N11375

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 727 OF 2024

THE STATE

v

NIGEL MINEMBO (No 2)

Madang: Narokobi J
2025: 15 and 17 July

CRIMINAL LAW–  Sentence  – Offence of wilful murder – appropriate sentence.

CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1974 – Section 19, “Construction of Code as to Punishment” – Relevant Considerations on Objective of Sentencing

Facts

The Prisoner comes from Kumnong, Giri of Bogia District in Madang. He was convicted of one count of wilful murder, contrary to s 299(1) of the Criminal Code (see The State v Kazang (2025) (No 1) N11238). The Prisoner killed the deceased who was a reputed sorcerer. The deceased was stabbed with a knife, during a village mediation conducted to resolve the sorcery related accusations.

Held

(1)	Applying s 19 of the Criminal Code, and Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38, sorcery related violence, should attract a deterrent sentence, to address societal concerns about the rise in this phenomenon.

(2)	The Prisoner being a youthful offender, is sentenced to 22 years in hard labour, with time spent in custody deducted and an additional eight (8) years suspended on account of his pre-sentence report.

(3)	The sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence in CR 731 of 2024, considering that it arose from a single chain of events, in that the overall sentence giving paramount consideration to the dispensation of justice under s 158 of the Constitution. The overall sentence may have a crushing effect on the offender and impede any likelihood of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Cases Cited
Acting Public Prosecutor v Aumane, Boku, Wapulae, and Kone [1980] PNGLR 510
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789
Public Prosecutor v Hale (1998) SC564
Public Prosecutor v Kerua & Ors [1985] PNGLR 85
Sibona v State (2024) SC2675
The State v Junior Felix Ivangai (2019) N8207
The State v Latuve (2013) N5406
The State v Tawa (No 2) (2025) N11195
The State v Tokarep (2025) (No 1) N11238
The State v Yondick Ambangun (2021) N9543 

Legislation Cited
Constitution
Criminal Code Act 1974
Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1991

Counsel
Mr J Kasse, for the State
Mr C Momoi for the Prisoner

DECISION ON SENTENCE

17 July 2025

1.	NAROKOBI J: The Prisoner, Nigel Minembo comes from Kumnong, Giri, of Bogia in Madang Province. He was convicted of one count of wilful murder under s 299(1) of the Criminal Code (See The State v Kazang (2025) (No 1) N11243).

2.	Nigel Minembo’s other co-accused were acquitted. Nigel Minembo being now found guilty, returns to court for his sentence. Antecedent report tendered by the State alleges no prior conviction. I understand that this is because the related charge, which I will refer to in due course, was committed around the same time.

3.	This is the background of the offence. The Prisoner and the co-accused attended a mediation ceremony in the village. The mediation was conducted to establish whether deaths were caused by sorcery from an alleged sorcerer. During the mediation the Prisoner attacked the alleged sorcerer, and also stabbed another person. The sorcerer did not die from the attack, but the person close to him, died. He pleaded guilty to the grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to 5 years before another court. I now deal with his sentence of wilful murder after finding him guilty of wilful murder under s 299(1) of the Criminal Code. 

4.	From the pre-sentence report, the Prisoner is 25 years old. He was attending Secondary School in Year 11 when he committed the offence. He lives with his parents. His family has paid K5,000.00 to the family of the deceased and there will be further payments done in September 2025. The PSR does not favour release of the Prisoner for probation supervision.

5.	I apply s 19 of the Criminal Code and the principles of Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38, to determine an appropriate sentence in this case. In particular, I address the issue of whether the sentence issued in the proceeding should run concurrently with the grievous bodily harm charge in CR 731 of 2024. Both offences occurred in quick succession but had to be dealt with separately, to ensure the Prisoner was entitled to a fair trial. Applying the principles in Public Prosecutor v Kerua & Ors [1985] PNGLR 85 (applied in Sibona v State (2024) SC2675), I determine that the offences were committed in a single transaction, although the victims were different. My overriding duty is to give paramount consideration to the dispensation of justice – to the offender, the victim and the community, when interpreting and applying the law under s 158 of the Constitution. The overall sentence may have a crushing effect on the offender and impede any likelihood of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

6.	The sentencing objective I should apply having regard to Acting Public Prosecutor v Aumane, Boku, Wapulae, and Kone [1980] PNGLR 510 must be a deterrent one.  Sorcery related violence should attract a deterrent sentence, to address societal concerns about the rise in violence in the country related to sorcery. The slight difference here is that the victim was not an alleged sorcerer, but a relative of him, who came to his aid when the Prisoner attacked the alleged sorcerer, and the Prisoner responded by stabbing him in the chest after wounding the alleged sorcerer.

7.	After considering the allocatus, the mitigating and aggravating factors, including the remorse of the prisoner, and the pre-sentence report, I am persuaded that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. Use of an offensive weapon on a vulnerable part of the body in circumstances that are sorcery related warrants a sentence in the range of 20 to 30 years. I say this, bearing in mind the sentencing tariffs for wilful murder cases in Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789. The maximum of life sentence is not warranted on the basis that this not the worst instance of this offence (Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653). 

8.	I am greatly assisted by Counsels in my sentence from the comparable cases they have submitted for wilful murder cases, with the use of dangerous weapon to a vulnerable part of the body. The sentence range from 20 years in hard labour in The State v Latuve (2013) N5406 and The State v Junior Felix Ivangai (2019) N8207 to 25 years less time spent in custody in The State v Yondick Ambangun (2021) N9543. In the last case the Prisoner speared the deceased with a spear gun on his left arm pit.

9.	The Prisoner submitted that a sentence of 22 years in hard labour less time spent in custody is appropriate when considering the unique circumstances of this case, and the comparable cases. Also relying on these case authorities, the State says a sentence starting from 25 years is warranted to impose deterrence upon society in general and agrees for a term to be suspended as compensation has been paid. 

10.	I am inclined to accept the Prisoner’s submission, only for the reason that he is a youthful offender and the court should hold on to the prospect of rehabilitation. Balanced against the need for deterrence, the starting point should be 22 years. Given his age, this is a deterrent sentence as he will spend the best part of his youth in prison. For the reason I stated above, this sentence will be served concurrently with his sentence in CR 731 of 2024. Five years will be deducted for having paid the maximum amount for compensation under the Criminal Law (Compensation) Act 1991. Again, given that he is a youthful offender, a further three years will be deducted if a reconciliation ceremony takes places within six months from today, and that the Probation Office in Madang confirms its occurrence with a report to the National Court, Madang.

11.	The additional suspension of sentence again, is because the Prisoner and the victim all come from the same area, and whether they like it or not they must all live together. Encouraging reconciliation as the family of the Prisoner indicate in the pre-sentence report will improve the safety and wellbeing of the whole community. I make reference to the case of Public Prosecutor v Hale (1998) SC564 when making this point that the type of punishment must engage the community.  

12.	The formal sentence of the Prisoner is as follows:

1.	Prisoner is sentenced to 22 years in hard labour.
2.	Time spent in custody is deducted.
3.	An additional five (5) years is deducted under the Criminal Law (Compensation Act) 1991for having paid compensation of K5,000.00.
4.	A further three years will be deducted if a reconciliation ceremony occurs within six months from today, and that the Probation Office confirms its occurrence with a report to the National Court, Madang.
5.	The sentence is to be served concurrently with the Prisoner’s sentence in CR 731 of 2024.   
6.	Balance of the term to be spent in hard labour.

13.	Sentence and orders accordingly. 

Public Solicitor: Lawyers for the Prisoner
Acting Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the State