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

State v Homa [1997] PGNC 163; N1687 (16 December 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1687

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 0981 OF 1997
THE STATE
-VS-
LAYMAN HOMA

Popondetta

Vagi AJ
11 December 1997
12 December 1997
16 December 1997

Cases Cited

State v Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261

Counsel

M. Popeu, for the State

R. Tupundu, for the Accused

SENTENCE

16 December 1997

VAGI AJ: The prisoner Layman Homa, aged twenty years old, comes from Puri village, Kokoda District. He is single and a villager. He pleaded guilty to one count of arson contrary to s 436 of the Criminal Code. The penalty provided for this offence, subject to s 19, is imprisonment for life.

The State alleges that during the month of March 1996, the prisoner and his cousin sister Georgina Noble, left Kainantu where they were living with Georgina’s parents, and went to Puri village which I understand to be their own village. On arriving at the village, they lived together in the same house as husband and wife. In the course of their living together, Georgina became pregnant. The news of her pregnancy had reached her parents in Kainantu. As a consequence of this news reaching them, Georgina’s father Sari Noble travelled to Puri village for the purpose of taking his daughter back.

When in the village, Sari sought the assistance of Puri Village Court to order the return of his daughter, so that he could take her back to Kainantu. The village court granted that order and so, on the morning of 31st day of March, 1997, Sari and Georgina decided to travel to Popondetta where they would board a plane to travel back to Kainantu. It was around 9:00 am when the prisoner became aware of their departure. He became furious, and in his fury, he broke into Flora Esa’s tradestore where he took some goods including twenty litres of kerosene. He poured kerosene on the tradestore, Flora’s dwelling house, her rest house and set them alight. The buildings were completely destroyed by the fire.

The prisoner when questioned by police during the conduct of his record of interview, stated that he was ashamed and embarrassed by the remarks Flora made in relation to his love affair with his cousin sister. He did not state what these remarks were, but if anything she may have said would, in my view, be in relation to the customary and traditional taboos of marrying ones own cousin. Georgina in her statement stated the reason why the prisoner kept her as his wife was, because he had expended a substantial amount of money on her travel fares from Kainantu to Popondetta.

Despite how their community would react to them being living together as a married couple, they were deeply in love and affection with each other. For almost a year they lived under the same roof. In this country when one lives with the relatives, be it in the village or urban areas, there are no restrictions and limitation provided customary and traditional taboos of having sex or marrying ones own relative are strictly adhered to. It may well be that when their community had noticed Georgina’s pregnancy, there may have been rumours and gossips which are usually the community reactions to situations like this. Flora is a relative to either of them. If she had made remarks, she would naturally be referring to shame and embarrassment that had been brought about by breaching the taboos.

Counsel for the prisoner concedes that there is not much in the prisoner’s favour except for his plea of guilty as well as the time spent in custody. The antecedents report shows the prisoner has no prior conviction. That means he is a first youthful offender.

Counsel made reference to sentencing guidelines for arson in the case of the State v Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261 where Doherty J set out six relevant aspects when imposing a term of five years against that prisoner:

1. The deliberatv or rery esskless putting of lives at risk.

2. & The deliberatr pouring of g of kerosene and setting the firthe rnowint peoere i.

4. ټ&##160;; Theberate cold blood planning of the offence.

5. < #1660҈ The; The valuevalue of the house and ittents to the occupants.

6. ; The com lete oack of k of k of provocation offered to the defendant cupand theildren.

Th

The sixe six factors set out for consideration were based on the fact that the prisoner’s acts were deliberate and planned as “pay back” putting lives at risk. In this case no live was put at risk, except for the substantial loss suffered by the victim. There is nothing suggests that the prisoner is capable of compensating the victims. Perhaps as a relative he can provide some manual labour in the rebuilding process. All the buildings are said to be constructed of bush materials and they are easily within reach of whoever uses them.

The court in the State v Yomb found arson was of a worse kind. In the circumstances the prisoner in the case not only committed arson, he had also committed attempted murder and other forms of homicides as well. Of the factors set 2, 5 and 6 apply in this case which are:

1. Tle deatberour pg ofnkeroskerosene and setting fire to the store, dwelling house and rest house.

2. 𧝼 o buil buil theittheitents to the occupants (victims)

3

3.&#16. < #1660҈ The; The complcomplete lack of proion od to the prisoner by the occupants.

The prhe prisoneisoner in this case has no planning to do what he did. He acted on impulser heaaboutdeparture ofre of Geor Georgina.gina. I do not think shame and embarrassment are the causes that led him to commit this offence. In my view, this act is done in retaliation, in some degree, against the authority of the village court in granting the return of Georgina to her father.

The thoughts of the wife with his unborn child leaving him and the thoughts of love and affection that had developed for a period of time were now becoming unbearable to him. In the circumstances there was no guarantee that he would even see Georgina and his child again. Associated with all these is the fact that Georgina was going out of his grasp and would never be his wife again. To him his community was seemingly showing itself callous and hostile and therefore there was no relief, except to relieve himself by way of committing this offence.

In his favour it is shown that the prisoner spent nine months, one week in custody awaiting his trial. He pleaded guilty and is a first youthful offender. He shows remorse, a sign that he is truly sorry for his wrong.

In the circumstances the sentence I shall impose not only reflects the magnitude of the loss suffered by the victim but his own loss too. The victims’ loss has been assessed and is approximately in the vicinity of K5000.00 including the tradestore goods, personal items and other valuables.

I now impose two years imprisonment sentence, minus the period he had already served. So the term he will serve is one year, three months and three weeks in hard labour.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor