoners and concluded that 10 years was a just and fair sentence in the circumstances of the case.
We do not find any error in the Judge’s reasoning and we dismiss this ground of appeal.
All in all, the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence are confirmed.
Lawyer for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Appellants in Person.