N11393

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 240 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

JASON EMMANUEL SOGOROMO

Bomana : Miviri J
2025	   : 02nd July

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – GBH S315 (a) & (d) CCA – Trial – Fifth Year Medical Student – Knowingly and Conscious consumption of Alcohol – Masked Armed with Two Knives – Jumped Adjoining Wall Attacked Stabbed Victims injuring – Safety Security of Home – Vicious Attack – Voluntary Intoxication of Alcohol – Attack under self-induced Alcohol Consumption – First Offender – Strong deterrent Sentence – Cumulative Sentence – Totality Principle – 6 years’ Imprisonment IHL first Count – 6 years IHL Second Count – 12 years IHL – 2 years deducted on Totality – 10 years IHL.

Facts
Accused stabbed both victims’ 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.
Safety Security of the Home.
Prevalent Offence
Cumulative Sentence
First Count 6 years IHL.
Second Count 6 years IHL.
12 years IHL.
Reduced on Totality to 10 years IHL.

Cases: 
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 (14 December 1979). 
Gimble v The State [1988] PGSC 15; [1988-89] PNGLR 271 (27 July 1989).
Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew [1986] PGSC 10; [1986] PNGLR 91 (2 April 1986).
Bomal v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2020] PGSC 115; SC2025 (2 November 2020).
State v Tasion [2013] PGNC 176; N5393 (23 August 2013).
State v Pendin [2012] PGNC 292; N4541 (26 March 2012).
State v Aret [2015] PGNC 202; N6103 (12 October 2015).
State v Makapu [2017] PGNC 118; N6761 (19 May 2017).
State v Lombei [2017] PGNC 280; N6995 (10 October 2017).
Kerua and Kerua, Public Prosecutor v [1985] PGSC 8; [1985] PNGLR 85 (1 April 1985).
State v Idab [2001] PGNC 39; N2172 (17 December 2001).
State v Naiwa [2004] PGNC 58; N2710 (22 June 2004).
State v Pinda [2012] PGNC 291; N4872 (21 February 2012).
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38 (2 March 1994).
Kumbamong v The State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017 (29 September 2008).
State v Frank [2021] PGNC 323; N8981 (19 July 2021).

Counsel:
J. Siminji, & S Waka, for the State
K. Watakapura, for the Defendant

SENTENCE

03rd  July 2025. 

1.	MIVIRI J: This is the sentence after trial of Jason Emmanuel Sogoromo who was convicted after trial 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. I found him guilty of both counts pursuant and now consider what sentence is appropriate given in each case.

2.	Sentence was adjourned to today for submission by counsel after receipt of a presentence report that was ordered. I now have that benefit for the consideration of this sentence upon the prisoner. I have also been assisted by the submission of both counsel in the matter. Notably this is a very serious offence because of the facts setting out that seriousness. Both sides agree time in jail must be accorded but not to the extent of being disproportionate to the gravity of the crime. The sentence will draw from its fact’s circumstances.

3.	It is undisputed and established upon the balance required that on the 20th July 2023 between 1.00am to 2.00am, Jason Emmanuel Sogoromo the prisoner 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. Prisoner 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.	He 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.
5.	The maximum penalty due the prisoner for the offence is life imprisonment. But he will not secure because his case is not the worst case of grievous bodily harm with intent, Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 (14 December 1979). I do not classify his case as the worst case and therefore warranting the maximum due under that law. But a determinate time is in view given that he is a first offender, convicted after trial, aged 29 years old aspiring to be a doctor, at the time of the offence doing his fifth year. His defector partner has left him with a five-year old daughter. She no longer lives with him. She is resident in Lae with another person. 

6.	He has educational background that shows excellence in the studies leading up sustaining a place at the University of Papua New Guinea Medical School. He was a student resident at the residential rooms allocated at the school. He grew up with medicine because the father was himself a renown doctor having attained himself a master’s degree relating from overseas university where the prisoner went to school in early primary school, and where the Father worked as a doctor. The younger sister is herself a doctor starting out after graduation. And the other two younger siblings are also very intelligent deduced from the excellent presentence report. The mother has been diagnosed with cancer report given by the obstetrics and gynaecology wing of the Port Moresby General Hospital. She is herself a nursing officer with that hospital. So, a family of medicine and medical professionals. It is an offence out of character depicted also by their standing as a family and from the community they live at Tuna Bay, committee leader, Roy Seth Chairman law and Order Magistrate there. He describes the prisoner as law abiding one day becoming a leader because of the qualities he displays there.

7.	This is a 29-year-old first-time offender originally from Saure village, Wewak, East Sepik Province where the father hails from. He attacked out from the room that he shared within that dormitory into another room within where the two victims, female who was in that room with the male when attacked. No reason nor motive has been disclosed for the attack in that manner. It is a calculated attack because having observed the photographs taken of the immediate scene it is enclosed with access by a door locked from the inside. There is a gap wide enough for a human being to climb into the room and which was the case here. Not only that but the prisoner had his face covered with a cloth so that his face was not easily recognized hiding his identity. He was armed with two knives and a scissors in his pocket when he was apprehended. This is a conscious and calculated attack on unsuspecting victims.

8.	The law must protect all persons in their homes and dwellings whether in rooms as here, or in homes, Gimble v The State [1988] PGSC 15; [1988-89] PNGLR 271 (27 July 1989). Because the home whether as a room here is where humans rest and live. It should never be the centre of insecurity and prone to attacks at the whim of another within or without. Because here 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. These victims were asleep and did not expect that they will be attacked in their beds as they slept. And the attack particulars set out in the judgement on verdict show viciousness and determination to inflict. He was not content with one victim but continued with that same vigour and determination upon the second victim. His intentions are manifested by his concealing his identity covering his face with a piece of cloth and arming himself with two knives and a scissors in his pocket.

9.	The facts of the attack are very serious and grievous. I found as a fact from the evidence exhibited 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 his 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. 

10.	The offence is aggravated by the learning and school of the prisoner a fifth-year medical student who primarily save life’s He does not take life’s and inflict serious grievous injuries as here. It would seriously go against the Hippocratic oath binding him to uphold and preserve life. Further voluntary intoxication is not itself an excuse to do what he did here. These are facts that aggravate and weigh against any leniency to be exercised in the sentence due him. I am conscious of the fact that the victims have rejected any attempts for reconciliation and the payment of compensation. If a guilty plea had been entered and attempts were made to settle by compensation it would have made very good basis in favour of the prisoner. He does not have the means to pay if ordered. The penalty prescribed is imprisonment not payment of compensation. But this is a fifth-year medical student who can bring that knowledge to serve the community and its people of medical services. He has experience having done on the job training at Balimo and within the degree program.

11.	These are materials in my view tilting the balance in favour of suspension of sentence or part thereof within because the "suspension of sentence pursuant to section 19 (6) of the criminal code is, or maybe appropriate in three broad categories. The categories are not exhaustive (1) where suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation, or rehabilitation of the offender; (2) Where suspension will promote the repayment or restitution of the Stolen money or goods; (3) Where imprisonment would cause an excessive degree of suffering to the particular offender, for example because of his bad physical or health,” Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew [1986] PGSC 10 [1986] PNGLR 91 (2 April 1986). 

12.	In this regard 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. These depict that suspension of sentence would not be justice considered. It would be erroneous to venture there. But very exceptional material must sway to move away from that way.

13.	I have evidence before me by Doctor Kura David Ravu 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. That the behaviour of the prisoner is attributed to this fact coupled with voluntary intoxication by alcohol ready mix whisky that he consumed with his friend prior. He bears clear responsibility in law for the actions causing the injuries upon the victims. These facts are pertinent from the evidence and the sentence will reflect it.

14.	I remind myself that the words of the section clearly depict that it is one of the most serious offences after attempted murder. Because like that offence, manslaughter, murder, and wilful murder, it also entails life imprisonment as its maximum sentence. And what is described within clearly unfolds seriousness so the facts must depict for the charge to fall under it as is the case here. It is not a light matter of unlawful wounding under section 322 to come out with the maximum of three years imprisonment, let alone section 319 maximum of seven years imprisonment. 

15.	In Bomal v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2020] PGSC 115; SC2025 (2 November 2020) the Supreme Court confirmed 7 years imprisonment upon a policeman who had hit the victim with his gun butt on his head. He was charged and convicted of the same offence as the present case, with intent to caused grievous bodily harm upon the civilian. The Supreme Court remarked that the offence could have drawn 10 years imprisonment as it was a policeman who had abused his authority in assaulting the victim. But it would not disturb the sentence imposed as first instance because it was not excessive given. It confirmed that sentence. 

16.	And in yet another case involving a policeman who had aimed and shot the victim in the head with the police issued weapon the court sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment on a guilty plea to with intent to cause grievous bodily harm did cause grievous bodily harm. As a result of the injury inflicted the victim became wheelchair bound. He became a disabled person forfeiting his education he could not complete his education. The facts that gave rise were that he was drinking what appeared to be alcohol mixed with coke in a can. The prisoner got it and emptied the contents onto the head of the victim. And then attempted to take him into custody in the police vehicle marked out. But the victim pushed him away. The prisoner fired the rifle he had into the air. The victim than ran prompting the prisoner to aim at his head and to shoot him in the head injuring him grievously, State v Tasion [2013] PGNC 176; N5393 (23 August 2013) 12 years imprisonment in hard labour was imposed by this court upon the prisoner there.

17.	This is not the use of a rifle, but both victims are stabbed as set out above. In State v Pendin [2012] PGNC 292; N4541 (26 March 2012) prisoner amputated the forearm of the victim from her hand. He persisted chasing her until he amputated her hand off. The Court observed that the knife was swung with such savagery and ferocity that it cut the victim just below her right forearm elbow joint. This savage and ferocious blow cut off her arm severing the hand from the limb completely. The severed hand and the plastic which she was carrying containing her family shopping fell onto the ground. The Court imposed 16 years imprisonment with hard labour there for the offence of with intent to cause grievous bodily harm caused grievous bodily harm contrary to section 315 (b) (d) as here. I do not have such evidence here to the injuries inflicted on both victims. But I do have similar facts as in State v Aret [2015] PGNC 202; N6103 (12 October 2015), he was responsible for chopping off the hands of his wife and mother-in-law. Both were hospitalized and came out with parts of their hands missing after that attack. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced cumulatively to eight (8) years for the first count, and six (6) years for the second count to be served cumulatively. 

18.	It is in my view a much more serious case than the case presented in Kimbe of State v Makapu [2017] PGNC 118; N6761 (19 May 2017), which was multiple bush knife cuts to the body of the victim over allegation of sorcery. I have multiple cuts on two different victims but no motive or reason to. The prisoner attacks the victims as he is under voluntary consumption of alcohol reinforcing codeine earlier taken to result in the attacks. It is very serious as in State v Lombei [2017] PGNC 280; N6995 (10 October 2017) that was argument over betel nut and sago that culminated into violence where the prisoner cut off the hand of the victim including other parts of the body. They were relatives and there was payment of compensation so that part of the sentences was suspended and the principle was accorded 8 years imprisonment with part suspended. His co prisoners were sentenced to 12 months suspended on condition for payment of compensation. Here are two different victims that must draw individual sentences but cumulatively considered. But reduced on the totality principle, Kerua and Kerua, Public Prosecutor v [1985] PGSC 8; [1985] PNGLR 85 (1 April 1985). The one transaction gave rise to the injuries, but each has rights that the law must protect. And this I do in the sentences on both counts but will be reduced on the principles of totality. I consider these applicable here and I so apply.

19.	What is depicted here is not the same as in State v Idab [2001] PGNC 39; N2172 (17 December 2001), Here the prisoner knows and singles out the victims stabbing them as set out above. It is similar to State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239 (23 May 2002) where both wives of the prisoner were cut up badly by their common husband securing 7 years imprisonment in each case giving a total sentence cumulative of 14 years imprisonment. That was pursuant to section 319. This is pursuant to section 315. But the facts here consider that the penalty will reflect that the conviction is under section 315 not 319 as in State v Naiwa [2004] PGNC 58; N2710 (22 June 2004). It would not follow and equate the sentence in State v Pinda [2012] PGNC 291; N4872 (21 February 2012). The facts there are grave than the present. 

20.	The facts and circumstances in aggregate will drive the sentence due, Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38 (2 March 1994). Trite too is the discretion to sentence is not tied nor shackled to precedence, Kumbamong v The State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017 (29 September 2008), guidelines must not overstep into the territory of legislating and restricting a trial Judge's discretion. I am considering the fate of a fifth-year medical student who was resident at the Medical Faculty Taurama when he committed these offences. But for this offence the prisoner is clean and does not show inheritance to crime and like behaviour. A first-time offender who has ruined his life by the commission of both offences. He must pay for the offences, but it must not be such that he comes out of prison ruined for life. He must fit back into society. A trial was run which is his right to and will not be taken against him. By observing his bail conditions, he demonstrated that what happened was out of character given his family history set out plain by the presentence report ordered. It is safe to infer and hold that what has happened arose from the consumption of the Alcohol coupled with codeine. And the effect of that voluntary consumption is the commission of this offence. There is no motive nor reason for the attack. He is a very intelligent and law-abiding citizen up to the offence. That will not be taken away from him.

21.	Both injuries on the victims are serious and life threatening but very good medical treatment has avoided serious residual injuries. And this is clear from each medical report. I am not faced with missing body parts as a result of that attack, nor are there clear evidence of residual injuries as a result. Given the aggregate is, I sentence the prisoner for the first count of grievous bodily harm with intent committed upon Liam Kui to 6 years imprisonment in hard labour. And in respect of the grievous bodily harm with intent upon Glenda Lipu, I sentence the prisoner to 6 years imprisonment in hard labour. I order both sentences to be served cumulatively because even though it is one transaction, there are two victims hence he will serve 12 years imprisonment in hard labour. He is a first offender with a very good record. I order in view of the principles of totality that two years of that sentence is deducted, and he will serve 10 years imprisonment in hard labour.

22.	In the exercise of my discretion pursuant to section 19 (6) of the criminal code and taking account of the principles in Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew (supra), and the presentence report I order that six (6) years of that sentence will be suspended on a good behaviour bond with a surety of K1000 to be paid if he breaches in addition to the time now suspended for the same period of 6 years. I order that the balance of fours (4) years will be served in jail. Time on remand will be deducted forthwith. 

23.	This is a fifth-year medical student who can contribute to health services of this country hence the sentence in this manner. And he has seriously accepted his wrong and expressed remorse to the Court. He pleaded for forgiveness from the victims for what he did to them. That he was not a threat to the community and society given. As a result of the offence, he was beaten stabbed and also suffered serious injuries almost to loosing his own life. That is evident attached to the presentence report that has been filed. Because he was taken to Red Sea Police Barracks for his own safety and medically attended there. Currently he is undergoing medical psychiatric treatment evidenced. It is therefore proper to give effect to this to iron out proportionality of the sentence. And I am aware that time is rarely suspended, State v Frank [2021] PGNC 323; N8981 (19 July 2021), because of the seriousness of the offence and more particularly the facts here. 7 years imprisonment was ordered on a guilty plea to attack with an axe leaving breathing problems for the victim. But I suspend because proportionality and justice of the case warrants balancing both sides.

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