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

State v Kot [1989] PGNC 21; N764 (5 October 1989)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N764

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
V
KUNGUS KOT

Wabag

Woods J
5 October 1989

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Wilful murder - Tribal conflict - Life imprisonment.

SENTENCE - Life imprisonment.

Cases Cited:

Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105.

Counsel:

Mr Everingham, for the State.

Mr Poka, for the defendant.

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

5 October 1989

WOODS J: The accKungus Kot has been been found guilty of the wilful murder of John Yole Kombela.

This was a deliberately planned attack with axes and bows and arrows on the deceased who was working in his garden. This type of tribal conflict killing is continuing to play havoc with the development of this part of the country, and is preventing all attempts to have a peaceful and orderly society.

These kinds of killings affect everybody; not just the victim and the perpetrators, but the whole lives and security of the people of the area, and those trying to deal with or travel through the area.

Enga Province is on the verge of massive development especially in the mining area, but there is also so much scope for agricultural development. However, the continual tribal conflicts and disregard for human life, as well as bringing misery to the people involved, are serverely hindering any development. The country and the people cannot afford such disruptions, and the full imposition of the law is required.

The penalty laid down by the law for wilful murder is life imprisonment. There is a discretion in the Court to impose a term of years, especially when there may be mitigating factors such as genuine remorse. Sentencing for wilful murder was discussed in the case Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR at p 105, where the Supreme Court reduced a term of life imprisonment to a term of years where a wilful murder had an unfortunabte domestic problem background and could not be categorised as a worst type of case. Whilst the case before me now has no such background, it is submitted that in this part of the country people like the accused are forced by traditional pressure to be involved in such tribal fights and conflicts, and this should be regarded as a mitigating factor.

I cannot accept this as a mitigating factor. The accused is not from a remote area which has no understanding of the modern system. Courts have for years now been decrying the callous attitude to fighting, and the authorities have been campaigning for years, trying to stop this kind of tribal conflict and killing.

Some years ago I imposed a number of sentences of twenty years’ imprisonment for tribal conflict wilful murder, yet such behaviour has continued.

I can no longer be so lenient in these situations. Further, the accused in his allocutus has shown no remorse for the death of a man who was in effect a neighbour. Rather he has shown pride in the fact that he was killed by his line.

There is no room left in this country for people who take such a callous attitude to human life so there can be no other punishment but the maximum laid down by the law.

I sentence you, Kungus Kot, to life imprisonment with hard labour.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor.

Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor.