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

State v Paul [1997] PGNC 106; N1613 (2 September 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1613

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 610 OF 1997
THE STATE
v
PIAM PAUL
Waigani

Batari AJ
1-2 September 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Murder - Accused stabbed deceased with knife - Domestic killing - Welfare of children - Not considered - Personal and deterrence sentence called for.

Cases Cited:

Lawrence Simbe v The State (Unreported Supreme Court Judgment) No SC 455

The accused was convicted on the alternate verdict of murder. The following judgment was delivered on sentence.

Counsel:

L Maru for the State

Kari for the Accused

SENTENCE

2 Sept 1997

BATARI AJ: You were acquitted yesterday following a five (5) day trial on the charge of wilful murder. The Court however found you guilty and convicted you of the murder of Marata Wagim. You will now be sentenced on that alternate verdict.

The facts show that on 15 December, 1996 you stabbed Marata Wagim at the junction of Okari Street and Hubert Murray Highway, at Boroko with a knife. Shortly before the stabbing, you were engrossed in a heated argument with your husband when the deceased who had also been having marital affairs with your husband intervened. This led to the stabbing and her subsequent death.

That is the brief facts of what is a very serious crime for which Parliament has prescribed life imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to apply that penalty or impose a lesser term under a discretionary power vested in the Court to avoid the maximum penalty where the circumstances of the case warrants or where the purpose of punishment is served by imposing a sentence that is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. In Lawrence Simbe v. The State, (unreported Supreme Court Judgment No. SC455) the principle in sentencing murder cases is re-stated that murder should not be sentenced on the tariff principle but that each case must be decided upon its own facts. That case affirms the proper approach in murder sentence which I am bound to follow.

Murder is homicide which result from malicious intent of one human being to cause grievous bodily harm against another. In this case, when you stabbed the deceased, the knife penetrated the left lung and pierced the heart. This showed a determined use of the weapon. As a result the deceased died. She died violently at your hands. When you wielded the knife at her you no doubt knew the tragic consequences that would follow. You had no or little regard for Marata Wagim’s life. You were also undeterred by the presence of your husband and other members of the public who might happened to be at the scene. Your senseless resort to a dangerous weapon against your husband’s partner has now left her dead. Needless to say, by your conduct you caused her and her relatives pain and permanent loss while you continue to enjoy and hopefully live out your full life.

You are aged 37 years with five (5) children. Two (2) of the children are young adults at 20 years of age and two (2) are in their teens while the fifth born child has yet to reach school-age at 6 years. The older children have left school because you could no longer support them on your own. Both you and your lawyer have urged that I consider the children’s welfare when imposing your sentence. I agree that is a relevant factor to consider on sentencing. However, there is no evidence before me regarding the children’s welfare and the extent to which they might experience difficulties if their mother were incacerated. The children still have their father and I think it is fair to say that in Papua New Guinea, occasions where a child is left without support, be it from the same family, extended families, village clan or tribe, would be rare, if not unheard of. I am not convinced the welfare of the children is a significant mitigating factor on its own in this case.

I have had regard however to the particular circumstances of the killing and accept that it was domestic related as it arose from discrepancies in the marriage. I also perceive some elements of de facto provocation prevailing prior to and at the time of the stabbing. You are without prior conviction and appear for sentence from a generally good background.

In consideration of all the matters I have alluded to, I conclude that a custodial term is appropriate. The sentence I impose should bring home to you at personal level the realisation of the gravity of your conduct. It should also serve as a warning to others who might be like-minded that unjustified killings will be punished by the law.

I sentence you to seven (7) years imprisonment IHL. I deduct eight (8) months two (2) weeks for the time spent in custody. You will serve six (6) years, three (3) months and two (2) weeks imprisonment IHL.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: A/Public Solicitor