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

State v Pore [2025] PGNC 329; N11470 (30 July 2025)

N11470

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 721 - 723 OF 2023

THE STATE

V

NATHAN PORE
JOHN TARUS
LANGA TONY

LAE: KANGWIA J
29, 30 JULY 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – willful murder – bush knife attack at city bus stop - convicted after trial – Sanctity of life - prevalence of offence – first time offenders- expression of remorse.

Cases cited
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Kesino Apo v the State [1988] PNGLR 1880
Public Prosecutor -v- Panikuiaka Nopi [1979] SC165
Lawrence Simbe v the State [1994] PNGLR 38
Thress Kumbamong v the State (2008) SC890
Steven Loke Ume & Ors v The State (2006) SC836
Antap Yala v The State (unreported SC judgement in SCRA No 690 of 1996 dated 31 May 199)
Simon Kama v State (2004) SC740
State v Polin Pochalou Lopai [1988-89] PNGLR 48

Counsel
N. Pare, for the State
J. John, for the defence

1. KANGWIA J: This is the decision on sentence. The offenders were each and severally convicted after trial on one count of wilful murder pursuant to s 299 (1) of the Criminal Code. The evidence offered by the State is that the offenders in broad daylight attacked the deceased who was sitting in a bus at the Yalu bus stop in Lae city. The first offender Langa Tony stabbed the deceased in the stomach with a hooked knife causing the internal organs to come out.
   
2. When the deceased ran out of the bus the other two offenders who were also armed with tramontina busk knives attacked him. The father of the deceased who tried to intervene was also attacked with bush knives.
   
3. The injured father and son were taken to the nearby Angau General Hospital, but the deceased died immediately while the father survived. The attacks are attributed to a land dispute in the village.
   
4. Offender Nathen Pore is aged 45 years, married with no children, is educated to grade 6 and unemployed. He has no prior conviction
   
5. Offender John Tarus is aged 38 years and married with 6 children. He is unemployed and has no prior conviction.
   
6. Offender Langa Tony is aged 22 years, single and educated to grade 8. He is also unemployed and has no prior conviction,
   
7. On their allocutus, offenders Nathan Pore and John Tarus handed up a written statement in which they say sorry to the family of the deceased and ask for leniency with a non-custodial sentence as they are first-time offenders with medical conditions. Offender Nathan Pore states he has TB while John Tarus states that he has a mental problem.
   
8. Offender Langa Tony on allocutus gives thanks to God and thanks all those involved in taking his case and says sorry for breaking the law in the Bible and Constitution. He further says sorry to the wife and children and relatives of the deceased. He states that he did not expect this to happen but because of alcohol the deceased lost his life. He has realised from incarceration what is good and not good. He asks for leniency with probation orders as his father is dead and the mother is unable to look after the family. If a custodial sentence is imposed, then the Court sent him to serve time in Barawagi CIS where he can continue his education at a school nearby.
   
9. On their behalf Mr. John after highlighting the sentencing principles enunciated in earlier cases submits that a head sentence of 15 years with deductions is appropriate. The present case falls into the first and second categories of the Manu Kovi v the State (2005) SC789 guidelines. While conceding that some pre-planning was involved the offenders have accepted the decision of the Court and expressed remorse to the deceased relatives for what they had done. They are all first-time offenders.
   
10. For the State Mr. Pare after citing the sentencing principles with comparable sentences submits that a sentence between 20 years and life imprisonment is warranted. The aggravating factors outweighed those in mitigation. The offenders were convicted after a trial that wasted resources. They were armed with dangerous weapons and acted together to attack the deceased and the father who were unarmed. A defenceless man lost his life. There was some pre-planning involved from a land dispute. The deceased was brutally attacked with multiple wounds to all parts of the body. The killing was done at a public bus stop. The offence is also prevalent.
    
11. Wilful Murder is a crime pursuant to s 298 of the Criminal Code. The maximum prescribed punishment is life imprisonment pursuant to s 299 (1) of the Criminal Code.
    
12. However, the maximum prescribed penalty is subject to s 19 of the Criminal Code and the principle of Law that the maximum prescribed penalty is reserved for the worst category of each case. (See Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653).
    
13. Having said that it would be remiss of the court not to state here that Parliament as the lawmaker prescribed life imprisonment for all homicides basically to preserve the sanctity of life which is irreplaceable after it is removed.

The Supreme Court endorsed that proposition in the case of Kesino Apo v the State [1988] PNGLR 1880 when it stated that imprisonment should be the starting point owing to the sanctity of life, a consideration which parliament intended.

14. In the case of Public Prosecutor -v- Panikuiaka Nopi [1979] SC165 the Supreme Court said:
    

“The sentence the Court imposes must also be geared towards preserving human life in obedience to the Constitutional mandate under s. 35. Courts have time and again placed great importance on the sanctity of human life and the need to impose adequate sentences on offenders who cause a death or are involved in any way in the loss of a human life”.

15. I have stated in various homicide cases that sanctity of life demands nothing less than a custodial sentence for any type of homicide. It must be the common denominator in sentencing for all types of killings. To do otherwise renders the sanctity of life as a valueless commodity.
    
16. In the present case, there are no sentencing criteria to be applied for wilful murder.
    
17. However, the basic sentencing principles which counsels have canvassed in submissions still apply to wilful murder. The overarching principle though is that sentencing is an exercise of discretion.
    
18. In respect of the sentencing discretion the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence Simbe v the State [1994] PNGLR 38 said: “This exercise of sentencing discretion must be guided by proper principles. These include the characteristics of the offender which may aggravate of mitigate the seriousness of the crime taken together with other relevant considerations...the reason is clear, and it has been pointed out in previous cases that there is no mathematical or scientific formula for arriving a particular specific sentence from the general principles”.
    
19. The Supreme Court case of Thress Kumbamong v the State (2008) SC890 also supports the proposition that the Court has an unfettered discretion in sentencing.
    
20. In the case of Steven Loke Ume & Ors v The State (2006) SC836 the Supreme Court held that ... the punishment for wilful murder must be considered in the same way punishment for other murder offences or any other criminal offences for that matter, is considered. The sentencing principles in homicide matters are settled. In exercise of its sentencing discretion, the Court must take into account all relevant mitigating factors. The Court must then balance these factors with the punishment which fits the crime”.
    
21. On an appeal against sentence for manslaughter in the case of Antap Yala v The State (unreported SC judgement in SCRA No 690 of 1996 dated 31 May 199), the Supreme Court said:
    

"The maximum punishment for the offence of manslaughter is life imprisonment. Whilst sentences for manslaughter will normally be lower than sentences for murder and wilful murder, there are those cases which will justify the imposition of heavy punishment and even the maximum punishment... The sentence in any given case will of course depend on its own peculiar facts”.

22. In the case of Simon Kama v State (2004) SC740 the Supreme Court said this for sentence:
    

... we suggest that following the establishment of the guilt of an accused, either on a plea or after a trial, the Court approach sentence with a serious consideration of the maximum prescribed penalty first. Then allow the offender to make out a case for a lesser sentence. An offender could easily do that by pointing out to the factors in his mitigation with the appropriate evidence where evidence is required. Once the offender is able to do that only then should the Court carefully consider the factors both for and against an imposition of the maximum penalty.

23. In the case of State v Polin Pochalou Lopai [1988-89] PNGLR 48 again in a manslaughter case his Honour Bredmeyer J while discussing sentencing principles said:
    

“Every form of punishment takes into account ... both seriousness of the intention behind the act or omission and the seriousness of the consequence...with consequence the more serious the consequence the greater the punishment”.

24. In the present case the principle enunciated in the Simon Kama case appears to be the ideal starting point; That the Court considers the maximum prescribed penalty for wilful murder and allow the offenders to make out a case for a lesser sentence.
    
25. The offenders have been allowed on their allocutus to make out their case for a lesser sentence. They have in unison offered only two factors operating in their favour. First is that they are all first-time offenders.
    
26. Second is that they all have expressed remorse. On expression of remorse the court in the case of State v Sagu Sogave (2000) N2086 held that expression of remorse without anything such as compensation means nothing. This enunciation makes a lot of common sense for this country when the inhabitants of this country exist within families and relatives. Expression of remorse is a western concept adopted and employed by the courts for lenient sentences only.

In this country a death of one person affects families and relatives of the deceased. The same occurs for an offender. Therefore, expression of remorse merely by word of mouth on allocutus means nothing when the deceased nor his relatives are present to accept the apology. The adopted western practice employed in the courts should be treated with caution as can invite animosity from family members and relatives of the deceased. Remorse must be attached with something tangible like reconciliation or compensation.

27. In the present case there is no evidence of any settlement or reconciliation with the relatives of the deceased and the offender’s expression of remorse fades into insignificance.
    
28. When considering that the maximum prescribed penalty for wilful murder is life imprisonment the only mitigating factor as first-time offenders shall operate in their favour to lessen the penalty from the maximum prescribed penalty.

Even then the aggravating factors still stand uncontroverted.

29. Firstly, it is accepted that an element of preplanning exists in the present case. The offenders carried offensive weapons into Lae city purposely to harm and kill. They executed their plan unreservedly at a public bus stop in broad daylight. Wanton killings in public are becoming a norm where offenders are becoming the law unto themselves. This type of behaviour warrants high custodial sentences to keep such offenders away from the public.
    
30. The most serious aggravating factor in order of seriousness is that there was complete disregard for human life. A life was lost in a merciless attack on an unarmed defenceless person in public and in broad daylight without any restraint. Lack of restraint is reflected in the medical certificate of death which stated of multiple bush knife wounds on the deceased body.
    
31. The offenders were convicted after a trial which became fruitless when the offenders elected to remain mute. Even though it is their right to remain silent it unnecessarily incurred time and expenses for everyone else involved. This factor is against them.
    
32. On the issue of culpability, the ideal proposition is the general rule presented in Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271 that all active participants should be sentenced on the same basis.
    
33. In the present case there is unchallenged evidence that each offender was an active participant in the killing. All used bush knives to attack the deceased resulting in immediate death. When the consequence of their attacks is very serious it would make no common sense to ascertain culpability. Even then the extent of each offender’s involvement cannot be properly ascertained by the offender’s election to remain mute.
    
34. As for an appropriate sentence, the sentences imposed by the Courts for Wilful Murder are varied as reflected in the cited cases and are unhelpful. The better guide for an appropriate sentence is the sentencing guidelines in the Manu Kovi case for wilful murder which are of general application. When considering the Manu Kovi guidelines for wilful murder, the present case falls between the second and third categories which suggest a sentence range from 20 years to life imprisonment.
    
35. As intimated earlier there was pre-planning involved. The offenders travelled from their village to Lae city armed with offensive weapons. They attacked the defenceless man after following him to the bus he had boarded to return home. The attack resulted in multiple bush knife wounds sustained on many parts of the body. A strong desire to kill was manifested when the death was spontaneous.
    
36. In the exercise of sentencing discretion, the offenders shall be sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Any discount available to an offender who pleads guilty is not available to the offenders. From the 30 years the period in pre-sentence custody till today shall be deducted and the balance shall be served at CIS Buimo. As for the request to be transferred to Barawagi CIS the Court declines to answer it as it is the responsibility of the CIS.
    

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defence: Public Solicitor