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

State v Sampre [2023] PGNC 491; N10616 (12 December 2023)

N10616

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 592 OF 2023

THE STATE

V

JOSEPHINE SAMPRE

Lae: Kangwia J.

2023: 17^th October & 12^th December

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – convicted as principal offender for manslaughter – peculiar case of husband killing boyfriend – role of prisoner as planner and facilitator of conducive environment for unlawful killing – seriousness of offence - considerations of blameworthiness and public deterrence – former husband sentenced to 25 years - sentence for prisoner be higher than half received by her former husband for her role in the killing.

Cases Cited
Manu Kovi v State (2005) SC789
William Bruce Tradew v State [1986] PNGLR 91
State v Tony (2017) N6774
Goli Golu v the State [1979] PNGLR 653
Avia Aihi v State (No. 3) [1982] PNGLR 92

Counsel:
P. Matana, for the State
S. Ngibe, for the Defence

12^th December 2023

1. KANGWIA J: JOSEPHINE SAMPRE appears as a prisoner for sentence. The Court convicted her on her guilty plea to one count of manslaughter as a principal offender Pursuant to s 302 and & 7 (1) (c) of the Criminal Code.

2. The facts to which the prisoner pleaded guilty are that the prisoner aided her husband to kill her boyfriend when she called her boyfriend to go meet her while she was with her husband thereby allowing the husband to inflict multiple stab wounds to the deceased.

3. She is believed to be 31 years old married and has 2 children from her first marriage. She has no children from her relationship with the deceased. She is unemployed.

4. On her allocutus the prisoner said; I say sorry to God for breaking the fifth commandment. I say sorry to everyone including the deceased family and her own family for wasting everyone’s time. I ask for leniency with a good behaviour bond. If a custodial sentence is issued, then I be sent to serve time in Boram where my family can visit me. In Lae I have no family member to visit me as they are all in Wewak.”

5. On her behalf Mr Ngibe while relying on the case of Manu Kovi v State (2005) N789 sought a sentence of 8 to 13 with deductions and suspensions after inviting the Court to a list of comparable decisions and specifically in line with the case of William Bruce Tradew v State (1986) PNGLR 91 and State v Tony (2017) N 6774 for a suspended sentence.

6. It was submitted that the prisoner expressed remorse by apologising to her family and the family of the deceased and to her wider community and asked for leniency. She was a first-time offender and co-operated with police. There was no intention to kill.

7. On behalf of the State Ms Matana while also relying on the Manu Kovi guidelines and other comparable sentences sought a sentence of 10 years and upwards. The aggravating factors were that a life was lost and the offence is prevalent in the community where dangerous weapons are being used. It was submitted that there was pre-planning involved and a complete disregard for human life. The sanctity of life must be preserved with the type of sentence imposed.

8. The probation reports make no suggestions and left it to the discretion of the Court. It however referred to the prisoner’s expression of remorse as a factor to be considered in view of the seriousness of the offence.

9. The prisoner faces a maximum prescribed penalty of life imprisonment for Manslaughter.

10. Counsels have adequately addressed the law on sentencing for manslaughter and needs no further deliberation.

11. However, it is settled law that the maximum prescribed penalty is usually reserved for the worst category of each offence. (See Goli Golu v the State (1979) PNGLR 653; Avia Aihi v State (No. 3) (1982) PNGLR 92.)

12. Sentencing is also an exercise of discretion pursuant to s 19 of the Criminal Code.

13. As to what an appropriate sentence should be for the present case, both counsels have greatly assisted by inviting the Court to comparable sentences for prior manslaughter cases in this country. From a perusal of the cases referred to by counsels most if not all the sentences reflected the circumstances surrounding each case of manslaughter, but none comes near to the circumstances of the unlawful killing in the present case.

14. The circumstance of the present case is what I would term a peculiar case where the prisoner was charged and convicted as a principal offender. Peculiar in the sense she was the dominant facilitator of the conducive environment for her husband to cause the death of her boyfriend. The prisoner called the shots from her mobile phone minded to retain the appealing partner and discard the not so appealing one. The prisoner failed to seek assistance from the available avenues to sort out any problem she had with her two partners. A rare case scenario from the usual type of cases arising from soured marital relationships where a victim is caught in the act.

15. The further peculiarity in the present case is that this is the first time a female has been charged and convicted as principal offender in a homicide which has been completely lacking in matters where males in similar positions as the prisoner have been untouched by the long arm of the law. Females have been unceremoniously charged and convicted only on their direct involvement without a finger being pointed at their male counterparts who have caused or created, the circumstances giving rise to the commission of the homicide. The female offender faces the consequences alone while the male counterpart is out and about beating his breasts.

16. There must be a change in the attitude of police investigators to charge the male counterpart as principal offender of the offence his wife or girlfriend commits. The present incident is a case on point.

17. The police investigator, Constable Nakara Orlando has done the most proper thing to charge the prisoner as the creator of the circumstances that led to the homicide.

18. This case is a wake upcall to other investigators of similar offences to charge those who create or cause the circumstances giving rise to exist in the first place. Without the source there would be no homicide.

19. In the present case the type of behaviour employed by the prisoner calls for a sentence outside the usual trend of sentencing for those convicted as principal offenders to deter recurrence of similar types of offences.

20. To do that it is accepted that she has expressed genuine remorse and pleaded guilty early as a first-time offender. However, the aggravating factors outweighs those operating in her favour. The offence of unlawful killing is prevalent in this country. Not a week passes by without one life being snuffed out. In the present case a life was suddenly and unnecessarily lost at her behest. The prisoner unreservedly planned the outcome and is deemed a premeditated killing of the worst kind. It falls into the very serious category of unlawful killing.

21. The sanctity of life naturally calls for a retributive and deterrent sentence. Unnecessary loss of life as in the present case calls for a marginally higher sentence despite all the mitigating factors combined.

22. I deem that more than half the sentence her partner in crime received should be the appropriate starting point in all the circumstances for public deterrence and as retribution for the offender’s participation. This is also to reflect adequate blameworthiness on the unnecessary loss of a life. Any leniency based on gender should be disregarded in this instance as the gender factor fades into insignificance considering the exhaustive pre-planning employed by the prisoner. She cannot be safely deemed or treated as an innocent bystander. Likewise, a suspended sentence is not warranted in circumstances where the unnecessary loss of a life is pleading for retribution.

23. Her surviving partner is believed to have received 25 years imprisonment for his part in the same killing. In view of what has been stated earlier it is deemed that 15 years imprisonment is appropriate for the prisoner.

24. The prisoner shall be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. From the 15 years the period in custody awaiting sentence to today shall be deducted.

25. As for the prisoner’s plea for transfer to Boram the Court declines to decide. The main reason is that the power to transfer a detainee lies with the Commissioner for Correctional Services under s 96 of the Correctional Services Act. Secondly the offence was committed while the prisoner was a resident of Lae. I leave the issue of transfer in the good hands of the CIS.
______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Defence