PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2025 >> [2025] PGNC 212

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Sogoromo [2025] PGNC 212; N11340 (18 June 2025)

N11340


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


CR 240 & 241 OF 2024


THE STATE


V


JASON EMMANUEL SOGOROMO


BOMANA: MIVIRI J
12, 18 JUNE 2025


CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GBH S315 (a) & (d) CCA – Trial – Automatism – No Intent to Maim Victims – Sleep Walking Independently of the exercise of Accused – Both Victims Stabbed Attacked with knife – Undisputed Fact both Victims Attacked & Stabbed – Whether intent to Maim the Complainants – Quality not Quantity of Medical Evidence – No Tests to Attain Medical Opinion – Opinion based on History Assumptions there from – psychiatric Report Whether Reliable & Credible Evidence – Patient History obtained in an Uncontrolled Environment – History in a Home Police Barracks Not Doctors Surgery or Hospital – History Not Verified Medically – Psychiatric Evidence Balance of Probabilities not Discharged – Defence not made out.


CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GBH S315 (a) & (d) CCA – Trial – Automatism – Fifth Year Medical Student – Knowingly and Conscious consumption of Alcohol – Masked Armed with Two Knives – Jumped Adjoining Wall Attacked Stabbed Victims injuring – Incredible Evidence – No Evidence Sufficient to Establish Act independently of Mind of Accused – Voluntary Intoxication of Alcohol – Attack under self-induced Alcohol Consumption – Awareness self-consciousness hampered temporarily by Alcohol consumption – Balance not discharged no intent – Sound Mind – Intent to commit the Offence – Guilty of both Counts Indicted– Bail Refunded – Remanded for sentence.


Facts
Accused stabbed both victims who are fellow students in the common shared dormitory at night with two knives on the face and head. He intended to maim both.


Held
Victims stabbed
Intention to Maim victims.
Automatism balance not discharged on probabilities
Medical Evidence incredible
Guilty of Section 315x2
Bail Refunded
Remanded.


Cases cited
Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659
Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558
Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980
Salaiau, The State v [1994] PNGLR 388
John Jaminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318
State v Hekavo [1991] PNGLR 394; N1038


Counsel
J. Siminji & S Waka for the State
K. Watakapura for the defendant


VERDICT


  1. MIVIRI J: This is the verdict after trial of Jason Emmanuel Sogoromo who was charged with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and did cause grievous bodily harm upon one Liam Kui and Glenda Lipu pursuant to section 315 (a) and (d) of the Code.
  2. There are two fundamentals which must be delicately balanced out to arrive at a just verdict given. Firstly, the fact that both victims were brutally stabbed in their room where they should be safe and secure from harm as here. Secondly, the state of mind of the Accused at the time of the act given that he is a fifth-year medical student who can be a productive member of society with that knowledge.
  3. The facts are not disputed materially that on the 20th July 2023 between 1.00am to 2.00am, Jason Emmanuel Sogoromo the Accused attacked and stabbed Liam Kui and his girlfriend Glenda Lipu who were both asleep in the room at the University of Papua New Guinea Medical faculty. Accused jumped over the adjoining room into Liam Kui’s room with his face covered with a cloth whilst armed with two knives and a scissors in his pocket. He began stabbing Liam Kui and girlfriend Glenda Lipu with knives that he had. He stabbed Liam Kui on his right eye and his head with several knife wounds sustaining as a result. Glenda Lipu was stabbed four times on her chest. Both managed to fight back against him and managed to disarm him. Uniforce Security arrived and took the accused to Hohola Police Station where he was arrested and charged with the offence.
  4. Accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm to them when he stabbed both on their head, face and body causing grievous bodily harm contravening section 315 (a) and (d) of the Criminal Code Act. Which section is worded as follows:

“Acts Intended to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm or Prevent Apprehension. A person who, with intent–

(a) to maim, disfigure, or disable any person; or
(b) to do some grievous bodily harm to any person; or
(c) to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person,

does any of the following things is guilty of a crime:–

(d) unlawfully wounding or doing a grievous bodily harm to a person;
(e) unlawfully attempting to strike a person with a projectile;
(f) unlawfully causing an explosive substance to explode;
(g) sending or delivering an explosive substance or other dangerous or noxious thing to a person;
(h) causing any substance or thing referred to in Paragraph (g) to be taken or received by a person;
(i) puts a corrosive fluid or destructive or explosive substance in any place;
(j) unlawfully casts or throws a fluid or substance referred to in Paragraph (i) at or on a person, or otherwise applies any such fluid or substance to the person of a person.

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.


  1. I must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Jason Emmanuel Sogoromo of Tigak village, Kavieng, New Ireland Province inflicted the injuries with knives to both the victims and no other. And that he effected these as set out by the facts arraigned that I have set out above. What is now at the heart of the dispute lies in whether or not the Accused intended to inflict the injuries upon the victims knowingly appreciating the extent of his actions and set upon as he did. That is, it is his willed act consciously executed to endure the results that has now come with the extent of the injuries to both Liam Kui and Glenda Lipu. He had the intention to maim, disfigure, disable both victims. He without any excuse in law wounded both and caused grievous bodily harm.
  2. I do not find any cause to discuss the evidence having laid out that both State and Defence do not materially dispute the evidence as it unfolded on this day. And in this regard following Exhibits were marked as the evidence comprising:
  3. I find as a fact from the evidence exhibited set out above that on the 20th July 2023 between 1.00am and 2.00am both Liam Kui and Glenda Lipu were sound asleep in the room of Liam Kui University of Papua New Guinea Medical Faculty. And the room has an opening at the top where the walls extend upwards and close off. Entry into the room is by a door which was locked by both on this occasion at this hour. And the gap at the top where the wall ends upwards is sufficiently open enough for a grown human being to climb into the room. And that is what happened here. Jason Emmanuel Sogoromo climbed onto enlightened into that room occupied in sleep by the victim’s unknown of the accused entry there. That Liam Kui woke up to be confronted by the presence of the Accused who attacked and stabbed him continuously on the face and head. And followed against Glenda Lipu awaken by the shouts of her boyfriend Liam Kui. She was also stabbed on the body in the chest area as She came in defence of her boyfriend Liam Kui. Both disarmed him successfully opened the door drawing help from fellow students now drawn by the shouting from Liam Kui.
  4. These included Butina Kulifano, Jorg Nillen Jagipa, Ludwick Kane, security guards of uniforce, Amos Keto, Henry Haralu, Yafa Peter, who were subsequently drawn to the scene a volatile situation getting out of hand. The medical reports under hand of Doctor Duncan Sengiromo seal the level of injuries to both Liam Kui and Glenda Lipu. He diagnosis that Liam Kui had a fracture of the right nasal bone. He had multiple soft tissue injuries with notable injuries to the head face and chest (right and left clavicle area) attributed to the assault with the knife. In the case of Glenda Lipu, she was diagnosed of soft tissue injuries to the chest and shoulders as a result of the physical assault and the use of the knife. Notably these are serious injuries that may have drawn serious grievous effects if not professionally and medically attended to as here. In my view they fit out that whoever caused these injuries intended to maim or disfigure the victims. And that by themselves combined they were grievous in the life of the victims who were threatened. The head, face and the chests shoulder have vital body organs within. And therefore, are venerable parts of the body. I hold therefore that section 315 (a) and (d) are established beyond all reasonable doubt.
  5. It is not denied Accused authored the injuries, but he was sleepwalking, whatever that maybe. He does not refute or deny the allegations in the record of interview with police on the 21/11/23 but states that he will provide an affidavit. That is not before the court. He has testified in court on oath that he came to at the basketball court when he was stabbed and beaten by the students but saved by the Uniforce Security who took him to Hohola Police Station and to the Gerehu hospital where he was treated. He has no memory of what happened against the victims and the injuries that they sustained. He is asserting that he is not criminally responsible for the acts against the victims. What has happened occurred independently of the exercise of his will. He further asserts it is out of his character as he wants to complete his medical and surgical degree so that he can help his mother and his siblings now that the father has died. He is in his fifth year and would not commit such an offence to jeopardize. He never had the will at that time to commit the offences, nor is he responsible for the injuries that are evident from each of the victims.
  6. This is the defence he is now bringing but not on the eve when the police took him into custody or to any of the members of uniforce security when they saved him. It is therefore born out on the eve of trial. He is a fifth-year medical student an intelligent person but never had the urge nor the pulse to disclose to police at the time of the record of interview. Nor does he say anything to authorities at first hand after the offence, Uniforce Security. It means his defence of automatism is recent given. Yes, there is no evidence of motive here for the attack upon the victims by the accused. But is motive necessary to complete the elements of the crime of section 315 (a) and (d) of the Code. I think not in view of all set out above. Motive may not be clear, but the fact remains undisputed that he caused the attack and the injuries with those knives to the victims. And they are life threatening injuries, and he did what he did.
  7. But does he have a defence under section 24 of the Criminal Code which is in the following terms:

“24. INTENTION: MOTIVE.

(1) Subject to the express provisions of this Code relating to negligent acts and omissions, a person is not criminally responsible for–

(a) an act or omission that occurs independently of the exercise of his will; or
(b) an event that occurs by accident.

(2) Unless the intention to cause a particular result is expressly declared to be an element of the offence constituted, in whole or part, by an act or omission, the result intended to be caused by an act or omission is immaterial.

(3) Unless otherwise expressly declared, the motive by which a person is induced–

(a) to do or omit to do an act; or
(b) to form an intention,

is immaterial so far as regards criminal responsibility.”


  1. And in this relevant and pertinent are the following provisions of the Criminal Code:

27. PRESUMPTION OF SANITY.

Until the contrary is proved every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time that comes in question.

28. INSANITY.

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity–

(a) to understand what he is doing; or
(b) to control his actions; or
(c) to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

(2) A person–

(a) whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters; and
(b) who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Subsection (1),

is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist.

29. INTOXICATION.

(1) Section 28 applies to the case of a person whose mind is disordered by intoxication or stupefaction caused, without intention on his part, by drugs or intoxicating liquor or by any other means.

(2) Section 28 does not apply to the case of a person who has intentionally caused himself to become intoxicated or stupefied.

(3) When an intention to cause a specific result is an element of an offence, intoxication, whether complete or partial, and whether intentional or unintentional, may be regarded for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an intention in fact existed.


  1. In my view the Accused by the provisions of section 27 is of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time that comes in question. His mind from the evidence he admitted himself is that of voluntary consumption of whisky red mixed with a friend. He for all intent and purposes had a mind capable of differentiating between what was sound and unsound given his facts and the circumstances pertaining to the attack. Plainly put the attack and stabbing of the victims was his doing. Somebody did not injure Liam Kui and Glenda Lipu in the way they sustained the injuries on their face and body with knives in the possession of the accused delivered as they described. Which shifts the burden on the balance of probabilities to him to discharge that he was not of sound mind at the time of the commission of the offence. And therefore, he had no intension to cause the injuries giving effect to section 315 (a) and (d) of the Code. From the evidence that has come out he does not dispute, nor does he refute this section that he was of sound mind. But that he did not intend what was the outcome. It was not his doing because it was done in his condition when he was sleepwalking.
  2. What then is “sleepwalking.” Two medical doctors were called both holding and practising psychiatrist medicine. One Doctor Ludwig Nanawar a consultant psychiatric, presently at the time of evidence the CEO of the Laloki Mental hospital. For a doctor of that standing he assumed and concluded without any test and observation either in a hospital or surgery that the patient was indeed what he was suffering from sleepwalking and automatism. He was given the history of the patient/accused in that condition by the accused supported by the mother, Damarius Penias a nursing sister employed at the Port Moresby General Hospital. Whose husband father of the Accused was himself a renown doctor practising medicine for many years before his eventual death. Hence this was a case of a medical family fluent in medicine and practise. Their lives revolving around medicine and practise thereof. So, any abnormalities in health of one of them would have drawn almost immediate attention to secure medical treatment and care of one’s health and resolution thereof. It is undisputed here that the sleepwalking of the accused was not attended to medically. But negligently left hoping that it would wither in the background. It was left as it were to go away of its own accord. The mother witnessed the sleeping walking informed the accused but not action was taken to seek independent medical diagnosis and treatment there and then. He was a fifth-year medical student. A final year student soon to be a doctor going about with engagement on site on the job as it were going to Balimo before the allegation.
  3. This conduct is further evident and at the snap of a finger in the attaining securing of a psychiatrist Doctor Ludwig Nanamar to Red Sea Police Barracks at Bomana where the accused was taken to after being treated at the Gerehu General Hospital. He had medical treatment and professional care almost immediately if he drew the matter. But he chose to leave it aside hoping it will go away. And this medical know how and well being is evident in the two doctors who have come to give evidence in his favour. The second Doctor Kura David Ravu practises psychiatric medicine at the Port Moresby General Hospital. She saw the accused for reactive depression. Which was the aftermath of the crime and effects to his studies eventually career as a doctor later. There was no carry on from the previous doctor. No continuity in the medical evidence that came out explaining what was sleepwalking. Both doctors did not give evidence forming medical basis established by independent verification in medicine to define what was sleepwalking medically rampant and existing in the condition of the Accused on the night of the allegation.
  4. What has been described as sleepwalking by the evidence of the accused, the mother, and Vanuga Vanuga yet another fifth year medical student close friend of the accused does not have medical basis with symptoms evidencing verified by medical basis as existing in the accused giving rise to the state of his mind, and therefore in law showing that he did not have the intention nor was him there conscious of what he was doing leading to the injuries sustained by the victims. There must be continuity and a ring of truth spiralling from all the evidence put together in favour of the accused. All build up a solid foundation unwavering that he was not mental there when he injured the victims. The medical evidence of Doctors Ludwig Nanawar and Kura David Ravu do not go hand in hand with each other. The latter says the patient should have been seen out in a controlled environment, hospital or surgery of a doctor. And more consultations would be needed to firm out what he was suffering from. His history also did not evidence fits so he was not epileptic. And that Port Moresby General hospital did not have equipment necessary to firm out the matters raised in the history given by the mother and the patient. It means that the opinion of the former did not have the material basis in medicine to firm out the history given by the patient accused and the mother. Both have an interest in the favourable outcome of the proceedings facing the son accused. There must and ought to be independent evidence verifying the material facts relied: Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659 (11 December 2017). It was lacking so did not advance the cause of the accused further to create any doubts in the State case.
  5. Doctor Ludwig Nanawar psychiatric consultant now CEO of Laloki Mental hospital with a master’s degree was prepared to write up a medical report of a patient he had seen one of only in a house at Red Sea Police Barracks Bomana without any tests and observation in to firm out the medical and psychiatric condition, here the accused. In my view having observed his demeanour and credibility in court, I hold that he is a very unimpressive and incredible as a doctor and a witness. He was a private consulting doctor yet did not charge the patient here. He knew the father of the accused also a very well-known doctor. And the mother a nursing sister had secured his services just like that without any payment made for services rendered. This was medical evidence that a court of law would not rely on nor stand on to make a determination. The complaint the history of the patient was not backed up by medical testing and conclusion independently verified to stand. This was evidenced by the way he operated to secure his opinion. He simply assumed it from the history that was given. When there is no medical basis established to raise the credibility of that evidence. Medicine is a school psychiatric and both are intertwined so here basis in that school must demarcate between gossip and innuendo. It begs whether the witness is indeed a doctor schooled in that field. The quantity of his evidence speaks of a very poor standard of work. Quality is based on school of medicine not on assumptions by history. The aggregate leaves only one conclusion and that is, I reject his evidence outright as having no basis in law to hold onto in favour of the case of the accused: Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558 (7 July 1998); Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980 (8 July 2009).
  6. Because Doctor Kura David Ravu confirmed that Codeine is an opiate and prodrug of morphine mainly used to treat pain. It is a prescribed drug and would not be taken without this fact. “It is also commonly used as a recreational drug. Naturally it is found in the sap of the opium poppy Papaver somniferum. It is typically used to treat mild to moderate degrees of pain. Greater benefit may combine with paracetamol. It is generally taken by mouth. It typically starts working after half an hour, with maximum effect at two hours. Its effects last for about four to six hours. Codeine exhibits abuse potential similar to other opioid medications including risk of addiction and overdose. Common side effects include nausea, vomiting, constipation, itchiness, light-headedness drowsiness. Serious effects may include breathing difficulties and addiction. Codeine works following being broken down by the liver into morphine; how quickly this occurs depends on a person's genetics, Wikipedia free encyclopedia.
  7. Accused has admitted on oath in court that he took Codeine to relieve depression and took alcohol, ready mix whisky immediately before going to sleep on that night. If it has common side effects light-headedness drowsiness, what is there then to prevent disorientation of one’s surroundings effectively distort awareness of one’s surroundings? The effects of both drugs combined have not been ruled out in favour of Accused by both Doctors Ludwig Nanawar and David Ravu. In any case he took both voluntarily of his own free will. The effects are well known to him a fifth-year medical student. And which effect has been confirmed by Doctor Kura David Ravu. So, it is therefore in that respects affirming that he was not acting independently of his will. What happened is not in the exercise of intent on his part to commit the offences. They were automated. He is responsible for putting himself by the self and voluntary induced consumption of both drugs into a state of mind where he was not able to control himself in the way it came out injuring the victims both with the knives. This is evident in the way he has concealed his face masked leaving only his eyes exposed, arming himself with the knives and climbing over the wall and committing the offence against the victims. His analysis would fall square with Salaiau, The State v [1994] PNGLR 388.
  8. Its evidence knowledge and intent to conceal identity because they were living together there for three months according to the evidence of the accused after he came back from Balimo. It is overt action in the hands of the accused with blood evidenced. To conceal identity is knowledge that there are consequences that will follow if the illegal unlawful act is committed. A crime is committed here. That there are consequences that will flow because of that fact. Here is consciousness of his behaviour not being in accordance with law. He seeks to erase distort identity, with a cloth over the face. That is awareness of the surrounding that the victims are known and will in that capacity identify him having lived there with him according to his own evidence for three months. I do not believe the accused has told the truth. He has tried to use his medical know how to build a case of automatism that has crumbled because of the reasons I set out above. These are really lies that do not have any place in a court of law in favour of the accused. What they do is strengthened the State case, which is the only credible version worthy of belief: John Jaminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318. I reject the evidence of the accused for these reasons and accept the state evidence.
  9. I find as a fact that the accused was not sleepwalking nor was, he suffering from automatism. The evidence is not likened to State v Hekavo [1991] PNGLR 394, so that the defence of the acts happening independently of his mind is made out. Here, he had voluntarily consumed alcohol whilst also taking Codeine by his own admission. The effect of both drugs was to put him in that state of mind where he was not aware or conscious of what he was doing. Where he committed the assaults with the knives inflicting the grievous injuries upon both victims. He put himself in that position so all along he was of sound mind and was aware of what he did. He covered his face to conceal his identity. He was known to the victims over the three months they lived together there, hence the attempt to conceal his identity. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had the intent to commit the offence. The element of intent is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt. I find and return a verdict of guilty on count 1 that he on the 20th July 2023 at the University of Papua New Guinea Medical Faculty Campus 3 mile with intent to maim unlawfully wounded Liam Kui contrary to section 315 (a) and (d) of the Criminal Code.
  10. Further I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he on the 20th July 2023 at the University of Papua New Guinea Medical Faculty Campus 3 mile with intent to maim unlawfully wounded Glenda Lipu contrary to section 315 (a) and (d) of the Criminal Code. I return a guilty verdict on count 2 of the Indictment dated the 12th June 2025.
  11. I order that his bail money will be refunded forthwith, he will be remanded to await his sentence. A remand warrant will be issued accordingly.

Ordered Accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2025/212.html