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

State v Sawali (No. 3) [2011] PGNC 311; N4244 (28 March 2011)

N4244

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 229 OF 2010

THE STATE

V

BENJAMIN SAWALI
(No 2)

Vanimo: Makail, J
2010: 11th, 12th, 16th, 19th August
2011: 28th March

CRIMINAL LAW - Verdict - Unlawful grievous bodily harm - Identification of - Proof of - Circumstances of identification - Recognition of - Whether identification sound - Criminal Code, Ch 262 - Section 319.

CRIMINAL LAW - Alibi - Belated alibi - False alibi.

Cases cited:

Papua New Guinea cases:

John Beng -v- The State [1977] PNGLR 115; (1977) SC112
The State -v Francis Vau Kamo (2006) N2991

Overseas cases:

Browne -v- Dunn [1893] 6 R. 67 H.L

Counsel:

Mr K Umpake, for the State
Mr F Kua with Mr T Berem, for Accused

VERDICT

28th March, 2011

1. MAKAIL, J: The accused was indicted with one count of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to a female by the name of Moleen Dusava on the morning of 07th June 2009 at Vanimo sawmill contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code, Ch 262. The accused denied the charge and a trial was conducted to determine his guilt.

Brief Facts

2. The State alleged that between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009, the victim Moleen Dusava and 2 other girls left Wara Kongkong for Banana Camp market to sell ice blocks. As they were approaching Vanimo Sawmill, the accused caught up with them from behind and threw a stone at them. It landed on they esky they were carrying. They walked on and he followed them. He grabbed Moleen's string bag and they struggled. During the struggle, the accused struck Moleen on her face with a rock. As a result, she sustained injuries on her face including a laceration on her left jaw.

3. He overpowered Moleen and she fell down to the ground. He took out a kitchen knife and swung it between her legs and stabbed her vagina. She sustained a wound to her vagina measuring 5cm long and 1 cm deep. She lost a lot of blood and fell unconscious. He ran into the nearby DCA compound where he was subsequently apprehended by Moleen's relatives who came to her assistance after been alerted of the attack by the other two girls.

The Law

4. The offence of unlawful grievous bodily harm is provided under section 319 which states:

"319. Grievous bodily harm

A person who unlawfully does grievous bodily harm to another person is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years."

5. To prove the offence of unlawful grievous bodily harm, the State must prove the following elements:

1. A person;

2. Injures another person; and

3. Without lawful excuse or reason.

State witnesses' evidence

6. The State called two witnesses, namely the alleged victim Moleen Dusava and Judith Harris to testify against the accused.

7. Moleen Dusava is from Yangoru in the East Sepik Province. She resides with his sister at Warakongkong settlement in Vanimo and was formerly employed at Vanimo sawmill. It is her evidence that, between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning on 07th June 2009, she and two girls by the names of Jenicar Fron and Judith Harris left their house at Warakongkong settlement for Peiwi market. It was almost 6 o'clock when they left the house and headed for Peiwi market to sell ice blocks. On the way, Benjamin approached them from behind and when she saw him, she said good morning to him but Benjamin did not reply. He was wearing a green round neck and sleeveless shirt. When she saw him, the place was sufficiently lit by the light from the dawn. They walked on and Benjamin followed them from behind. He was walking like he was drunk.

8. Between the Weather Station or old DCA compound and a place called Transmitter, Benjamin picked up stones and threw them at them. The first stone missed them and the second hit the lid of the esky Jenicar and Judith were carrying and it fell off. She told Jenicar and Judith not to be afraid and to continue walking. They picked up the lid and continued on. Benjamin continued to follow them. He came up from behind her and pulled her bilum. This time, she saw he had wrapped around the green shirt around his head and had nothing covering his face. He hit her with a stone. She sustained injuries to her face and eyes. She could not see and he tripped her and she fell down to the ground. He pulled out a kitchen knife and swung it between her legs. It penetrated through her shorts and pants to her vagina. She passed out after that. While all these were happening, the two girls watched helplessly. She knew Benjamin before the attack because he wanted to befriend her. She has seen him around Vanimo town and shops. He resides at Peiwi beach in Vanimo. She had no problems with him prior to the attack on that day.

9. Judith Harris is a Grade 10 student at Vanimo Provincial High School. She resides with her parents at Sawmill settlement in Vanimo. It is her evidence on 07th June 2009, she was at Moleen's house at Warakongkong settlement. On the morning of that day, she, Moleen, Jenicar Fron and Fide headed for Peiwi market at Peiwi. They were heading there to sell ice blocks to raise funds for their travel to Ambunti in East Sepik Province for a meeting.

10. It was almost 6'oclock when they left the house. She carried an esky with ice blocks inside while Moleen carried a bilum with ice blocks inside. Jenicar also carried an esky. On the way, they turned and saw a man walking behind them. They told Moleen and she told them to walk on. The man was Benjamin. When he came close to them, she heard Moleen say good morning to him but he did not reply. They continued on walking until they reached a place called Transmitter. He picked up a stone and ran after them when he realised they were walking further away from him. She and the others ran ahead of Moleen. The man caught up with Moleen and stripped her clothes and stabbed her with a knife. She ran to the house and got her mother. Jenicar rang her mother at Warakongkong and she and others came in a motor vehicle and picked up Moleen. On their way to the hospital, they saw the accused standing beside the road at the Weather station or old DCA compound and stopped. They picked him up. They took Moleen to the hospital and left her there and took the accused to the police station.

11. In addition to these two witnesses, the State produced a number of documents which were tendered by consent. They were:

1. The record of interview of the accused in the Pidgin version dated 02nd September 2009 (Exhibit "P1");

2. The record of interview of the accused in the English version dated 02nd September 2009 (Exhibit "P2");

3. Medical Report by Dr Cherobim Kapanombo dated 09th June 2009 (Exhibit "P3");

4. The statement of Sergeant Polly Wilson dated 25th July 2009 (Exhibit "P4"); and

5. The statement of corroborator Constable Francis Augustine dated 25th July 2009 (Exhibit "P5").

Defence witnesses' evidence

12. The defence called the accused and 3 witnesses. They gave evidence in Pidgin and were translated to English. They were cross-examined by Mr Umpake.

13. The accused is from Malol village in the west coast of Aitape District of West Sepik Province. He resides with his aunt at Peiwi settlement in Vanimo. It is his evidence that on the afternoon of Saturday 06th June 2009, after drinking at his uncle's house at Vanimo police barracks, he went to Mathew Wamboli's place at Transmitter. He arrived there at 6 o'clock. He wore a green round neck and sleeveless shirt and a blue cut jeans shots. He bought beer and continued drinking. After that, he walked to Tulait market, still within the Transmitter area and met two brothers by the names of Andrew and Tony Wagopu. They were selling goods at a market stall and he joined them. By that time, it was 7 o'clock in the night.

14. He brought with him 12 bottles of beers and continued drinking while Andrew and Tony did their market. When he finished drinking, it was 12 midnight. He told them he was going home to Peiwi but they pleaded with him to stay because he was so drunk and could not walk properly. He took their advice and stayed. He slept while they continued with their market. He slept until 7 o'clock the next morning which was Sunday 07th June 2009.

15. When he woke up, he told them he was returning to Vanimo town and left. He walked to the main road. On the way, he met Wesley Sailon. Wesley asked him where he was heading and he told Wesley he was going to Vanimo town. He left Wesley and walked on until he reached the main road where the Weather station or old DCA compound was and turned left and walked along the main road towards Vanimo town. When he arrived at the house of Moses Remene, a motor vehicle stopped beside him. He thought the driver was going to give him a lift to town and he walked to the motor vehicle.

16. When he came near it, people jumped out and assaulted him. He was caught by surprise and asked them why they were assaulting him. They did not tell him the reason. They searched him and found a kitchen knife in his shots and removed it. They forced him onto the back of the motor vehicle. When he got on, he saw a woman lying unconscious with blood. He was taken to the police station in Vanimo but it was closed. They took him with them to the hospital where he assisted them to carry the injured woman into the hospital. After that, he came out and asked the people why the woman was injured. He was given names of two girls. They were Jenicar and Judith and he approached them but the relatives of the injured woman stopped them from talking to him.

17. They brought him back to the police station where the duty officer Polly Wilson searched him and found nothing on him. The relatives of the injured woman gave the duty officer the kitchen knife they removed from him. The duty officer held it up and saw no blood stain. He told the duty officer his side of the story.

18. The next witness was Andrew Wagopu. He is from Tauvete village in Lumi District of West Sepik Province. He resides at Transmitter settlement in Vanimo. He is employed as a security guard at Chemcare in Vanimo town. It is his evidence he was selling goods with his younger brother Tony Wagopu at Tulait market on Saturday 06th June 2009. At 7 o'clock in the night, the accused arrived. He was drunk and had with him bottles of beer. He stayed with them and drank his beer. He did not drink with the accused but continued to sell his goods. When the accused finished drinking his beer, he told him and Tony that he was going home to Peiwi. He pleaded with the accused to stay because it was late and that he was too drunk to walk home. The accused took heed of his advice and stayed.

19. The accused slept while he and Tony continued selling their goods until the next morning which was Sunday 07th June 2009. The accused woke up at 7 o'clock and told them he was going to Vanimo town instead of Peiwi. He then left them and it was later that he received news that the accused was arrested for committing this offence.

20. Tony Wagopu was the next witness. He is also from Tauvete village in Lumi District of West Sepik Province and the younger brother of Andrew Wagopu. He resides with his elder brother Andrew Wagopu at Transmitter settlement in Vanimo. It is his evidence he was selling goods with his elder brother Andrew Wagopu at Tulait market on Saturday 06th June 2009. At 7 o'clock in the night, the accused arrived. He was drunk and had with him bottles of beer. He stayed with them and drunk his beers. He did not drink with him but continued to sell his goods. When the accused finished drinking his beers, he told him and Tony that he was going home to Peiwi. He pleaded with the accused to stay because it was late and that he was too drunk to walk home. The accused took heed of his advice and stayed.

21. The accused slept while he and Andrew continued selling their goods until the next morning which was Sunday 07th June 2009. The accused woke up at 7 o'clock and told them he was going to Vanimo town instead of Peiwi. He then left them and it was later that he received news that the accused was arrested for committing this offence.

22. The last witness was Wesley Sailon. He is from Malol village in Aitape District of West Sepik Province. He resides at Transmitter settlement in Vanimo. It is his evidence on the afternoon of Saturday 06th June 2009, he set up a fishing net at the beach to catch fish and returned to his house. He was returning to the beach to check the fishing net when he met the accused on the road after the intersection. It was 10 minutes past 7 o'clock in the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009. He asked the accused where he was heading and the accused told him he was going to Vanimo town. He also told the accused he was heading to the beach to check his catch. The accused went his way and he went on. He did not see anything else or anyone that morning.

Analysis of witnesses' evidence

23. Having set out and gone through the evidence of the two State witnesses, there is no dispute that Moleen was attacked by a person on the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009. There is also no dispute she sustained injuries to her face and vagina as stated by her and the medical report of Dr Cherobim Kapanombo dated 09th June 2009 (exhibit "P3"). Further, there is no dispute there was no lawful reason for that person to attack her.
The only dispute is in relation to whether the accused was the person who attacked Moleen. The issue therefore is one of identification. Has the State provided evidence to support this element of the offence? First, I accept some aspects of Moleen's evidence are contradictory. In her evidence in chief, she said she was going to Peiwi market that morning. In cross-examination by Mr Kua, she said she was going to Banana Block market. However, I am not satisfied that the contradiction is sufficient to render her evidence incredible and unreliable because in re-examination, she explained that Peiwi market and Banana Block market are names of the same market because Banana Block market is located at Peiwi.

24. The second contradiction is, in her evidence in chief, she said she left her house at Warakongkong settlement at 7 to 6 in the morning but in cross-examination by Mr Kua as to when she left the house at Warakongkong settlement that morning, she said at 5 o'clock. Again, I am not satisfied the contradiction is sufficient to render her evidence incredible and unreliable because further on in cross-examination by Mr Kua, she said the correct time she left the house at Warakongkong settlement was between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning.

25. Thirdly, in her evidence in chief, she said the accused walked 5 metres away from her when she saw him. In cross-examination by Mr Kua, she agreed with the suggestion that in Vanimo, 5 o'clock in the morning would still be dark and as such, she would not have seen the accused. Again, I am not satisfied the contradiction is sufficient to render her evidence incredible and unreliable because first, it is only one aspect of her evidence that seemed contradictory. Secondly, even then, she said she was attacked between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock. This means, the attack did not take place at exactly 5 o'clock in the morning. Thus, if it was 5 o'clock in the morning, it may be true that it was still dark but the attack was between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning.

26. Finally, in her evidence in chief, she said the accused asked her to be his girlfriend. She further stated that the message was relayed to her by a girl and not the accused directly. It was suggested in submissions by Mr Kua, because the accused had not seen and spoken to Moleen in person about his intention to befriend her and that the message was relayed by another person, Moleen did not know the accused. The submission is suggestive of a mistaken identity. But there is also evidence from Moleen that she has seen the accused around Vanimo town and shops before the attack. This evidence suggests that she was identifying a person she had seen before, more so recognising the accused.

27. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that Moleen's evidence is contradictory such that it is so lacking in weight and credibility that it is unreliable.

28. The second aspect of the inconsistency and contradictory evidence of the State witnesses is in relation to evidence of Moleen and Judith. When both witnesses' evidence is compared, I accept some aspects of their evidence are inconsistent or contradictory. For example, Moleen said in her evidence in chief they carried one esky while Judith said they carried two eskies. Judith said she carried one and Jenicar Fron carried the other. The next example is in relation to the name of the place they were heading to that morning. Moleen said they were going to Peiwi market while Judith said they were going to Banana Block market. The other example is, in her evidence in chief, Moleen said there were two girls who walked with her that morning. They were Jenicar Fron and Judith Harris. She did not mention a third person by the name of Fide. In her evidence in chief, Judith said she went with Moleen, Jenicar Fron and Fide.

29. The final example of contradictory evidence between Moleen and Judith is in relation to the person to whom the accused resided with at Peiwi. In her evidence in chief, Moleen said the accused lived with his father at Peiwi beach while Judith in her evidence in chief said the accused lived with his uncle by the name of Wilson at Peiwi beach. Be that as it may, I am not satisfied the contradictory evidence taints the whole evidence of these two witnesses because it is not relevant to the issue of identification. What is relevant is whether the two witnesses saw the accused walking behind them on the road that morning and as far as I am concern, they said they saw him.

30. In relation to Mr Kua's submission that the evidence of Moleen being vague, it is clear from her evidence as set out above that it was between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock when she and the girls left the house for Peiwi market. She said it was almost 6 o'clock. On the way, a man approached them from behind and she saw that it was the accused and she said good morning to him but he did not reply. They walked on and he followed them until they reached Transmitter when he picked up stones and threw at them. They continued walking and he came up and attacked Moleen. He hit her on her face with a stone and she sustained injuries and when she fell, he swung a kitchen knife between her legs. It penetrated her shots and pants and vagina. She sustained a deep wound to her vagina.

31. In my view, that kind of evidence from Moleen cannot be vague. It is in fact precise and detail. It recorded what had happened when Moleen and the girls left the house at Warakongkong settlement and when they had arrived at Vanimo sawmill. It clearly established a man followed them on their way to Peiwi market and at Vanimo sawmill, this man attacked Moleen. This man has been identified as the accused. For these reasons, I reject Mr Kua's submission that the evidence of Moleen is vague.

32. It also means her evidence in relation to a person attacking Moleen at Vanimo sawmill and subsequently escaping to DCA compound where he was apprehended when their relatives came to their rescue in a motor vehicle corroborates the evidence of Moleen that she was attacked by a person at Vanimo sawmill that morning.

33. I remind myself of the inherent dangers in identification evidence. Sometimes, witnesses may make mistake in identifying a person: see John Beng -v- The State [1977] PNGLR 115; (1977) SC112. In the present case, I have no doubt Moleen was identifying someone she had seen before. She saw this man before the attack and that was around Vanimo town and shops. That is why, when she saw him on the morning of that day, she said good morning to him and I do not believe the defence submission that, because this man did not reply when Moleen said good morning to him suggested that it was not the accused. That is only one aspect of the identification process which in my view is insignificant.

34. What is of relevance is that Moleen was identifying someone she saw before; someone who was not new to her. Of course, that person may not have met or spoken to her in person in order for her to make a sound judgment, but this is a case where she had seen him around town and shops before the attack which strengthens her claim that the accused attacked her. She recognised the person as the accused. She identified the accused because she recognised him at that point and in my view, it makes little difference if she was unconscious when she was been transported to the hospital by relatives in the motor vehicle and did see the accused been picked up and taken to the police station in the same motor vehicle.

35. Further, despite the defence submission that it was dark at the time Moleen was attacked, hence she could not have possibly seen her attacker, I have found earlier the attack occurred between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning and not exactly at 5 o'clock where it would have been still dark and strengthen the defence case that she may have mistakenly identified the accused as her attacker because it was dark.

36. The next aspect of the identification evidence is, in her evidence, Moleen did not hesitate to describe her attacker. She did not say if the attacker was short, tall, fat, slim and big or small hair. The inference drawn here is, she was not identifying someone she has not seen before. On the contrary, she was identifying a person she has seen before, that is why she wasted no time in describing him to the Court. In my view, this aspect of her evidence further strengthens her claim she saw the accused that morning. The other aspect, is the accused was not wearing a mask or covered his face with anything. He only had a green round neck sleeveless shirt wrapped around his head which meant his face was exposed. That made Moleen's vision of his face good. This also goes to support her claim she saw the accused that morning.

37. For the foregoing reasons, I concluded the identification evidence of Moleen is sound. If it is sound, it is safe to also conclude she saw the accused on the morning of 07th June 2009 at Vanimo sawmill. If she had seen him, it is also safe to conclude that he was the person who attacked her that morning.

38. I have reached this conclusion notwithstanding the defence case that, the accused did not attack Moleen. The accused claimed it must have been someone else because at that time, he was at Transmitter settlement with Andrew and Tony Wagopu. He has raised alibi. The alibi evidence came from Andrew and Tony Wagopu and Wesley Sailon. I have carefully considered their alibi evidence. Although the State prosecutor has correctly pointed a number of discrepancies in their evidence such as the type of clothes the accused wore and the number of bottles of beer the accused had, I consider them insignificant. They do not substantially affect the veracity of the witnesses evidence that the accused had visited them and stayed over-night with them at Tulait market at Transmitter settlement.

39. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt Andrew and Tony Wagopu's evidence the accused had visited and stayed with them at Tulait market on the night of Saturday 06th June 2009 until the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009. Their evidence is consistent with and corroborates the evidence of the accused that he visited and stayed with them on the night of Saturday 06th June 2009.

40. I also accept their evidence that the accused had been drunk and stayed over-night with them. He left them on the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009. Again, their evidence in relation to these aspects of the defence case is consistent with and corroborates the evidence of the accused. And so, I find the accused visited the Wagopu brothers at Tulait market on the afternoon of Saturday 06th June 2009 and stayed over-night with them. At that time, he was drunk. On the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009, he left them. As to when he left them, I am not 100 % convinced it was at 7 o'clock.

41. The reason I say I am not 100 % convinced it was 7 o'clock is that, the time the Wagopu brothers were with the accused and Wesley Sailon met him is too good to be true. The Wagopu brothers said the accused was with them at the Tulait market at Transmitter settlement whole night on Saturday 06th June 2009 until 7 o'clock on Sunday 07th June 2009 when he left them to go to Peiwi. At 10 minutes past 7 o'clock, Wesley Sailon said he met the accused on the way to the main road.

42. In cross-examination by the State prosecutor as to how they knew the time, they all said they had mobile phones and read the time from them when in their evidence in chief, they never said they had mobile phones. There are two observations I make in relation to this aspect of their evidence and their answers to the questions in relation to how they were able to determine the time when the accused was either with them or met them. First, the times were exact and calculative because they placed the accused outside the time Moleen and others saw the accused. The time Moleen and others saw him was between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the morning. Between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock, he was still at Tulait market at Transmitter settlement with the Wagopu brothers. Then at 10 minutes past 7 o'clock, he was on the main road when Wesley Sailon met him.

43. Secondly, how is it that all these witnesses were able to tell the exact time they were either with or saw the accused? It seems to me they were conducting some kind of military operations where time was of essence. Logic and commonsense would dictate that not all people would remember to keep watch over their time. That may explain why he struggled to give the time he arrived at his house after returning from the beach when cross-examined by the State prosecutor even though in his evidence in chief, he was quick to say the time was exactly 10 minutes past 7 o'clock when he met the accused on his way to the beach that morning. He was also quick to say it was 10 minutes past 7 o'clock when cross-examined by the State prosecutor. But for a simple question by the State prosecutor as to when he had arrived at his house after returning from checking his fishing net at the beach that morning, he could not answer.

44. To my mind, if he had a mobile phone and had read the time from it when he met the accused, it does not make sense that he did not do the same when he arrived at his house. His failure to answer a simple and straight forward question suggest two things; first, he was coached to say it was 10 minutes past 7 o'clock so that it would conveniently place the accused well away from the times the accused was alleged to have been seen by Moleen and the others or secondly, he did not know the time and made it up. Again, this was to conveniently place the accused well away from the times the accused was alleged to have been seen by Moleen and the others.

45. Either way, his evidence in relation to the time he met the accused seems too good to be true and raises serious doubts in my mind as to whether he met the accused at 10 minutes past 7 o'clock that morning. The same can be said of the time given by the Wagopu brothers. It seems too good to be true that both brothers saw the time at the same time and it was 7 o'clock on the dot when the accused left them at Tulait market that morning. The matters raise serious doubts in my mind as to the credibility of their alibi evidence.

46. Next, it has been held, guilt should not be inferred from the accused not mentioning the alibi on an earlier occasion, as the accused has the right to remain silent at all times. However, as a matter of fact the lateness of an alibi reduces its weight: see The State -v Francis Vau Kamo (2006) N2991. In this case, the accused did not mention anything about his alibi at the interview with the police investigators on 02nd September 2009: see the record of interview in the Pidgin and English versions marked exhibit "P1" and exhibit "P2" respectively. Given the lateness of the alibi although the defence had given notice of alibi to the State on 02nd August 2010 (date of the commencement of the circuit in Vanimo), it reduces the weight the Court must place on the alibi evidence of the accused.

47. The final reason for doubting the alibi evidence of the accused is this, as a matter of practice, counsel for the accused should have put questions about the alibi to the State witnesses, to comply with the famous rule in Browne -v- Dunn [1893] 6 R. 67 H.L. Counsel did not. As a result, Moleen and Judith as State witnesses did not have the opportunity to respond to the alibi of the accused. Given the failure by counsel to put questions about the alibi to the State witnesses, this also reduces the weight of the alibi evidence of the accused.

48. In the end, given the belated alibi, I conclude it is a false alibi to the extent where the accused was said to have been at Tulait market at Transmitter settlement on the morning of Sunday 07th June 2009 between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock. I find he was not there. If he was not there, his absence there supports the State's case that he was on the main road heading for Vanimo sawmill and I should mention here too for those who are new or had never been to this part of Vanimo that, Warakongkong settlement is located next to Transmitter settlement where the famous Tulait market is located and Transmitter settlement is located next to Vanimo sawmill and they are all located some distance in from the main road that runs from Vanimo town to Vanimo High School while Peiwi is located after Vanimo sawmill. It is near the beach and if the accused was heading for Peiwi as initially intended, he would have walked toward and past Vanimo sawmill after leaving Tulait market at Transmitter settlement and this would have placed him at the scene of the crime as this was where Moleen and the others were and saw him walking behind them on the main road.

Conclusion

49. I am satisfied the State has established beyond reasonable doubt that first, Moleen and Judith saw the accused, secondly, the accused assaulted Moleen by first hitting her with a stone on her face and secondly, stabbing her with a kitchen knife on her vagina. Thirdly, there was no lawful reason for him to assault Moleen. I return a verdict of guilty against him on one count of unlawful grievous bodily harm. I shall hear parties on sentence on a date to be agreed.

____________________________________
Lawyers for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyers for Accused: Paul Paraka Lawyers