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

State v Mek [1997] PGNC 32; N1575 (21 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1575

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1623 OF 1996
THE STATE v JACK MEK

Wabag

Injia J
21 March 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Sentence - Mitigating factor - Killing of a close relative - Accused killed step-father because of differences within the family - Observations on weight to be given to - Criminal Code (Ch. No. 262), S. 300 (1) (a).

Cases cited:

State v Laura (No. 2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98

Counsel:

P Kumo for the State

B Aipe for the Accused

21 March 1997

INJIA J: I found the accused guilty of murdering his own step-father contrary to S.300(1)(a) of the Code. He applied several axe blows on the deceased’s head and killed him because he took sides in an argument between the deceased and the accused’s mother over one of their daughters. I found that the accused’s mother incited him to kill the deceased as he had indicated to her previously.

The accused is a young man. He is single and I estimate his age to be in his early 20’s. He is uneducated. He is a member of the Apostolic Church at Laiagam. He is a normal young man in the village.

His mother married the deceased after his father died. He was a small child when his father died. His real father and the deceased are brothers.

The killing of one’s very close relative is not a common form of killing. For one to axe his own parent, it must be the upshot of some real differences in their family relationship. In this case, it is the differences between the two parents over one of their daughters, or the accused’s sister. The full story is not in evidence. All that is before me is that the parents argued over this daughter who spent some time in Mount Hagen. Such internal family problems may not become apparent to outsiders unless members of the family choose to disclose it to the outsiders. Hence little has been said by the accused of the cause of the differences between the parents.

In the accused’s favour, I take into account his broken family upbringing. That is, the absence of his real father to bring him up. The step-father no doubt did his best but it would certainly not be the same as his real father would have. He was placed in a difficult situation between two parents who had differences in their relationship because of the way one of their daughters was being looked after. Living in such household with internal conflict is something the accused, as young as he was, found it difficult to contain.

The accused is a young man. He has a long future ahead without a father to help him make it through young life, marriage and other aspect of life. By his own doing, he has lost his step-father. I am sure he will find it very difficult to make it through in life to become a man. The loss of a close relative is a mitigating factor. I take this factor into account in the accused’s favour.

The accused has no prior convictions. He is a man of prior good character and a member of the Christian church. He is uneducated and village man who is still under the influences of village way of life and traditional values and customs. All these factors, I take into account in his favour.

I also bear in mind the need to impose a sentence on this young man which will not have a crushing effect on him.

Taking into account the seriousness and determination with which the multiple axe blows were executed in the night, I consider that a deterrent and punitive sentence is appropriate.

As for compensation, I am told by the accused’s Counsel that because the death occurred within the family, compensation is not required to be paid by local custom. Therefore, it does not arise for consideration under the Criminal Law Compensation Act 1991.

Bearing in mind the range of sentences for murder set out in State v Laura (No. 2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98, and other sentences imposed by the National Court in subsequent cases, and bearing in mind the maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, I consider that a sentence of 8 years imprisonment is appropriate and I impose the same. From this sentence, I deduct the period of about 10 months in pre-trial custody. He will serve the balance of 7 years and 2 months.

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor