N7067

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
 [IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NOS 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-22, 24-26, 29-32, 34-37, 39-41, 
43-46, 48-50, 52-54, 56-61, 63, 65-67, 69-75, 77, 78, 80, 
81, 83, 85-89, 91-93, 96-98, 100-110, 112-123, 612 & 1044 OF 2015

BETWEEN
THE STATE

AND
DONI KAKIWI, JACK TUKO, JOHN WAKU, 
KANDE KOKI, KINDA YAMESE, LOUIE PETER, 
MARTIN USI, MAX DAVID, MAXSON KOPORE, 
MERA KIKI, OUA BINARU, PIU GWARO, 
SIRRE ITOWO, TAI WAKKE & WANDOKO SOMANDA 

OF SERENGO VILLAGE, RAI COAST DISTRICT, 
MADANG PROVINCE

AND
BAKUN MOA, DENMARK KUTS, EDDIE INGEMA, 
ENOS AWARE, GIBSON MASILI, IMEX GAOSA, 
ISONO KAU, JACOB SISI, JAMES ONIRIO, 
JEFFERY RONNY, JOE NICK, KIRORI GERUNGO, 
KIRISO WAKE, KOKI KEWA, KUMA TOUKINI, 
KUNDOKE PIYE, LOUIMACK AMANI, MAX UTO, 
MENANGO KENGKE, MOMORIKE SEPE, NICK ISAHARA, NOGURO SUA, OKAPA MIMO, OSCAR USI, 
PETRUS KOMA, POPPE DUMA, PUE KUPI, 
ROBERT BURINGA, SIMON TOWERA, SIMON DUMA, 
SIMON MANEWO, TAMSI VIO, TANUWAMA KEPA, 
WAKS AWANDA, WAMBUNA TOSI, WANIX DOWENA, 
WESLEY KAISOM, WINSON DOS, YAWENDA BENSON 
& YUWOI KOKI

OF GOMUMU VILLAGE, RAI COAST DISTRICT, 
MADANG PROVINCE

AND
AKINU DOWENA, EPPON MATA, JACK MOPI, 
JOHN TULI, LAKI MIRAKA, LUCAS PETRUS, 
MARCUS KISANGA, MARTIN JOHN, NDOUSI PORURU, 
ONIRIO BOMA, PAUL PERAU, POURO BINARU, 
REUBEN DAOMBON, SEPI YAMBA YAMESE, STEVEN DAVID, TEUWI BIAO, TIMITY JOE, TONY YURO, 
ORAIYO URAIA MAX, WIKO MURU & YUO GOM

OF GOIRO VILLAGE, RAI COAST DISTRICT, 
MADANG PROVINCE

AND
DONSI KUMBI, ISAAC HUYANGO, KEAO TIRA, 
KOKI MARI, KONI TESIO, LOUIE IROA, 
OPS GINU, ROBERT ARRE, SAI MEKU, 
TIPE OUSI, YAMAKS NONOPA & YAMANGA KIREI

OF NININGO VILLAGE, RAI COAST DISTRICT, 
MADANG PROVINCE

AND
AKEPE TUKO, ENOCH BUARA, JOHNSON KAFEMO, 
KAMINDE PIYOMI, NASA TOKO, NASAKE WIKO 
& ONI TITUKUN

OF NUMBAYA VILLAGE, RAI COAST DISTRICT, 
MADANG PROVINCE

AND
TUKI GOWI & THOMPSON MUNGO

OF SARANGA VILLAGE, RAI COAST DISTRICT, 
MADANG PROVINCE

Madang: Cannings J
2017, 22, 23, 24 March, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 23, 25 May, 
11 August 
2018: 12 January 

CRIMINAL LAW – wilful murder – Criminal Code, Section 299(1) – elements of offence – whether any of the accused killed the deceased – whether killing unlawful – whether intention to kill – Criminal Code, Section 7 – whether any accused enabled or aided another in committing the offence – Criminal Code, Section 8 – whether offences committed in prosecution of common purpose. 

Fact:

The 97 accused were each arraigned on seven counts of wilful murder. They each pleaded not guilty and a joint trial was conducted. The State alleged that all accused were members of a group of about 189 males (120 adults and 69 juveniles) who marched together along public roads for at least 10 kilometres, armed and with painted, warlike faces, in the direction of a particular village, with the intention of seeking out and killing alleged sorcerers who were residing in that village. It was alleged that on their way to that village some members of the group attacked and killed a bystander, intending to cause his death; that the group then proceeded to the village and raided it, destroying property including houses and food gardens, and threatening and chasing away many residents; and that at the village some members of the group attacked and killed six residents, intending to cause their death. The State argued that those accused who directly attacked and killed one (or more) of the seven deceased persons should be convicted under Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code of wilful murder of the relevant deceased. As to those accused in respect of whom there was no allegation of directly killing any of the deceased, or in respect of whom the Court decided that there was insufficient evidence of them directly committing the offence, the State argued that they should nonetheless be convicted of seven counts of wilful murder under each of Sections 7(1) and 8 of the Criminal Code. As to Section 7(1) it was argued that all the accused, by being actively involved in the group’s activities, did acts for the purpose of enabling and aiding those who directly committed the offences, to commit the offences, and aided them in committing the offences, making them guilty of seven counts of wilful murder. As to Section 8 it was argued that all the accused should be deemed to have committed seven counts of wilful murder as they were each members of a group that formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose (to raid the village believed to be harbouring sorcerers and to attack residents of the village and to kill sorcerers or persons connected with or harbouring them) and in the prosecution of that purpose, seven offences were  committed that were of such a nature that commission of those offences was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that unlawful purpose. Fourteen (14) witnesses gave oral evidence for the State, nine of whom were village residents and presented as eyewitnesses, the other five being police officers who were in the vicinity of the incident or involved in investigation of the incident. Other evidence adduced by the State consisted of records of interview of the accused (none containing admissions); photographs of the village and locality, some of the deceased’s bodies and assorted weapons; witness statements; and documents relating to conviction of the accused of related summary offences. All accused remained silent and the only evidence adduced by the defence was a witness statement by one of the State witnesses, said to be a prior inconsistent statement. The Court identified four fundamental issues for determination: (1) was the offence of wilful murder (or any other offence) committed in relation to any of the deceased? (2) has the State proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused directly committed any of the seven offences on the indictment? (3) has the State proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused is guilty of any of the offences by virtue of Section 7(1) of the Criminal Code? (4) has the State proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused is guilty of any of the offences by virtue of Section 8 of the Criminal Code?

Held: 

(1)	The State proved beyond reasonable doubt that each of the deceased was unlawfully killed by persons who intended to cause their death. The offence of wilful murder under Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code was committed in relation to each of the deceased in the manner contended for by the State. The State proved (and it was not contested) that an incident, as alleged, actually occurred, ie that a group of about 189 males (120 adults and 69 juveniles) marched together along public roads for at least 10 kilometres, armed and with painted warlike faces, in the direction of the village, with the intention of seeking out and killing alleged sorcerers who were residing in that village and on their way to the village some members of the group attacked and killed a bystander (the deceased the subject of count 1) intending to cause his death, and the group then proceeded to the village and raided it, destroying property including houses and food gardens, and threatening and chasing away many residents and at the village some members of the group attacked and killed six residents, who are the deceased the subject of counts 2 to 7 on the indictment, in each case intending to cause death.

(2)	It was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused directly committed the offence of wilful murder the subject of count 1. As to the other counts, the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that in relation to: count 2, two of the accused directly committed the offence; count 3, four of the accused directly committed the offence; count 4, one of the accused directly committed the offence; count 5, two of the accused directly committed the offence; count 6, one of the accused directly committed the offence; and count 7, two of the accused directly committed the offence. 

(3)	The State proved beyond reasonable doubt that each of the accused was a member of the group that marched along the public roads in the manner alleged and raided the village, certain members of which group committed the seven offences of wilful murder the subject of the indictment. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that none of the accused left the group or engaged in any conduct that would suggest that he was an unwilling participant in all the group’s activities including killing the bystander on the way to the village, raiding the village, destroying property, threatening and chasing residents and killing six village residents. The State proved beyond reasonable doubt that by their participation in the group’s activities each of the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling and aiding those who directly committed the offences, to commit the offences, and aided them in committing the offences, the consequence being that each of the accused was by virtue of Sections 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code guilty of seven counts of wilful murder, as charged.

(4)	Further, the State, having proved beyond reasonable doubt that each of the accused was a member of the group that marched along the public roads in the manner alleged and raided the village and that certain members of the group committed the seven offences of wilful murder the subject of the indictment, and the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence being that none of the accused left the group or engaged in any conduct that would suggest that he was an unwilling participant in all the group’s activities including killing the bystander on the way to the village, raiding the village, destroying property, threatening and chasing residents and killing six village residents, and further having proved that the members of that group had formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose (to raid the village believed to be harbouring sorcerers and to attack residents of the village and to kill sorcerers or persons connected with or harbouring them) and in the prosecution of that purpose, seven offences were  committed that were of such a nature (involving death) that commission of those offences was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that unlawful purpose, it followed that the State had established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of criminal liability under Section 8 of the Criminal Code. Therefore each of the accused was deemed to have committed seven counts of wilful murder, as charged.
(5)	For the avoidance of doubt it was stated that the findings of guilt under Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code are made in respect of each of the accused and made independently of each of those provisions (Sections 7(1) and 8) and independently of the findings of direct guilt under Section 299(1) in respect of eight of the accused. 

(6)	The 97 accused were accordingly each found guilty of seven counts of wilful murder, as charged. 

Cases cited:

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Biwa Geta v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 153 
Jimmy Ono v The State (2002) SC698
John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115
John Jaminan v The State (No 2) [1983] PNGLR 318
Kampangio v R [1969-70] PNGLR 218
Rex Paliau v The State (2016) SC1537
The State v Jacky Vutnamur (2005) N2848
The State v Raphael Kuanande [1994] PNGLR 512
The State v Seth Ujan Talil (2010) N4082
The State v Todd Mari (2011) N4259
Willy Kelly Goya v The State [1987] PNGLR 51

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear in the judgment:

CID – Criminal Investigations Division
Const – Constable
CR – criminal file reference
Det – Detective
Insp – Inspector
km – kilometre
N – National Court judgment
No – number
Ors – Others
PNG – Papua New Guinea
PNGLR – Papua New Guinea Law Reports
PPC – Provincial Police Commander
PSC – Police Station Commander
RAIL – Ramu Agri Industries Limited
RPNGC – Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary
SC – Supreme Court judgment
Sgt – Sergeant
Snr – senior
Supt – Superintendent
v – versus

Dates

The events referred to in this judgment occurred in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.

Glossary

The following persons and places are referred to in the evidence.

Persons 
Alex Solwo, Sgt – State witness #2
Anao Gunumi – the deceased, subject of count 7
Anton Lampabe, Snr Const – State witness #7
Awan Sete – Assistant Commissioner of Police for Momase Region
Bakun Moa – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Baupa Dangingayo – the deceased, subject of count 5
Beramo Tipupu – the deceased, subject of count 4
David Jamute – State witness #9
Enos Aware – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Francis Anis – State witness #10
Gesu Yambung – State witness #11
Hausman – group of people referred to as attackers in evidence
Imex Gaosa – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Jeffery Ronny – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Kande Popusewe – State witness #4
Kenneth Alutoa – State witness #6
Mina Biti – State witness #8
Nathan Aki – the deceased, subject of count 6
Nick Uria – the deceased, the subject of count 2
Noguro Sua – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Nomusa Sakari – State witness #12
Patrick Gualit – Snr Const
Peter Gorek, Chief Sergeant – State witness #1
Sangiri Kiriwako – State witness #13
Serah Koworot – Snr Const, State witness #14
Sike Wamne – the deceased, the subject of count 1
Simon Duma – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Simon Towera – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Susan Yambung – State witness #3
Sylvestar Kalaut – Provincial Police Commander, Madang
Winson Dos – one of eight accused the subject of identification evidence
Yambung Nawoya – the deceased, the subject of count 3
Yonga Yawongan – Inspector, Madang Police
Yukui Sango – State witness #5

Places
Angau Memorial Hospital – Lae 
Beon – correctional institution, near Madang
Bruce Jephcott Highway – highway in the area
Bumbu Creek – creek in the area
Damaende – village in the area
Dumpu – village in area of incident, also name of river in area of incident
Goiro – village, place of one group of accused within area of incident
Gomumu – village, place of one group of accused within area of incident
Gusap – area of incident 
Hapwara – village in the area
Jiwaka – home province of deceased, Sake Wamne 
Lae – capital, Morobe Province
Madang – town, capital, Madang Province
Modilon General Hospital – main provincial hospital, Madang town
Naho Rawa – Local-level government area 
Niningo – village, place of one group of accused 
Numbaya – village, place of one group of accused 
Rai Coast – district 
Ramu – town along Bruce Jephcott Highway, within area of incident
Ramu Sugar – another name for Ramu town 
Ranara – village, within area of incident
Sangkiang Bridge – bridge in the area, near Ramu 
Sakiko – village, place of incident
Sanirao – village in the area; Ramu Sugar
Saranga – village, place of one group of accused 
Serengo – village, place of one group of accused 
Tauta – Local-level government area
Usino-Bundi – District 

TRIAL

This was the trial of 97 accused, each charged with seven counts of wilful murder.

Counsel

F K Popeu, A Kupmain & D Ambuk, for the State
J Mesa, J Morog & D Ephraim, for the Accused

12th January, 2018

1.	CANNINGS J: This is the verdict of the Court on 97 accused men who have been arraigned on seven counts of wilful murder. They each pleaded not guilty and a joint trial was conducted. The charges relate to the deaths of seven people – five men and two boys – at or near Sakiko village, near the town of Ramu, Madang Province, on the morning of Monday 14 April 2014. 

2.	The State alleges that all accused were members of a group of at least 189 males (120 adults and 69 juveniles) who marched together along the Bruce Jephcott Highway for about 10 kilometres from Ranara Village, armed and with painted warlike faces, in the direction Sakiko village, with the intention of seeking out and killing alleged sorcerers who were residing there. 

3.	It is alleged that on their way to Sakiko, some members of the group attacked and killed a bystander, intending to cause his death, that the group then proceeded to Sakiko and raided it, destroying property including houses and food gardens, and threatening and chasing away many residents, and that at the village some members of the group attacked and killed six residents, intending to cause their death.

4.	The State argued that those accused who directly attacked and killed one (or more) of the seven deceased persons should be convicted under Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code of wilful murder of the relevant deceased. 
      
5.	As to those accused in respect of whom there is no evidence of directly killing any of the deceased, or in respect of whom the Court decides that there is insufficient evidence of them directly committing the offence, the State argues that they should nonetheless be convicted of seven counts of wilful murder under each of Sections 7(1) and 8 of the Criminal Code. 

6.	As to Section 7(1) it is argued that all the accused, by being actively involved in the group’s activities, did acts for the purpose of enabling and aiding those who directly committed the offences, to commit the offences, and aided them in committing the offences, making them guilty of seven counts of wilful murder. 

7.	As to Section 8 it is argued that all the accused should be deemed to have committed seven counts of wilful murder as they were each members of a group that formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose (to raid the village believed to be harbouring sorcerers and to attack residents of the village and to kill sorcerers or persons connected with or harbouring them) and in the prosecution of that purpose, seven offences were  committed that were of such a nature that commission of those offences was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that unlawful purpose. 

8.	Fourteen witnesses gave oral evidence for the State, nine of whom were village residents and presented as eyewitnesses. The other five were police officers who were in the vicinity of the incident or involved in investigation of the incident. Other evidence adduced by the State consisted of records of interview of the accused (none containing admissions), photographs of the village and locality, some of the deceased’s bodies and assorted weapons, post-mortem reports, witness statements and documents relating to conviction of the accused on related summary offences. 

9.	All accused remained silent and the only evidence adduced by the defence was a witness statement by one of the State witnesses, said to be a prior inconsistent statement.

OTHER ACCUSED AND DETAILS 

10.	The 97 persons who are the subject of this judgment are part of a group of 122 persons charged with and committed for trial on the same seven counts of wilful murder arising from the incident at Sakiko on 14 April 2014. 

Appendix A to the judgment provides the status of each of the 122 persons. Of those 122:

•	97 are the subject of this judgment;

•	22 are the subject of warrants for their arrest due to breach of their bail conditions, in particular failure to appear at the trial;

•	2 were named on the indictment that was presented but have since been discharged on procedural grounds;

•	1 was arraigned but died during the course of the trial.  

Appendix B provides the names in alphabetical order of the 97 accused who are the subject of this judgment, cross-referenced to their file reference numbers.  

UNDISPUTED FACTS

11.	A number of undisputed facts have emerged from the evidence and from submissions of counsel:

•	Early on the morning of Monday 14 April 2014 a large group of men and youths walked together along the Bruce Jephcott Highway, at least from the Sangkiang Bridge, where the armed group was at about 5.30 am, several kilometres from the western end of Ramu town. 

•	They were armed with assorted weapons including bushknives and homemade guns. Their faces were painted with charcoal. This armed group was known as “the Hausman”. The group comprised men and youths from villages including Gomumu village in the mountains to the west of Ramu town. The group was formed following concerns about a number of deaths in and around Gomumu attributed to sorcery. Some suspected sorcerers had fled to and taken up residence with relatives in Sakiko village. 

•	The Ramu Police Station Commander, Chief Sgt Peter Gorok, received a report of the armed group walking along the highway. He attempted to intervene but was short of weaponry. He drove a police vehicle towards the group and instructed them, using a loud-hailer, to stop. But the group did not stop. 

•	Chief Sgt Gorek contacted police in Madang town and requested armed reinforcements as a matter of urgency.

•	The armed group was heading to Sakiko village to confront suspected sorcerers blamed for causing the deaths in and around Gomumu.

•	The armed group proceeded along the highway, through Ramu, and at about 6.00 am turned left at the eastern end of town, close to the Ramu Sugar mill. It was there that they came into contact with a number of employees of Ramu Agri Industries Ltd (RAIL), who lived in that area and were walking to work. Some members of the armed group attacked and killed one of the male RAIL employees:

•	35-year-old Sike Wamne (the deceased the subject of count 1 on the indictment).

•	Chief Sgt Gorek drove to Sakiko via an alternative route and used a loud-hailer to warn the villagers that the Hausman were approaching and proceeded to the far end of the village where he parked his vehicle. 

•	The armed group went to Sakiko village and raided it, destroying property including houses and food gardens. They threatened and chased away many residents. Some members of the armed group attacked and killed six village residents. The residents killed, all male, were:

•	20-year-old Nick Uria (the deceased the subject of count 2);

•	70-year-old Yambung Nawoya (the deceased the subject of count 3);

•	73-year-old Beramo Tipupu (the deceased the subject of count 4);

•	70-year-old Baupa Dangingayo (the deceased the subject of count 5);

•	3-year-old Nathan Aki (the deceased the subject of count 6);

•	5-year-old Anao Gunumi (the deceased the subject of count 7). 

•	All of the deceased died at the scene. 

•	Soon afterwards police reinforcements arrived. Also arriving at the village around that time were two senior members of the Police Force who happen to have arrived at Ramu for other Police business: Assistant Commissioner for Momase Region, Awan Sete, and the Madang Provincial Police Commander, Sylvestar Kalaut.

•	The police told a group of armed males who were in the area of the village to congregate on a sports field, a flat, open, grassy area, in the centre of the village. That group of armed males did as they were told and offered no resistance. That group consisted of at least 120 adults and 69 juveniles, a total of 189. (The defence does not concede that any members of that group of 189 were members of the armed group that had earlier that morning raided Sakiko village, some members of which group had, on the way to Sakiko, killed Sake Wamne, and, at Sakiko, killed Nick Uria, Yambung Nawoya, Beramo Tipupu, Baupa Dangingayo, Nathan Aki and Anao Gunumi.) 

•	The group of 120 adults and 69 juveniles walked, escorted by police, to the highway. They then boarded an open back truck, which transported them, in several loads, to Ramu Police Station. Members of that group continued to cooperate and offered no resistance. They remained at Ramu Police Station overnight.  

•	The next day, Tuesday 15 April, the police charged each member of the group of 189 with offences under Sections 7(a) (provoking a breach of the peace) and 12(1) (carrying offensive weapons) of the Summary Offences Act.

•	On Wednesday 16 April a Magistrate from Madang District Court, his Worship Robert Teko, arrived and conducted a hearing en masse outside Ramu Police Station. Each member of the group of 189 pleaded guilty. For the purpose of the hearing, the group of 189 was divided into adults (120) and juveniles (69).

•	On Thursday 17 April his Worship convicted each of the 120 adults and sentenced each of them to six months imprisonment and convicted each of the 69 juveniles and imposed a fine on each of them.

•	Soon after that, the 120 adults were transported to Beon Correctional Institution, near Madang town, to serve their sentences, and the fines of the 69 juveniles were paid and they were released from custody.

•	While they were in jail each of the 120 adults was charged with the seven counts of wilful murder that are the subject of the present trial.

•	In August 2014 the 120 adults completed their prison sentences (one-third of the sentence having been remitted in accordance with the Correctional Service Act 1995) but remained in custody on remand in relation to the seven wilful murder charges they were each facing.

•	On 8 December 2014 each of the 120 adults was committed for trial.

•	There were two others also charged, separately, with the same seven counts of wilful murder that are the subject of the present trial, and they were committed for trial on different dates and remanded in custody. 

•	Altogether, 122 persons have been committed for trial on the seven counts of wilful murder the subject of the present trial.  

•	On 20 February 2015 each of those 122 persons was granted bail by the National Court. They were subsequently released from custody on bail on various dates depending on when their cash bail was paid.

•	In early 2017 the 97 accused who are the subject of this judgment on verdict appeared before the Court, and in accordance with an agreement between counsel for the State and defence counsel, endorsed by the Court, their bail was suspended and they were remanded in custody.

•	The 97 accused who are the subject of this judgment on verdict are members of the original group of 120 adults, ie those who were assembled on the sports field at Sakiko on 14 April and subsequently taken to Ramu and tried before the District Court and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, then committed for trial, granted bail, released on bail, then returned to custody in early 2017 when their bail was suspended.  

•	No identification parade or any other formal identification procedure was conducted at any time. 

ISSUES

12.	There are four fundamental issues for determination: 

1.	Was the offence of wilful murder committed in relation to any of the deceased? 

2.	Has the State proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused directly committed any of the seven offences on the indictment? 

3.	Has the State proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused is guilty of any of the offences by virtue of Section 7(1) of the Criminal Code? 

4.	Has the State proven beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused is guilty of any of the offences by virtue of Section 8 of the Criminal Code?

13.	     Before addressing these issues it is convenient to summarise the evidence. 

EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE

14.	It consisted of:

•	oral testimony of 14 witnesses
•	records of interview 
•	photographs
•	medical evidence
•	witness statements
•	District Court records.

Oral testimony

No	Witness	Description	
1	Peter Gorak	Member,  RPNGC, Chf Sgt, 
Acting Ramu Police Station Commander 	
Evidence	
He was acting Ramu PSC in April 2014 – between 5.30 and 6.00 am on 14 April he received a call that there was a big group of armed men and youths sighted near Sangkiang Bridge, walking along the highway into town – he gathered two police members, went to the armoury but it had no weapons (all had been issued to members for a mining deployment) – drove in police vehicle to the group walking on the highway – switched on blue light, two or three times used loud hailer to instruct them to disperse but they ignored his instructions – the group  walked past the ‘South Gate’ (the main entrance to RAIL), then not far afterwards, turned left off the highway on to a track that leads to Sanirao and Sakiko villages.

He felt helpless – another police vehicle arrived and he instructed members in it to use another road through the sugar fields to go to Sakiko and alert the villagers at Sakiko to take cover – he was aware that the big group of armed men and youths were the Hausman and that they were intent on causing trouble for the alleged sorcerers who were known to have fled to Sakiko from villages in the Ranara area – he then drove back to the police barracks to find more members – picked up four members on the way – was alerted by RAIL workers, who were yelling and shouting, to the death of Sike Wamne – saw a body bag next to the road.

He drove back to the big group of armed men and youths, who were still walking towards Sakiko – this time they made way for him to pass through – he drove to Sakiko, came across a group of RAIL workers and told them to run for cover – arrived at Sakiko, drove through the length of the village, using his loud hailer to tell people to run for cover.

He got to the far end of the village, by which time he had six members – received a call from the PPC (who was in Ramu, with Assistant Commissioner Sete) instructing him not to do anything and wait for reinforcement from Madang – he relayed the instruction to members present – they were outnumbered and out-armed – the big group of armed men and youths entered the village and went on a rampage – he saw houses set on fire – there was a lot of smoke – people were running for cover in many directions – he stayed there until it became quiet at about 10.30 am.

He and his members then inspected the village on foot – he saw at least two bodies of deceased persons lying face down, with some arrows and spears still implanted in the bodies – the atmosphere was tense – the reinforcements from Madang,  led by Inspector Yonga Yawonga, arrived at about 11.00 am, and assisted in conducting a search of the scene – all houses were burned to ashes, property was destroyed, trees had been chopped down – he observed most of the big group of armed men and youths were sitting at the side of the road while some were hiding in nearby gardens – some members of the big group asked for water and they were assisted with water by some Chimbu people who live in the vicinity.

At noon he and Inspector Yawonga talked to the main group of men and youths and asked them to assemble on the village field – they were still armed but they responded well and walked to the field, with only a few escaping – they were placed in village groups and told to walk to the main highway, escorted by Police vehicles – they followed instructions and offered no resistance – he arranged with RAIL security to get an open-back truck – and the members of the big group of armed men and youths boarded the truck and were taken to Ramu police station – several trips had to be made – by the time they were all at the police station it was 5.00 pm and starting to get dark – he arranged food (biscuits) for them.

That night they were detained in the police station yard – they surrendered their weapons – a mobile squad arrived from Lae.

The next morning, 15 April, he and the PPC went to Ranara, the main village in the locality from which the big group of armed men and youths come – they spoke to the community leaders and asked them to come to Ramu Police Station for a talk.

In cross-examination he confirmed that he did not witness any of the seven  killings that are the subject of the indictment – he agreed that it would normally be expected that people who had killed other people in violent circumstances such as this would flee the scene to avoid retaliation – it was put to him that the group that had been assembled on the field and taken to the police station and was originally located outside Sakiko and brought into the village before being walked along the road to the highway and then to the police station was not the same group as the group involved in the killings– he replied that that was not the case:  he located that group within the village and it was the same big group of armed men and youths he had tried to intercept early that morning – he clarified that he was stationed at Sakiko from 7.00 to 11.00 am and that it was possible that in that four-hour period some had escaped or otherwise left the group.

There was no identification parade conducted at Ramu Police Station or anywhere else – the deceased persons’ relatives were not asked to identify any suspects.  
	
2	Alex Solwo  	Member,  RPNGC, Detective Sergeant,
Ramu Police Station CID	
Evidence	
He was based at Ramu in April 2014 – he was a member of the investigation team that investigated the Sakiko incident, which led to 122 suspects being charged with seven counts of wilful murder – he arrived on the scene at Sakiko on the morning of 14 April shortly after the last person was killed – he assisted in getting the suspects assembled at the sports field and taken to Ramu Police Station – he was responsible for conducting interviews of 30 accused.
	
3	Susan Yambung 	Sakiko resident, daughter of Yambung Nawoya, 
the deceased the subject of count 3	
Evidence	
She is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 she was living with her family at Sakiko as they had been chased out of Gomumu by the Hausman who suspected that she and her family members were sorcerers (following a number of unexplained deaths at Gomumu) – early on the morning of 14 April she went to the Sakiko bus stop to do her market trading – she heard the police warn everyone that the Hausman were coming so she rushed back to her house only to find that her husband and children had already fled, leaving her old father, Yambung Nawoya, left alone.

She tried to force him to escape but the Hausman came and in her presence speared him in the right knee, then they cut him all over his body including on his head, and he died – it seemed that the Hausman were only attacking men and boys, not females.

She identified four of the accused as being among the group that attacked her father:
Enos Aware, Imex Gaosa, Simon Duma and Winson Dos. 

She ascribed to them names other than those names. She referred to Enos Aware as Aware Muru, Imex Gaosa as Duma Gaosa, Simon Duma as Sakum Duma and Winson Dos as Bunso Surenu. 

She said she was two metres away when the attack took place and she recognised the attackers as they are all from Gomumu.

She named others from Gomumu who were present and involved to various degrees in the attack on her father but who she did not identify in the courtroom: Dowere, Yasinapo, Sanu Bania and Tona Koya. Those names do not appear on the indictment. 

In cross-examination she said that it is correct that there is a track from Gomumu to Sakiko, which follows the Bumbu River, and if you take this track it is not necessary to walk on the main highway – there are also tracks leading from Ramu town, which go through the sugar fields, and you can get to Sakiko that way too, without walking on the highway.

She denied being told by others to identify those who she had named – she had sworn on the Bible and was only identifying people who she recognised.

She denied that all the people who raided Sakiko had escaped – some of them had escaped but some had not and those who had not escaped were now in the courtroom.

She denied that the police only arrived on the scene four hours after the main incident took place. 
	
4	Kande Popusewe	Sakiko resident, mother of Nathan Aki, 
the deceased the subject of count 6	
Evidence	
She is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 she was living with her family at Sakiko as they had been chased out of Gomumu by the Hausman who suspected that she and her family members were sorcerers (following a number of unexplained deaths at Gomumu) – at 7.00 am on 14 April she heard the police vehicle come into the village and horns were blaring and the police were shouting that the Hausman from Ranara were coming – many people escaped but she was concerned for her grandfather and this slowed her down and she did not have time to leave – she has three children and she was caught by the Hausman while she was carrying her youngest child, a three-year-old boy, Nathan Aki.

Some of the Hausman said ‘do not cut her or her children’ but one of them, who she described as Duma Gaosa, came in and pulled Nathan from her grasp and said ‘that’s a male’  and cut him on the stomach – two other Hausman, who she named as Goyong Bania (an adult) and Levi Sakum (a juvenile), also cut Nathan – Nathan was in a very bad condition but the Hausman ordered her to go away and leave him – she walked away and crossed the river and stayed that Monday night and the next day at a small village called Hapwara – on Wednesday 16 April she went back to Sakiko and was told that Nathan was in the morgue.

In the courtroom she identified the accused Imex Gaosa as the person to first attack Nathan –she recognised and knows this accused as he is from Gomumu and is her uncle.

In cross-examination she agreed that there were many Hausman and they had their faces painted black, that they came into Sakiko from many directions and that there was chaos and the villagers ran off in all directions, that there are many tracks in to and out of Sakiko and that some of the Hausman escaped and that she had not been asked before to identify those who cut Nathan – but she denied that she was so terrified she was not able to see who cut Nathan: she clearly saw the three persons who cut Nathan as they did not have their faces painted, she recognised them and she knew them – she said that Duma Gaosa was the one who removed Nathan from her grasp and held Nathan up and checked Nathan’s genitals and confirmed that he was a boy and then cut him in the stomach.

She denied that there was more than one Hausman group: they came in the one group and burned down houses and attacked and cut people.  
	
No	Witness	Description	
5	Yukui Sango	Sakiko resident, granddaughter of Baupa Dangingayo, 
the deceased the subject of count 5	
Evidence	
She is from Damaende village but in April 2014 she was living with her family, including her grandfather, Baupa Dangingayo, at Sakiko – she was still asleep on the morning of 14 April when she heard the police vehicle come into the village, blowing its siren, and the police were telling the villagers to escape – she saw a big group of men rush in, heavily armed and with painted faces – they were shouting “Kill them!” at the villagers. 

Her house is on a hill above her grandfather’s house – she went to her grandfather’s house as she was worried about him and wanted to save him – a group of attackers rushed at them – her grandfather told her to run away and save herself – so she ran to her house and then she heard her grandfather call out her name – he was obviously in pain – she looked down and saw two  men throw him in his own house and lock the door and burn down the house while he was still inside – that is how he died. 

She identified two of the accused as being among the group that attacked her grandfather and /or locked him in the house and burned it while he was inside: Bakun Moa and Noguro Sua. 

She ascribed to them names other than those names. She referred to Bakun Moa as Bakun Bambike and Noguro Sua as Diwita Dio. 

She named others who attacked her grandfather and/or locked him in the house and burned down the house while he was inside, but who she did not identify in the courtroom: Kai Koko, Miraka Rahame and Yuro Sonuto. Those names do not appear on the indictment. 

In cross-examination it was put her that she was not at Sakiko on the morning of 14 April and did not see what happened – she was emphatic that she was present and saw how her grandfather was killed – she agreed that there are many small tracks going in to and out of Sakiko – she agreed that she was not asked to identify any suspects at Ramu Police Station:  she gave her statement to the police but she was not asked to point out anyone who killed her grandfather – she agreed that she was also chased by men who wanted to kill her and that she was very scared – she denied that she did not see what happened.
	
6	Kenneth Alutoa	Member,  RPNGC, Const, 
Ramu Police Station Public Safety Unit 	
Evidence	
At 6.00 am on 14 April he was alerted to the big group of armed men walking along the highway at Ramu – he was at the police barracks when he received the alert and he walked down to the highway and tried to stop the group but they ignored him and kept walking – Chief Sgt Gorek then came along in a police vehicle and picked him up, with several other members, and drove them to Sakiko.

By the time they got there many houses had been burned down – they managed to stop some houses being burned – he witnessed from afar two men being chopped – he then participated in the police operation of assembling the suspects at the field and transporting them to Ramu Police Station, detaining and feeding them – he worked all through the night of 14-15 April.

In cross-examination he agreed that the suspects were difficult to identify as their faces were painted black and that there were many routes in to and out of Sakiko – but he did not agree that there could have been another group, other than the group from which the accused came, that was responsible for the killings that took place: there was only one group, it was the group that he saw walking along the highway. 
	
7	Anton Lampabe  	Member,  RPNGC, Snr Const, 
Ramu Police Station, CID	
Evidence	
He gave uncontested evidence, similar to that of Const Alutoa, about his being called out to attend the scene at Sakiko and about the assembling of the suspects and transporting them to Ramu Police Station and their detention – he was one of the four members of the investigation team and was responsible for interviewing 30 of the accused. 
	
8	Mina Biti 	Sakiko resident, granddaughter of Beramo Tipupu,
the deceased the subject of count 4	
Evidence	
She is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 she was living with her family at Sakiko as they had been chased out of Gomumu by the Hausman who suspected that she and her family members were sorcerers (following a number of unexplained deaths at Gomumu).

At 7.00 am on 14 April she heard the police vehicle come into the village and horns were blaring and the police were shouting that the Hausman from Ranara were coming – many people escaped but she was concerned for her grandfather and this slowed her down and she did not have time to leave – she was with Beramo Tipupu when five Hausman attacked him and cut him with bushknives –she tried to hide in the house – some of them tried to cut her too before one of them intervened and told the others not to kill her, just give her pain – so they hit her on the back with the back of their bushknives – this caused her great pain and she fled into the bush.

She identified one of the accused as being among the group that attacked and killed Beramo Tipupu: Simon Towera. 

She ascribed to him a name other than that name. She referred to Simon Towera as Bunso Surenu. 

She named others who attacked Beramo Tipupu, but who she did not identify in the courtroom: Duma Buta and Tau Ingema. Those names do not appear on the indictment. 

In cross-examination she agreed that it was a very terrifying incident and she feared for her life and the lives of her relatives, that the Hausman had their faces painted black, that she had escaped into the bush and that the police did not ask her to identify any of the suspects – but she did not agree that she could not see things properly or identify the Hausman who attacked her and Beramo Tipupu:  she recognised them, even though their faces were painted, as they are all from Gomumu.  
	
No	Witness	Description	
9	David Jamute 	Sakiko resident, friend of Nick Uria,
the deceased the subject of count 1	
Evidence	
He is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 he was living at Sakiko due to the problems at Gomumu regarding the death of a lady, Asuma Gaosa. 

He was at Sakiko at 7.00 am on 14 April when he saw a big group of men come into the village and start attacking villagers – he saw his friend Nick Uria shot with a spear in his eye and then Nick was cut with bushknives after he fell – the attackers came after him and fired a slingshot at him but they missed and fled into the mountains – he turned around and saw many houses burning. 

He named those who attacked Nick Uria, but who he did not identify in the courtroom:  Duma Gaosa, Kuti Koya and Sare Nere. Those names do not appear on the indictment. 
	
10	Francis Anis 	Sakiko resident, friend of Nathan Aki,
the deceased the subject of count 6	
Evidence	
He is from Damaende village but in April 2014 he was living at Sakiko. 

He was at Sakiko at 7.00 am on 14 April when the Hausman came into the village and attacked villagers – they were shouting that the Sakiko people had been looking after sorcerers and they would all be killed – he was making his escape when he heard a young child crying and when he looked around he saw the three-year-old boy, Nathan Aki, being cut by one of the Hausman – there was nothing he could do so he kept running and escaped into the mountains.

He named the person who he saw attack Nathan Aki, but who he did not identify in the courtroom:  Levi Sakum. That name does not appear on the indictment. 
	
11	Gesu Yambung 	Sakiko resident, friend of Nick Uria,
the deceased the subject of count 1	
Evidence	
He is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 he was living with his family at Sakiko as they had been chased out of Gomumu by the Hausman who suspected that he and his family members were sorcerers (following a number of unexplained deaths at Gomumu).

He was asleep at Sakiko between 6.00 and 7.00 am on 14 April when the police came in and warned everyone that the Hausman were coming – then he saw a big group of men come into the village and start attacking villagers – he saw his friend Nick Uria shot with a spear in his eye and then Nick was cut with bushknives after he fell – the attackers came after him and threw spears at him but they missed and he escaped. 

He identified two of the accused as being among the group that attacked Nick Uria:
Imex Gaosa and Simon Duma. 

He ascribed to them names other than those names. He referred to Imex Gaosa as Duma Gaosa and Simon Duma as Sakum Duma. 

He named others who were present and involved in the attack on Nick Uria, but who he did not identify in the courtroom: Kuti Koya and Sare Nere. Those names do not appear on the indictment. 

In cross-examination he agreed that when he saw the Hausman coming he was scared and thought about escaping as he was afraid of being killed, that the Hausman had lots of weapons, that there was chaos, that he was moving quickly and that he could not see clearly which Hausman were attacking and killing which people.

However in re-examination he repeated his evidence that he was sure about who he saw attack and kill Nick Uria. 
	
12	Nomusa Sakari	Sakiko resident, friend of Nick Uria,
the deceased the subject of count 1	
Evidence	
He is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 he was living with his family at Sakiko as they had been chased out of Gomumu by the Hausman who suspected that he and his family members were sorcerers.

He was at Sakiko between 6.00 and 7.00 am on 14 April when the police came in and warned everyone that the Hausman were coming and that they should escape quickly – he went to the bus stop – he saw his friend Nick Uria shot with a spear in his eye and then Nick was cut with bushknives after he fell – the attackers came after him (the witness) and threatened him with their bushknives so he escaped into the bush. 

He identified one of the accused as being among the group that attacked Nick Uria by cutting him in the stomach: Imex Gaosa. 

He ascribed to him a name other than that name. He referred to Imex Gaosa as Duma Buta. 

In cross-examination he agreed that when he saw the Hausman coming he was scared, that the Hausman had lots of weapons, that there was chaos and that he was moving quickly – but he did not agree that he could not recognise any of the Hausman: for a short time he was watching and observing what was happening around him but once he saw them shoot Nick 
Uria, he escaped.
	
No	Witness	Description	
13	Sangiri Kiriwako 	Sakiko resident, friend of Anao Gunumi,
the deceased the subject of count 7	
Evidence	
He is from Gomumu village but in April 2014 he was living with his family at Sakiko as they had been chased out of Gomumu by the Hausman who suspected that he and his family members were sorcerers.

He was at Sakiko between 6.00 and 7.00 am on 14 April when the police came in and warned that there was going to be a fight so they should escape – he is an old man and he could not move quickly and he sent his wife ahead with other fit people – he was at the back of the group with a lady, Sandy Mellombo, who had two of her young children, a girl and a boy, with her.

They fled into the kunai grass but they encountered some Hausman who were blocking their way – the attackers removed the young boy from his mother and put him on the ground and cut him with bushknives – the boy’s name was Anao Gunumi – he saw what happened as he was 25 metres from that incident. 

He identified two of the accused as being among the group that attacked and killed Anao Gunumi: Jeffery Ronny and Winson Dos. 

He ascribed to them names other than those names. He referred to Jeffery Ronny as Goying Bania and Winson Dos as Bunso Surenu. 

In cross-examination he agreed that it was a very terrifying incident and he feared for his life and the lives of his family members, that the Hausman were heavily armed, that people were running in different directions, that there was chaos, and that when he gave evidence in the trial his eyesight was very poor – but he did not agree that he was too far away to see who cut Anao Gunumi: his eyesight had deteriorated in the three years since the incident – in April 2014 his eyesight was OK – he denied that he was just coming up with names of men from Gomumu so that some Hausman could be held responsible for the deaths that occurred – he denied that he had been given names to say in Court: he was there and he saw what happened and he recognised those who cut the boy as they are from Gomumu. 
	
14	Serah Korowot	Member,  RPNGC, Snr Const, 
Ramu Police Station, CID	
Evidence	
At 6.00 am on 14 April she observed a large group of males, carrying offensive weapons, walking along the highway through Ramu town in the direction of Sakiko – she was at her home at the police barracks at that time and not yet on duty – she did not go to Sakiko.

At 4.00 pm that day she was at Ramu Police Station when that group of males was brought in and detained in the police yard – there were 189 of them and they were divided into adults (120) and juveniles (69) – she was given the task of formally arresting and charging the adults, while another member looked after the juveniles – some of the adults were disarmed that evening, but the group was not entirely disarmed until the next day.

She charged them on 16 April with offences under Sections 7(a) (provoking a breach of the peace) and 12(1) (carrying offensive weapons) of the Summary Offences Act – she created court files for them – the Magistrate from Madang District Court, his Worship Robert Teko, arrived and conducted a hearing en masse outside Ramu Police Station – they all pleaded guilty and were convicted and sentenced and sent to Beon Jail.

In cross-examination she denied that any of the group was dealt with unfairly – she was aware of their constitutional rights – not all of them spoke Tok Pisin but their community leaders and translators were on hand – she rejects any contention that they convicted without due process – she did the best she could in very difficult circumstances and it was an emergency situation.  

Records of interview

15.	All 97 accused undertook a formal police interview. A record of interview was prepared for each of them, none of which contained any material admissions. 

Photographs 

16.	Photographs of the bodies of the deceased persons, the subject of six of the counts on the indictment, clearly depicting injuries received, were admitted into evidence. The body of Baupa Dangingayo (the deceased the subject of count 5) was not available for photographing as it had been reduced to ashes.

Medical evidence 

17.	Dr Sanoh Tahon of Angau General Hospital, Lae, conducted post-mortem examinations on the bodies of six of the deceased at Lae on 29 April 2014 and prepared post-mortem reports, which are summarised in the following table. The body of Baupa Dangingayo (the deceased the subject of count 5) was not available for examination as it had been reduced to ashes.

Count 	Deceased	Description	
1	Sike Wamne 	35-year-old male	
Findings	
•	open [compound] skull wound with missing brain matter
•	4 deep bushknife wounds, right leg, tibia cracked
•	1 deep bushknife wound, left leg
•	1 deep bushknife wound, left elbow
•	1 bushknife wound, right wrist
•	6 spear wounds, chest, abdomen & back
•	death resulted from open skull wound.
	
2	Nick Uria 	20-year-old male	
Findings 	
•	open  [compound] skull fracture
•	open wound, right side of neck
•	amputated left lower leg
•	amputated left elbow
•	open wound right thigh, right knee
•	left hypogastrium,  area of abdomen 
•	death resulted from open skull wound with multiple body mutilation.
	
3	Yambung Nawoya 	70-year-old male	
Findings	
•	open left parieto – frontal bone fracture of skull with missing brain matter
•	amputated left lower thigh
•	amputated left lower leg
•	amputated left lower arm
•	amputated right lower arm
•	death resulted from open skull fracture with multiple body mutilation. 
	
4	Beramo Tipupu	73-year-old male	
Findings	
•	open skull wound, right parietal skull 
•	amputated right upper arm
•	amputated left foot
•	amputated right foot
•	death resulted from open skull fracture with multiple body mutilation.
	
6	Nathan Aki	3-year-old male	
Findings	
•	open skull fracture, right temporal
•	bushknife wounds, right and left thigh
•	death resulted from open skull fracture.
	
7	Anao Gunumi	5-year-old male	
Findings	
•	3 open skull fractures
•	2 right parietal wounds
•	1 occipital wound
•	open wound, right iliac fossa region of abdomen
•	death resulted from multiple open skull fractures.

18.	Witness statements 

No	Witness	Description	
1	Kenneth Huya	Member,  RPNGC, Snr Const, Ramu Police Station	
Statement	
He was on police duty driving from Ramu to Madang early on the morning of 14 April – at the Sangkiang Bridge he observed a group of people armed with bows and arrows and bushknives and other weapons – he rang the Ramu Police Station Commander and another Ramu officer as they were holding on to Police vehicles. 
	
2	Patrick Gualit	Member,  RPNGC, Snr Const, Ramu Police Station	
Statement 	
He was with Snr Const Huya and his statement was the same as that of Snr Const Huya.
	
3	Taime Lucas	RAIL worker, Ramu	
Statement	
He resides at Sanirao, near Ramu Sugar – at 6.00 am on 14 April his work colleague, Sike Wamne, came to his house to tell him it was time to go to work – he commenced walking to work with Sike Wamne – after a short distance they saw a huge group of armed men (250 to 300) approaching them – one of that group approached Sike Wamne and asked him where he was from - Sike Wamne replied that he was from Jiwaka – then one of the huge group of armed men cut him with a bushknife, then others joined in and used other weapons – Sike Wamne died instantly.
	
4	Dorum Sikil 	RAIL worker, Ramu	
Statement	
He resides at Sanirao, near Ramu Sugar – at 6.30 am on 14 April he was walking to work with his work colleagues, Sike Wamne and Taime Lucas – they saw a huge group of armed men approaching them – one of that group fired an arrow at him, which missed – another member of the group approached Sike Wamne and asked him where he was from – Sike Wamne replied that he was from Jiwaka – then one of the huge group of armed men cut him with a bushknife, then others joined in and used other weapons - Sike Wamne died instantly.
	
No	Witness	Description	
5	Kindim Mike 	RAIL worker, Ramu	
Statement	
He resides at Sanirao, near Ramu Sugar – at 6.20 am on 14 April he was walking to work – he saw his work colleague Sike Wamne walking some distance ahead of him – he saw a huge group of armed men approach Sike Wamne – some members of the group walked past Sike Wamne but then a second group attacked him with bushknives and other weapons - Sike Wamne died instantly.
	
6	Alex Taul 	RAIL worker, Ramu	
Statement	
He resides at Sanirao, near Ramu Sugar – at 6.00 am on 14 April he was walking to work – he saw a huge group of armed men approaching him – one of that group swung a bushknife at him, which missed – another member of the group threatened to shoot him with a homemade pistol – then he saw Wamne Tolai [sic, presumably another name for Sike Wamne] and Taime Lucas up ahead – then one of the huge group of armed men cut Wamne with a bushknife, then others joined in and used other weapons – Wamne died instantly.
 	
7	Silia Jacob	RAIL worker, Ramu	
Statement	
She resides in the Ramu Sugar company compound – at 6.00 am on 14 April she saw a huge group of armed men walking outside the company fence on the road leading to Sakiko – she saw Wamne Tolai [sic, presumably another name for Sike Wamne] and Taime Lucas walking along the road in the opposite direction– then one of the huge group of armed men cut Wamne with a bushknife, then others joined in and used other weapons - Wamne died instantly.
	
8	Willie Toully	Member,  RPNGC, Const, Ramu Police Station	
Statement	
On 14 April he was on a police operation on Karkar Island – he was recalled to Ramu and got there at 10.00 pm – he was a member of the security detail that looked after the 120 adults and 69 juveniles detained in the yard at Ramu Police Station and conducted searches of them and removed weapons from their possession. 

District Court records

19.	These were records of the Ramu District Court proceedings of 16-17 April at which 120 adults and 69 juveniles were convicted of offences under the Summary Offences Act relating to the events of 14 April.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE 

20.	All accused remained silent. The only evidence presented by the defence was a witness statement by Susan Yambung, State witness #3, which was claimed to be a prior inconsistent statement.

D1	Susan Yambung 	Sakiko resident, State witness #3	
Statement	
On 14 April at 6.00 am she was on a truck being driven from Sakiko to Ramu town when they were told by police that the Hausman were coming – so the truck turned around and went back to Sakiko – she ran to her house to find that her husband and two children had already escaped – she stood near her house when the Hausman came and speared Yambung [her father the deceased the subject of count 3] – one of the Hausman, Dowere, assaulted her.

She named other Hausman she saw as Awore Muru, Bunso Surenu, Duma Buta, 
Lasinawo Dauonte, Sakum Duma, Sanu Bania, Sare Nere and Tona Koya.  

She later observed that her father was dead and his body was chopped to pieces.

21.	That completes the summary of the evidence. I will now determine the four fundamental issues identified earlier.

1 WAS THE OFFENCE OF WILFUL MURDER COMMITTED IN RELATION TO ANY OF THE DECEASED?

22.	The offence of wilful murder is created by Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code, which states:

Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder.

23.	The three elements of the offence are that:

(1)	a person killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful; and

(3)	there was an intention to cause the death of the deceased (or some other person).

24.	As to element (1) it must be considered that under Section 291 of the Criminal Code a person “kills” another person when he or she causes the death of the deceased, directly or indirectly, by any means. 

25.	As to element (2) Section 289 of the Criminal Code provides that it is unlawful to kill another person unless the killing is authorised or justified or excused by law. The killing of a person is justified and lawful if, for example, the elements of the defence of self-defence are made out for the purposes of Sections 269 or 270 of the Criminal Code.

26.	As to element (3) it is the state of mind of the person who killed the deceased at the time that the act of killing was committed that is critical. In assessing the state of mind at that time, evidence of his conduct (a) before, (b) at the time of, and (c) subsequent to, the act of killing, can be considered (Fei Stanley v The State (2006) SC1324, The State v Raphael Kuanande [1994] PNGLR 512). It is particularly relevant to assess the degree of viciousness of an attack, the number of wounds or blows inflicted on the deceased and whether such wounds or blows were directed at vulnerable parts of the deceased’s body. 

27.	The Court must determine whether those elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the death of each of the seven deceased persons. 
Count 1: Sike Wamne 

28.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of witness statements by RAIL workers, Taime Lucas, Dorum Sikil, Kindim Mike, Alex Taul and Silia Jacob. Their evidence is uncontested. The post-mortem report corroborates the evidence in the witness statements that the deceased suffered multiple wounds with bushknives and other weapons and that he died instantly. No particular person has been named as attacking the deceased. However that is not necessary for the purposes of proving beyond reasonable doubt, and I find, that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the ferocity of the attack, the number of wounds inflicted and the number of wounds to vulnerable parts of the body (eg head and skull, chest, abdomen and back).  

29.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased. 

Count 2: Nick Uria 

30.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of oral testimony by David Jamute, Gesu Yambung and Nomusa Sakari. They were subject to cross-examination particularly in relation to the identification by two of those witnesses of the persons who were among the group who attacked the deceased. Their evidence as to the circumstances of the death were not strongly contested. I assess them as honest and reliable witnesses. The post-mortem report corroborates their evidence that the deceased suffered multiple wounds, including having his left leg and left arm severed, with bushknives and other weapons and that he died instantly. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the ferocity of the attack, the number of wounds inflicted and the number of wounds to vulnerable parts of the body (eg head and skull, neck, severed limbs).  

31.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased. 

Count 3: Yambung Nawoya

32.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of oral testimony by Susan Yambung. She was subject to cross-examination particularly in relation to her identification of the persons who were among the group who attacked the deceased. Her evidence as to the circumstances of the death were not strongly contested. I assess her as an honest and reliable witness. The post-mortem report corroborates her evidence that the deceased suffered multiple wounds, including having his left leg and both arms severed, with bushknives and other weapons and that he died instantly. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the ferocity of the attack, severed limbs, the number of wounds inflicted and the number of wounds to vulnerable parts of the body (eg frontal bone of skull with missing brain matter).  

33.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased. 

Count 4: Beramo Tipupu

34.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of oral testimony by Mina Biti. She was subject to cross-examination particularly in relation to her identification of the persons who were among the group who attacked the deceased. Her evidence as to the circumstances of the death were not strongly contested. I assess her as an honest and reliable witness. The post-mortem report corroborates her evidence that the deceased suffered multiple wounds, including having both feet and right arm severed, with bushknives and other weapons and that he died instantly. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the ferocity of the attack, severed limbs, the number of wounds inflicted and the number of wounds to vulnerable parts of the body (eg open skull fracture with multiple body mutilation).  

35.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased. 

Count 5: Baupa Dangingayo 

36.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of oral testimony by Yukui Sango. She was subject to cross-examination particularly in relation to her identification of the persons who were among the group who attacked the deceased. Her evidence as to the circumstances of the death was strongly contested. However, I assess her as an honest and reliable witness. Members of the Hausman attacked the deceased and forced him into his house and locked the door and burned down the house while he was inside. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased; 

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the manner in which the deceased was forced into a building and then locked inside while the building was set alight. 

37.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased.

Count 6: Nathan Aki

38.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of oral testimony by Kande Popusewe and Francis Anis. They were subject to cross-examination particularly in relation to the identification by Kande Popusewe of the persons who were among the group who attacked the deceased. Their evidence as to the circumstances of the death were not strongly contested. I assess them as honest and reliable witnesses. The post-mortem report corroborates their evidence that the deceased, a three-year-old boy, was wounded, on at least three occasions with a bushknife and that he died instantly. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the ferocity of the attack, the number of wounds inflicted and the number of wounds to vulnerable parts of the body (eg open skull fracture, right temporal).  

39.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased. 

Count 7: Anao Gunumi

40.	Direct evidence as to the circumstances of his death has been given in the form of oral testimony by Sangiri Kiriwako. He was subject to cross-examination particularly in relation to the identification of the persons who were among the group who attacked the deceased, and the circumstances of the death. However I assess him as an honest and reliable witness. The post-mortem report corroborates his evidence that the deceased, a five-year-old boy, suffered multiple wounds with bushknives and that he died instantly. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(1)	a number of persons killed the deceased;

(2)	the killing was unlawful (as no specific defence has been asserted);

(3)	there was an intention to cause his death, which is clearly evident from the ferocity of the attack, the number of wounds inflicted and the number of wounds to vulnerable parts of the body (eg three open skull fractures).  

41.	I find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of wilful murder was committed against the deceased. 

2	HAS THE STATE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED DIRECTLY COMMITTED ANY OF THE OFFENCES?

42.	The State argues that a number of accused should be convicted of specific counts on the indictment due to their being identified by State witnesses as directly killing some of the deceased. The following table summarises for each of counts 2 to 7, those accused who were identified in the courtroom as being persons who attacked and killed the deceased, the subject of each count. It will be observed that there was no identification evidence in respect of count 1, involving the deceased Sike Wamne. 

43.	The State argues that those accused named in column 4 of the table should be convicted (independently of their conviction under Sections 7 or 8 of the Criminal Code) of the wilful murder of the relevant deceased. For example Imex Gaosa and Simon Duma should be convicted on count 2, wilful murder of Nick Uria and so on.

ACCUSED IDENTIFIED IN COURTROOM
Count 
No	Name of 
Deceased	Identifying 
witnesses	Accused identified in courtroom	
2	Nick Uria	Gesu Yambung

Nomusa Sakari	Imex Gaosa
Simon Duma

Imex Gaosa 	
3	Yambung Nawoya	Susan Yambung	Enos Aware
Imex Gaosa 
Simon Duma  Winson Dos	
4	Beramo Tipupu	Mina Biti	Simon Towera	
5	Baupa Dangingayo	Yukui Sango	Bakun Moa
Noguro Sua 	
6	Nathan Aki	Kande Popusewe	Imex Gaosa	
7	Anao Gunumi	Sangiri Kiriwako	Jeffery Ronny
Winson Dos	

44.	I have considered the State’s argument in light of the principles on identification evidence in the leading Supreme Court cases of John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115, Biwa Geta v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 153 and Jimmy Ono v The State (2002) SC698.  Having been reminded by defence counsel to do so, I have considered the inherent dangers of relying on the correctness of identification to support a conviction and caution myself, as the tribunal of fact, accordingly. If the quality of the identification evidence is good the matter should proceed to verdict. However, if the quality of the evidence is poor an acquittal should be entered unless there is other evidence that goes to support the correctness of the identification. 

45.	I remind myself there is always the possibility that an honest witness can be mistaken and still be a convincing witness. I have assessed all State witnesses who gave identification evidence as being honest witnesses. I acknowledge the risk that they were mistaken about who they saw. The court must be satisfied that a witness is both honest and accurate. 

46.	In assessing the quality of the identification evidence, relevant considerations include: 

•	whether the witness is purporting to identify a person who was a stranger or someone he or she recognised; 
•	the length of time that the witness observed the accused (eg a prolonged period or a fleeting glance); 
•	the emotional state of the witness at the time of the incident; the prevailing conditions (eg was it broad daylight or at dusk or dawn or inside or outside?); 
•	the line of sight (eg did the witness have a clear front-on view or was the line of sight interrupted or did the witness just see the accused from the side?). 

47.	If there are discrepancies in the identification evidence the court should consider them and assess whether they are explicable in terms other than dishonesty or unreliability.

48.	The defence counsel argued that the identification evidence was unreliable for a number of reasons:

•	the incident happened three years before the witnesses gave their evidence and this was the first time that they were being asked to identify suspects as there was never any identification parade or any other identification procedure put in place by the police – it should have been done immediately after the incident when a number of suspects  were in custody at Ramu Police Station;

•	it was a traumatic and chaotic event and the State witnesses were in fear of their lives, hence they could easily be confused as to who they thought they saw attacking the deceased;

•	there were many Hausman (more than 200) raiding the village and they had their faces black and were running in different directions, making their identification difficult;

•	the courtroom identification procedures had a large margin of error given the number of accused in the courtroom, making reliable identification difficult;

•	in most instances of a so-called positive identification in the courtroom the name given by the witness did not match the name of the accused on the indictment.

49.	Having considered those competing submissions and having full regard to the inherent danger of determining guilt on the basis of identification evidence, I find that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused identified by the State witnesses attacked and killed the relevant deceased persons, for the following reasons:

•	I assess each identification witness as honest, with sound witness demeanour, and reliable;

•	though the incident happened three years before the witnesses gave their evidence and this was the first time that they were being asked to identify suspects and though there was no identification parade or any other identification procedure undertaken, they were each identifying persons known to them, so this was a case of recognition evidence;

•	though it was a traumatic and chaotic event and the State witnesses were in fear of their lives, and though this gave rise to a risk of confusion as to identity, their natural tendency would be name those who they actually saw; 

•	though there were many Hausman (more than 200) raiding the village and they had their faces black and were running in different directions, making their identification difficult, most State witnesses gave evidence of being in very close proximity to the actual attack that he or she witnessed;

•	the courtroom identification procedures were challenging logistically but cannot reasonably be regarded as unsafe or unreliable or prone to false identification;

•	the fact that in most instances of positive identification in the courtroom the name given by the witness did not match the name of the accused on the indictment is inconsequential as judicial notice is taken of the fact that it is not uncommon for people, particularly those in villages, to have more than one name and in any event in most instances the name of the accused on the indictment closely resembled the name given by the identifying witness. 

50.	I therefore find that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shown in the following table directly committed the offence of wilful murder and are convicted under Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code on the counts shown. 

ACCUSED FOUND TO HAVE DIRECTLY COMMITTED WILFUL MURDER
No
	Name of 
accused 	Count and name of deceased 
	
1	Bakun Moa	5 - Baupa Dangingayo	
2	Enos Aware	3 - Yambung Nawoya	
3	Imex Gaosa	2 - Nick Uria
3 - Yambung Nawoya
6 - Nathan Aki
	
4	Jeffery Ronny	7 - Anao Gunumi
	
5	Noguro Sua	5 - Baupa Dangingayo
	
6	Simon Duma	2 - Nick Uria
3 - Yambung Nawoya
	
7	Simon Towera	4 -  Beramo Tipupu
	
8	Winson Dos	3 - Yambung Nawoya
7 - Anao Gunumi

3	HAS THE STATE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCES BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 7(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE?

51.	The criminal liability of the accused must now be considered light of Section 7(1) of the Criminal Code, which states:

	When an offence is committed, each of the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it:—

(a)	every person who actually does the act or makes the omission that constitutes the offence; and

(b)	every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; and

(c)	every person who aids another person in committing the offence; and

(d)	any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

52.	The State argues that each of the accused was a member of the Hausman group that walked along the highway through Ramu, armed and with painted faces, and then walked to Sakiko, attacking and killing Sike Wamne along the way and then raiding the village, going on a rampage and wilfully murdering six village residents. 

53.	It is argued that all the accused, by being actively involved in the group’s activities, did acts for the purpose of enabling and aiding those who directly committed the offences, to commit the offences, and aided them in committing the offences, making all 97 accused guilty of seven counts of wilful murder under Sections 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code.

54.	The defence countered with two main propositions. First that the State failed to rule out the possibility that the 97 accused were not part of the Hausman that were observed walking on the highway and then went on the rampage at Sakiko. It was likely that the accused were members of a second group that happened to enter Sakiko after the deceased had been killed. The defence argued that the evidence supported this alternative hypothesis in that it was clear that there were many routes leading in to and out of Sakiko, and there was also evidence that the Hausman staged their raid from many different directions and in a sense partially surrounded the village before raiding it. 

55.	Secondly the defence argued that even if it is accepted that the accused were members of the Hausman group that raided the village and that some members of the group directly killed the deceased (as well as Sike Wamne, before the group entered Sakiko) only those against whom there is direct evidence on the criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt, should be convicted. Thus even if the eight or so accused who were identified in the courtroom as being involved in the killings are convicted, that should not count against the remaining 89 accused as there is no evidence against them. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Rex Paliau v The State (2016) SC1537: presence of an accused at a violent incident involving death, does not by itself result in the conclusion that the accused participated in the incident or commission of the crime. Something extra must be proven: that he did something tangible to aid or assist those who actually did the acts constituting the offence. 

56.	I find no merit in the first argument. I uphold the State’s submission that the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that there was only one Hausman group. There was no evidence adduced by the defence to challenge that inference.  That group made its way to Sakiko and members of that group and no other group committed seven wilful murder offences in or in the vicinity of Sakiko. The fact that there are other routes in to and out of Sakiko is inconsequential. The evidence of the police officers present is clear that it was the members of the Hausman group that was initially observed walking along the highway at Sangkiang Bridge who committed the offences. Some members of the group (but not all) were assembled on the Sakiko field and then conveyed to Ramu Police Station and then charged with wilful murder. The State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was only one Hausman group and that all 97 accused were members of that group. 

57.	The defence’s second major argument carries more weight. It is true that there is no specific evidence as to what each of the 89 accused against whom there is no direct evidence actually did to aid or assist those who directly committed the offences. However, while conscious of the general principle that presence alone does not give rise to guilt, the special and extraordinary circumstances of this case militate towards a conclusion that in fact each member of the Hausman group was not merely present. This was a mass raid, a rampage, a massacre. There is no evidence that any member of the group withdrew or exhibited any hesitation about continuing to be involved. I find that each member of the group was actively involved at least by contributing to the mayhem and terror that was wrought upon the residents of Sakiko (and before them on Sake Wamne).

58.	I conclude that the State has beyond reasonable doubt that each of the 97 accused was a member of the group that marched along the public roads in the manner alleged and raided the village, certain members of which group committed the seven offences of wilful murder the subject of the indictment. The State proved beyond reasonable doubt that by their participation in the group’s activities each of the accused did acts for the purpose of enabling and aiding those who directly committed the offences, to commit the offences, and aided them in committing the offences.

59.	Each of the accused is by virtue of Sections 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code guilty of seven counts of wilful murder, as charged.

4 	HAS THE STATE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCES BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 8 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE?

60.	The criminal liability of the accused must now be considered light of Section 8 (offences committed in prosecution of common purpose) of the Criminal Code, states:

Where—

(a)	two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another; and

(b)	in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of the purpose,

each of them shall be deemed to have committed the offence.

61.	The leading Supreme Court case on the application of Section 8 is Willy Kelly Goya v The State [1987] PNGLR 51. For an accused to be criminally liable under this provision, the following matters must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:

(i)	the accused formed a common intention with at least one other person to prosecute a purpose in conjunction with one another;

(ii)	 it was an unlawful purpose;

(iii)	 they prosecuted that purpose;

(iv)	 when doing so an offence was committed;

(v)	 the commission of the offence was a probable consequence of the prosecution of the purpose (see generally The State v Jacky Vutnamur (2005) N2848, The State v Seth Ujan Talil (2010) N4082, The State v Todd Mari (2011) N4259). 

62.	I find that the State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that:

•	each of the accused was a member of the Hausman group that marched along the public roads in the manner alleged and raided the village and that certain members of the group committed the seven offences of wilful murder the subject of the indictment;  

•	none of the accused left the group or engaged in any conduct that would suggest that he was an unwilling participant in all the group’s activities including killing the bystander, Sike Wamne, on the way to Sakiko, raiding the village, destroying property, threatening and chasing residents and killing six village residents; 

•	the members of that group had formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose (to raid the village believed to be harbouring sorcerers and to attack residents of the village and to kill sorcerers or persons connected with or harbouring them); and 

•	in the prosecution of that purpose, seven offences were committed that were of such a nature (involving death) that commission of those offences was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that unlawful purpose. 

63.	I conclude for the purposes of Section 8 that the State has proven beyond reasonable doubt that:

(i)	each of the accused formed a common intention with other members of the Hausman group, to prosecute the purpose of killing people who were suspected sorcerers or those thought to be harbouring them, at Sakiko, in conjunction with each other, and I find that there was a clear intention to kill people – not just cause them grievous bodily harm – that was the common purpose which each accused shared with other members of the Hausman group; 

(ii)	that was an obviously unlawful purpose as they were proposing to take the law into their own hands;

(iii)	they prosecuted that purpose in that they acted together with the aim of implementing the course of action that they had agreed and embarked on;

(iv)	in doing so, the offence of wilful murder was committed against the seven deceased persons who are the subject of counts 1 to  7 on the indictment;

(v)	the commission of those offences was the probable (ie likely) consequence of the prosecution of that purpose.

64.	Each of the accused is therefore by virtue of Section 8 of the Criminal Code guilty of seven counts of wilful murder, as charged.

CONCLUSION

65.	I emphasise that the findings of guilt under Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code are made in respect of each of the accused and are made independently of each of those provisions (Sections 7(1) and 8) and independently of the findings of direct guilt under Section 299(1) in respect of eight of the accused. 

VERDICTS

66.	Each of the 97 persons named as an accused on the indictment presented on 22 March 2017, as amended, being the 97 persons whose names are listed in alphabetical order in Appendix B to this judgment, is found under Section 299(1) of the Criminal Code guilty on each of the seven counts of wilful murder on that indictment, as charged. 

Verdicts accordingly.

________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor : Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor : Lawyer for the Accused

APPENDIX A:  STATUS OF 122 PERSONS COMMITTED FOR TRIAL
No	File ref	Name	Status 	
1	CR 4/15	Wandoko Somanda	Verdict	
2	CR 5/15	Noguro Sua	Verdict	
3	CR 6/15	Joe Tau	Bench warrant (BW)	
4	CR 7/15	Clement Te	BW	
5	CR 8/15	Koni Tesio	Verdict	
6	CR 9/15	Kumoro Tipupu	BW	
7	CR 10/15	Keao Tira	Verdict	
8	CR 11/15	Oni Titukun	Verdict	
9	CR 12/15	Guru Tokki	BW	
10	CR 13/15	Nasa Toko	Verdict	
11	CR 14/15	Wambuna Tosi	Verdict	
12	CR 15/15	Uma Toukini	Verdict	
13	CR 16/15	Simeon Towera	Verdict	
14	CR 17/15	Akepe Tuko	Verdict	
15	CR 18/15	Jack Tuko	Verdict	
16	CR 19/15	John Tuli	Verdict	
17	CR 20/15	Oscar Usi	Verdict	
18	CR 21/15	Martin Usi	Verdict	
19	CR 22/15	Max Uto 	Verdict	
20	CR 23/15	Jacob Utowa	BW	
21	CR 24/15	Tamsi Vio	Verdict	
22	CR 25/15	Kiriso Wake	Verdict	
23	CR 26/15	Tai Wake	Verdict	
24	CR 27/15	John Waku	Guilty	
25	CR 28/15	Sapia Waware	Deceased	
26	CR 29/15	Nasake Wiko	Verdict	
27	CR 30/15	Sepi Yamba Yamese	Verdict	
28	CR 31/15	Kinda Yamese	Verdict	
29	CR 32/15	Tonny Yuro	Verdict	
30	CR 33/15	Ese Yusi	BW	
31	CR 34/15	Louimack Amani	Verdict	
32	CR 35/15	Robert Arre	Verdict	
33	CR 36/15	Waks Awanda	Verdict	
34	CR 37/15	Enos Aware	Verdict	
35	CR 38/15	Nune Be	BW	
36	CR 39/15	Yawenda Benson	Verdict	
37	CR 40/15	Teuwi Biao	Verdict	
38	CR 41/15	Pouro Binaru	Verdict	
39	CR 42/15	Peter Binaru	BW	
40	CR 43/15	Oua Binaru	Verdict	
41	CR 44/15	Onirio Boma	Verdict	
42	CR 45/15	Enoch Buara	Verdict	
43	CR 46/15	Robert Buringa	Verdict	
44	CR 47/15	Mopi Dagano	BW	
45	CR 48/15	Ruben Daombon	Verdict	
46	CR 49/15	Steven David	Verdict	
47	CR 50/15	Max David	Verdict	
48	CR 51/15	Tongo Dawa	BW	
49	CR 52/15	Winson Dos	Verdict	
50	CR 53/15	Wanix Dowena	Verdict	
51	CR 54/15	Akinu Dowena	Verdict	
52	CR 55/15	Itira Dowonda	BW	
53	CR 56/15	Pope Duma	Verdict	
54	CR 57/15	Simon Duma	Verdict	
55	CR 58/15	Imex Gaosa	Verdict	
56	CR 59/15	Kirori Gerungo	Verdict	
57	CR 60/15	Ops Ginu	Verdict	
58	CR 61/15	Yuo Gom	Verdict	
59	CR 62/15	Iti Gosu	Discharged	
60	CR 63/15	Tuki Gowi	Verdict	
61	CR 64/15	Masi Gunungga	BW	
62	CR 65/15	Piu Gwaro	Verdict	
63	CR 66/15	Isaac Huyango	Verdict	
64	CR 67/15	Eddie Ingema	Verdict	
65	CR 68/15	Tau Ingema	BW	
66	CR 69/15	Louie Iroa	Verdict	
67	CR 70/15	Nick Isahara	Verdict	
68	CR 71/15	Sirre Itowo	Verdict	
69	CR 72/15	Martin John	Verdict	
70	CR 73/15	Johnson Kafemo	Verdict	
71	CR 74/15	Wesley Kaisom	Verdict	
72	CR 75/15	Doni Kakiwi	Verdict	
73	CR 76/15	Suwe Kamere	BW	
74	CR 77/15	Isono Kau	Verdict	
75	CR 78/15	Menango Kengke	Verdict	
76	CR 79/15	Sony Keo 	BW	
77	CR 80/15	Tanuwama Kepa	Verdict	
78	CR 81/15	Mera Kiki	Verdict	
79	CR 82/15	Amene Keto	BW	
80	CR 83/15	Koki Kewa	Verdict	
81	CR 84/15	Noguro Kipe	BW	
82	CR 85/15	Yamanga Kirei	Verdict	
83	CR 86/15	Marcus Kisanga	Verdict	
84	CR 87/15	Yuwoi Koki	Verdict	
85	CR 88/15	Kande Koki	Verdict	
86	CR 89/15	Petrus Koma	Verdict	
87	CR 90/15	Siranggo Kopi	BW	
88	CR 91/15	Maxson Kopore	Verdict	
89	CR 92/15	Donsi Kumbi	Verdict	
90	CR 93/15	Pue Kupi	Verdict	
91	CR 94/15	Francis Kuranangge	BW	
92	CR 95/15	Tome Kurong	BW	
93	CR 96/15	Denmark Kuts	Verdict	
94	CR 97/15	Paku Loiyoi	Verdict	
95	CR 98/15	Simon Manewo	Verdict	
96	CR 99/15	Katero Mani	BW	
97	CR 100/15	Koki Mari	Verdict	
98	CR 101/15	Gibson Masili	Verdict	
99	CR 102/15	Eppon Mata	Verdict	
100	CR 103/15	Sai Meku	Verdict	
101	CR 104/15	Okapa Mimo	Verdict	
102	CR 105/15	Laki Miraka 	Verdict	
103	CR 106/15	Bakun Moa	Verdict	
104	CR 107/15	Jack Mopi	Verdict	
105	CR 108/15	Thompson Mungo	Verdict	
106	CR 109/15	Wiko Muru	Verdict	
107	CR 110/15	Joe Nick	Verdict	
108	CR 111/15	Mela Noko	BW	
109	CR 112/15	Yamaks Nonopa	Verdict	
110	CR 113/15	James Onirio	Verdict	
111	CR 114/15	Tipe Ousi	Verdict	
112	CR 115/15	Paul Perau	Verdict	
113	CR 116/15	Louie Peter	Verdict	
114	CR 117/15	Lucas Petrus 	Verdict	
115	CR 118/15	Kundoke Piye 	Verdict	
116	CR 119/15	Kaminde Piyomi	Verdict	
117	CR 120/15	Ndousi Poruru	Verdict	
118	CR 121/15	Jeffery Bonny	Verdict	
119	CR 122/15	Momorike Sepe	Verdict	
120	CR 123/15	Jacob Sisi	Verdict	
121	CR 612/15	Timity Joe	Verdict	
122	CR 1044/15	Max Uraia	Verdict	

APPENDIX B:  NAMES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER OF 97 ACCUSED 
No	Accused 	Case No	
1.		Akepe Tuko	CR 17/15	
2.		Akinu Dowena	CR 54/15	
3.		Bakun Moa	CR 106/15	
4.		Denmark Kuts	CR 96/15	
5.		Doni Kakiwi	CR 75/15	
6.		Donsi Kumbi	CR 92/15	
7.		Eddie Ingema	CR 67/15	
8.		Enoch Buara	CR 45/15	
9.		Enos Aware	CR 37/15	
10.		Eppon Mata	CR 102/15	
11.		Gibson Masili	CR 101/15	
12.		Imex Gaosa	CR 58/15	
13.		Isaac Huyango	CR 66/15	
14.		Isono Kau	CR 77/15	
15.		Jack Mopi	CR 107/15	
16.		Jack Tuko	CR 18/15	
17.		Jacob Sisi	CR 123/15	
18.		James Onirio	CR 113/15	
19.		Jeffery Bonny	CR 121/15	
20.		Joe Nick	CR 110/15	
21.		John Tuli	CR 19/15	
22.		John Waku	CR 27/15	
23.		Johnson Kafemo	CR 73/15	
24.		Kaminde Piyomi	CR 119/15	
25.		Kande Koki	CR 88/15	
26.		Keao Tira	CR 10/15	
27.		Kinde Yamese	CR 31/15	
28.		Kiriso Wake	CR 25/15	
29.		Kirori Gerungo	CR 59/15	
30.		Koki Kewa	CR 83/15	
31.		Koki Mari	CR 100/15	
32.		Koni Tesio	CR 8/15	
33.		Kundoke Piye 	CR 118/15	
34.		Laki Miraka 	CR 105/15	
35.		Louie Iroa	CR 69/15	
36.		Louie Peter	CR 116/15	
37.		Louimack Amani	CR 34/15	
38.		Lucas Petrus 	CR 117/15	
39.		Marcus Kisanga	CR 86/15	
40.		Martin John	CR 72/15	
41.		Martin Usi	CR 21/15	
42.		Max David	CR 50/15	
43.		Max Uraia	CR 1044/15	
44.		Max Uto 	CR 22/15	
45.		Maxson Kopore	CR 91/15	
46.		Menango Kengke	CR 78/15	
47.		Mera Kiki	CR 81/15	
48.		Momorike Sepe	CR 122/15	
49.		Nasa Toko	CR 13/15	
50.		Nasake Wiko	CR 29/15	
51.		Ndousi Poruru	CR 120/15	
52.		Nick Isahara	CR 70/15	
53.		Noguro Sua	CR 5/15	
54.		Okapa Mimo	CR 104/15	
55.		Oni Titukun	CR 11/15	
56.		Onirio Boma	CR 44/15	
57.		Ops Ginu	CR 60/15	
58.		Oscar Usi	CR 20/15	
59.		Oua Binaru	CR 43/15	
60.		Paku Loiyoi	CR 97/15	
61.		Paul Perau	CR 115/15	
62.		Petrus Koma	CR 89/15	
63.		Piu Gwaro	CR 65/15	
64.		Pope Duma	CR 56/15	
65.		Pouro Binaru	CR 41/15	
66.		Pue Kupi	CR 93/15	
67.		Robert Arre	CR 35/15	
68.		Robert Buringa	CR 46/15	
69.		Ruben Daombon	CR 48/15	
70.		Sai Meku	CR 103/15	
71.		Sepi Yamese	CR 30/15	
72.		Simeon Towera	CR 16/15	
73.		Simon Duma	CR 57/15	
74.		Simon Manewo	CR 98/15	
75.		Sirre Itowo	CR 71/15	
76.		Steven David	CR 49/15	
77.		Tai Wake	CR 26/15	
78.		Tamsi Vio	CR 24/15	
79.		Tanuwama Kepa	CR 80/15	
80.		Teuwi Biao	CR 40/15	
81.		Thompson Mungo	CR 108/15	
82.		Timity Joe	CR 612/15	
83.		Tipe Ousi	CR 114/15	
84.		Tonny Yuro	CR 32/15	
85.		Tuki Gowi	CR 63/15	
86.		Uma Toukini	CR 15/15	
87.		Waks Awanda	CR 36/15	
88.		Wambuna Tosi	CR 14/15	
89.		Wandoko Somanda	CR 4/15	
90.		Wanix Dowena	CR 53/15	
91.		Wesley Kaisom	CR 74/15	
92.		Winson Dos	CR 52/15	
93.		Yamaks Nonopa	CR 112/15	
94.		Yamanga Kirei	CR 85/15	
95.		Yawenda Benson	CR 39/15	
96.		Yuwoi Koki	CR 87/15	
97.		Yuo Gom	CR 61/15