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

State v Longa [2000] PGNC 62; N2028 (10 November 2000)

N2028

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 700 of 2000

THE STATE

v.

JOHN LONGA

LAE: Gavara-Nanu, J

2000 : 10 November

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Domestic argument – Deceased having enlarged spleen – Fall from a slight push by the prisoner – Degree of culpability – Fair punishment – Sentence to the rising of the Court – Time spent in custody as sufficient punishment.

CASES CITED:
Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487

The State v Koma [1987] PNGLR 262 at p.263

Counsel:
Mr N. Miviri for the State
Mr J. Kaumi for the Accused

SENTENCE

GAVARA-NANU, J: The prisoner is 25 years old and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter of his wife under Section 302 of the Criminal Code. The death resulted from the rupture of the enlarged spleen after the deceased was pushed by the prisoner during a domestic argument. The brief facts are that the prisoner had just returned from his night shift as a security guard on 25th December 1999 and the deceased started getting cross to him for not giving her any money for Christmas. After he told her that he had no money to give her, she started to fight him with firewood. The prisoner told the deceased that he was tired from his night duties and did not want to fight. She persisted and when the people with them tried to stop her, the deceased got a grass knife and tried to cut the prisoner, the prisoner tried to push her away, and as the result, she fell on the ground and hit herself resulting in the rupture of her spleen. The two eyewitnesses to the scene were Tony Wara and Maria Kennedy. They support the prisoner’s evidence in every material particular, for example Tony Wara said in his statement "... While they were arguing, the deceased started to pull the firewood in the kitchen and started to hit the accused John Longa. Longa did not want to retaliate because, he was tired from night shift duty. We managed to stop them and while they were arguing, the deceased then assaulted him and Longa stated to the deceased that he did not want to fight, but kept on arguing. They started to fight and as a result John Longa fended her off in self defence and she fell to the ground. As a result the deceased felt pain and we started to pour water to relieve her but it was late".

Witness Maria Kennedy described the incident like this "... The deceased started to argue with her husband, and accused the husband of not giving any money to spend on the Christmas Day. Then I told her husband to settle the matter as it was a big day for us. The defendant (prisoner) then was tired at the same time as he did not want to fight with her. The deceased then pulled some firewood from their kitchen and tried to go after her husband in the other house and the husband begged her again that he was tired. So the deceased got hold of a grass knife and tried to slush him but, we came and stopped them. When we saw that it was getting out of hand, the accused then fend off the deceased in self defence and as the result the deceased fell to the ground."

Then the prisoner in his record of interview said, to Question 16 – where he was asked, "Can you tell me what really happened when you reached your house, cause the police claim, you had an argument with your wife and police alleged that you assaulted your wife and as a result, you killed her? Ans – ".. I arrived at my house, hooked my basket onto a tree and I sat down in one of my house. Actually my wife was not at home, she was at the nearby creek doing our laundry. When she finished the laundry, she came up to our house and she did not intend to dry our clothing. She just left the bucket full of clothes at the front of the house, and started arguing with me. She argued with me and told me - you are just enjoying yourself away cause it’s Christmas, but what about us. I then told her to borrow some money from a friend, but she insisted and a fight broke out. She started to assault me and I told her that I do not want to fight you".

Q.17 While you were arguing with her, what did you do to her and she fell down to the dirt?

Ans. She assaulted me and was tired of arguing cause I just came back from work and I pushed her down to the dirt and she fell down.

Q.18 While she was on the ground, what did you do next?

Ans. I did not do anything.

Q.19 Did she get up again?

Ans. She got up again and she went to the house.

Q.20 When she was in your house, what did she do?

Ans. She was in our house for an hour and she felt pain.

Q.21 When she felt pain, how did she react?

Ans. She felt pain then and we held her to the ground and she did not move by then.

As I said, this is a typical spleen rupturing and causing the death. It is obvious from the above that the deceased was the aggressor and she was the one who wanted to fight even after the prisoner told her not to.

I accept that the prisoner did not want to fight his wife. So, had the deceased desisted from fighting, she would be still alive today. I find that the prisoner has been very honest and co-operated with the law right from the beginning. For instance, he surrendered himself to the police soon after the incident occurred. His account of the events leading to the death of his wife is consistent with what the eye witnesses say in their statements. His actions in telling others to pour water on his wife indicate to me the state of his mind at that time.

It is obvious that the deceased had an enlarged spleen which upon contact on the ground when she fell, caused it to rapture. The prisoner said, he was trying to push her away to stop her from continuing to assault him. The two eye witnesses said, he tried to fend her off in self defence although not used in the legal sense, the witnesses in my view mean that the deceased was the one persisting to fight, even when the prisoner tried to stop her. So applying the principles adopted in Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487, there is nothing that can be held against the prisoner. If anything, he was provoked to act the way he did. He definitely did not have any intention to harm the deceased. The prisoner has no formal education, so he cannot be reasonably expected to foresee a possibility of the deceased having an enlarged spleen.

The type of force used if any at all by the prisoner to push her down would not have been disproportionate to stop the deceased from further attacking him.

Therefore, to determine what is the fair punishment for the prisoner in this case, the starting point in my view is to determine or fix the culpability or the blameworthiness if any of the prisoner for the death of the deceased, see The State v Koma [1987] PNGLR 262 at p.263. In my view, the culpability of the prisoner for the death of the deceased in the circumstances I described above is almost nil, quite apart from the push he applied on her to stop her from further assaulting him which I find was reasonable in the circumstances.

The prisoner has paid K1,000-00 and a pig to the relatives of the deceased. This is a further mitigating factor. He has been in custody for almost a year.

Therefore weighing all the circumstances of this case, I consider the prisoner’s fair punishment is to be sentenced to the rising of this court, which will be at 4.06 pm on Friday 17th November 2000.

He will therefore be detained until 4:06 pm on Friday 17th November 2000 when he will be released.

____________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor