N11467
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 432 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

STATE

AND:

RUBEN SINO

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
12 AUGUST, 1, 5 SEPTEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Guilty Plea- Causing Grievous Bodily Harm, 319 Criminal Code- Village setting- Use of knife to settle village dispute over dog killing hens-de facto provocation-sentenced to 3 years

Cases cited
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
State v Bonny [2020] PGNC 321; N8534
State v Malko [2018] PGNC 486; N7606
State v Nemao [2015] PGNC 250; N6131
State v Matao [2015] PGNC 187; N6084
State v Konos [2010] PGNC 179; N4157
State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723
State v Lemia [2012] PGNC 179; N4817
State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5
State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239
State v Idab [2001] PGNC 39; N2172
State v Kuman [2000] PGNC 123; N2047
State v Wapuri [1994] PGNC 150; N1212
State v Michael [2025] PGNC 278; N11352
State v Yawing [2022] PGNC 608; N10340
State v Prabon [2022] PGNC 609; N10326
State v Suitawa [2021] PGNC 104; N8845
State v Pihmbou [2020] PGNC 123; N8354
State v Hago [2019] PGNC 148; N7870
State v Pakuma [2016] PGNC 351; N6573
State v Lawasi [2015] PGNC 40; N5964
State v Ambi [2014] PGNC 358; N6531
State v Sheekiot [2011] PGNC 165; N4454

Counsel
L Maru & S Mosoro, for the State
V Move, for the offender

SENTENCE

1.	WAWUN-KUVI, J: What may appear as trivial matters to other people are the cause of many disputes in many villages in Papua New Guinea. In this case, the victim approached the offender’s wife and complained about her dog killing two of his hens. The complaint escalated to him slapping her before leaving. Angered by the victim’s assault on his wife, the offender sought out the victim. When he saw the victim, he swung the knife that he was armed with at the victim. The knife cut the victim’s forehead and hand when he raised it to block the knife. The victim was also cut into the stomach. The victim was rushed to the hospital. Some days later the offender was arrested.

2.	These are the facts that the offender pleaded guilty to. I must now decide the appropriate penalty.

The Charge

3.	The offender pleaded guilty to the charge of Causing Grievous Bodily Harm pursuant to section 319 of the Criminal Code.

Penalty

4.	The maximum penalty is 7 years.

5.	The maximum is reserved for the worst case: See Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653.

Sentencing Range

6.	The State submits a sentence between the range of 3 and 5 years. Counsel for the offender submits for a sentence between the range of 1and 2 years.

7.	Counsel assisted with the following comparable cases:

8.	State v Bonny [2020] PGNC 321; N8534, Suelip AJ: The offender pleaded guilty to cutting his brother-in-law on the hand. The victim was searching for his wife and found her sitting with the offender. He swung a bush knife and the offender. A struggle ensued. The offender obtained the victim’s knife and swung it at him. When the victim raised his hand to defend himself, the knife cut his fingers. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions that included compensation. 

9.	State v Nemao [2015] PGNC 250; N6131, Polume-Kiele J: The offender pleaded guilty. The victim and several relatives approached the offender at his home. The encounter was over a dispute between the offender and the victim the previous day. The victim was not armed. Upon seeing the group’s approach, the offender grabbed a bush knife without saying anything, swung the knife at the victim. The knife cut the victim on his hand. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was wholly suspended.

10.	State v Matao [2015] PGNC 187; N6084, Polume-Kiele J: The offender and his friends were demanding payment from members of the public travelling through the collapsed bridge at Kainantu. The offender swore at the victim, who told him to stop his actions. The victim was a casual employee of the Department of Works who was assisting workers to rebuild the collapsed bridge. A fight ensued and the offender using a bush knife cut the victim on the head resulting in the victim sustaining lacerations. The offender was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Two years of the sentence was suspended.

11.	State v Konos [2010] PGNC 179; N4157, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to striking his nephew with a piece of timber, fracturing his knee and causing other superficial injuries. Factors in mitigation were a plea of guilty, first-time offender, the victim was a known troublemaker, de facto provocation for the attack, a blunt object was used on the leg, lessening the risk of a fatal injury, the offender made early admissions. The offender was sentenced to 3 years. The sentence was wholly suspended based on the favorable Pre-Sentence Report more so the fact that the victim’s family requested customary reconciliation.

12.	State v Lemia [2012] PGNC 179; N4817, Lenalia J: The offender pleaded guilty. The offender’s wife sought refuge with the victim. She was hiding from the offender because he had threatened violence. Having discovered that the victim had given refuge, the offender approached the victim and cut him with the bush knife. The offender was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment which was wholly suspended.

13.	State v Irowen [2002] PGNC 99; N2239, Kandakasi, J (as he then was): The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of grievous bodily harm. Armed with a bush knife he attacked his two wives. His attack was over suspicions that they were not faithful to him. He was sentenced to 7 years for each count, and the sentences were made cumulative.

14.	State v Idab [2001] PGNC 39; N2172, Kandakasi J: The offender pleaded guilty.  After a group of men verbally abused his mother, he and his brothers in retaliation, sought out those responsible. When they reached the river, they found the victim and others, who they attacked with bush knives and stones. The victim was not involved in the initial incident. He sustained serious multiple knife injuries and was taken to the hospital. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. 2 years of the sentence was suspended with conditions.

15.	State v Kuman [2000] PGNC 123; N2047, Kirriwom J: The charges were grievous bodily harm with intent under s 315 and rape. I do not accept that this is a comparable case. Other than the charges being distinct, the offender in this case was a juvenile.

16.	State v Wapuri [1994] PGNC 150; N1212; [1994] PNGLR 271, Kapi DCJ (as he was): The offender pleaded guilty. He was living with his cousin. His cousin’s wife had made sexual advances towards him on a prior occasion. The offender had refused her advances. On the day of the offence, he had returned from work to discover his clothes and been thrown around. He believed that it was his cousin’s wife. Using a hand brake cable, he struck her across the face. She suffered 90% loss of vision in her left eye. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions including compensation.

17.	I have found more recent comparable cases where there was de facto provocation:

18.	State v Michael [2025] PGNC 278; N11352, Wawun-Kuvi J: The offender pleaded guilty to stabbing the victim on his shoulder and abdomen. He was frustrated over the continuous destruction of his coffee trees and food crops by the victim. His grievances over the issue were ignored by the victim and his family. His frustrations were complicated by the fact that the victim was his wife’s nephew. The victim was rushed to the hospital where he underwent surgery and was hospitalized for 20 days. The incident was reported to police, and the offender was arrested and charged. He was sentenced to 3 years. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended.

19.	State v Yawing [2022] PGNC 608; N10340, Polume-Kiele J: The offender pleaded guilty. He and the victim reside in the same house. The victim was a primary school student. The home was his family home. The offender’s personal properties were taken from his room without permission. He suspected the victim. On the day of the offence, the offender saw the victim using a knife file which he recognised as being his. He did not raise the issue then. Sometime later that evening, still angry he angrily complained about his lost items. As the victim was approaching him, he swung a grass knife at him. The victim raised his hand which was cut by the knife. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended.
20.	State v Prabon [2022] PGNC 609; N10326, Thoke AJ: The offender pleaded guilty. The victim rode his motorcycle through the village to get petrol. The offender believing that the victim was under the influence of alcohol approached him with a friend. The offender demanded that the victim give over his motorcycle. When the victim refused, a fight ensued. The offender then punched and chased the victim. He then swung a bush knife at the victim who lifted his hands to defend himself. The knife cut the victim’s hand. The offender then cut him on his knee. He was sentenced to 3 years which was wholly suspended with orders for compensation.

21.	State v Suitawa [2021] PGNC 104; N8845, Numapo J: The offender pleaded guilty to striking the victim in the mouth with a stone causing him to lose two front teeth.  Both the offender and the victim were drinking alcohol together. The offender went to sleep, and the victim went on to disturb the peace in the neighborhood. The offender woke up and hit the victim. The victim requested compensation as both men were good friends. The offender was sentenced to 2 years. The sentence was wholly suspended on conditions including compensation.

22.	State v Pihmbou [2020] PGNC 123; N8354, Kirriwom J: The offender pleaded guilty to cutting his uncle with a bush knife. The offence happened in the middle of a burial procession. The offender was burying his father when the victim argued with him and others over the location of the burial. The offender was 19 years old. The pre-sentence report was favorable, and the victim avoided being interviewed. The sentence of 3 years was wholly suspended on conditions.

23.	State v Hago [2019] PG 148; N7870, Anis J: The offender pleaded guilty. The victim approached him at his house and cut him with a bush knife on his hand. In his attempt to escape he tripped and fell. The offender picked up the victim’s knife and swung it and the victim. The victim blocked it with his hand. The knife cut his hand resulting in loss of function to his left hand. The offender was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended on conditions. He was a first-time offender and de facto provocation existed.

24.	State v Pakuma [2016] PGNC 351; N6573, Ipang J: The offender pleaded guilty to slashing his father with a bush knife. The victim sustained injuries to his hand, and a finger was amputated. The offender had an argument with his mother and father over the ownership of a pig. It was his first offence and compensation was paid to the victim prior to sentence. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions.

25.	State v Lawasi [2015] PGNC 40; N5964, Toliken J: The offender pleaded guilty to hitting the victim with a dry stick on the head rending him unconscious. The offender assisted his cousin who was in confrontation with the victim. He stopped a vehicle and took the victim to the hospital and surrendered himself to police. Offender was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months. The sentence was wholly suspended with conditions.

26.	State v Ambi [2014] PGNC 358; N6531, Batari J: The offender pleaded guilty to slashing the victim on her hand with a bush knife twice. She sustained compound fractures to her hand. The offender is the victim’s brother-in-law. The victim’s husband is the offender’s brother. They all live on the same block of land. The offender was angry over past disputes including an earlier altercation between the offender’s wife and the victim and his brother, the victim’s husband. The offender was sentenced to 5 years which was wholly suspended on conditions which included compensation.

27.	State v Sheekiot [2011] PGNC 165; N4454, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to cutting his cousin on the neck and cheek with a bush knife. The mitigating factors were a plea of guilty, early admissions, paid compensation to and reconciled with victim. The offender was sentenced to 4 years. The sentence was wholly suspended based on a favorable pre-sentence report more so that compensation was paid and there was reconciliation.

28.	The cases show that generally in guilty pleas involving de facto provocation the sentences range between 2 and 3 years. Where there was no provocation and the victim was defenseless, the sentence was between 3 and 5 years. In all cases, where there was a favorable pre-sentence report and where compensation was requested or paid the sentences were suspended.

Culpability

29.	The offence was not pre-planned or premeditated. As demonstrated by the facts that the offender pleaded guilty to, he had learned of his wife’s assault. Without allowing his anger to cool he sought the victim. He allowed his emotions to dictate his actions. 

30.	His level of culpability places his sentence range between the 2-to-3-years.

Allocutus

31.	I have heard the offender’s statement in allocutus and he expressed remorse and gave his reasons for cutting the victim.

32.	I accept that the offender is remorseful. He maintained his guilty plea from arrest and recognized the gravity and seriousness of his offence as demonstrated in his interview with the Probation Officer: see Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 on genuineness of remorse.

Victim Impact Statement

33.	The State did not obtain a victim impact statement.

34.	The Probation Officer made attempts to contact the victim but was not successful. 

35.	However, from the photographs on file and the medical report I can accept that the victim suffered serious injuries. However, because there is no current medical report and lack of victim impact statement, I cannot find that the injuries are permanent or have caused lifelong disabilities.

Aggravating Factors

36.	I find the following to be aggravating:

1.	A weapon was used.
2.	The victim was cut multiple times on vulnerable parts of his body.
3.	The victim was hospitalized
4.	The offence is prevalent.

Mitigating Factors

37.	In mitigation:
1.	The offender has no prior convictions.
2.	He pleaded guilty.
3.	He cooperated with police and made admissions.
4.	He was genuinely remorseful.
5.	There was de facto provocation. The victim had assaulted his way.

Consideration

38.	Disputes over land, cash crops, livestock, boundaries, relationships are the cause of many fights in all villages across the country. Despite the establishment of village courts many people still take the law into their own hands and settle it with violence. The use of bush knives as a weapon of choice is prevalent. 

39.	In this case I accept that the victim provoked the incident by assaulting the offender’s wife over the alleged killing of hens by the offender’s wife’s dog. However, instead of allowing his emotions to control him, he should have resolved the problem in a more peaceful way. 

40.	Applying my mind to the matters discussed in this decision and the relevant sentencing principles, a sentence of 3 imprisonment is imposed.

41.	According to the charge sheet, the offender was arrested and detained on 28 October 2024. On 1 November 2024 the District Court granted him K500 bail. On 21 November 2024, after failing to appear, a warrant of arrest was issued. His bail was forfeited to the State. It is unclear when the warrant of arrest was executed, however he has been appearing from remand since 4 December 2024.

42.	The offender has been in custody for 9 months and 6 days. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence period is deducted, and the offender shall serve the balance of 2 years, 2 months, 3 weeks and 1 day.

43.	 The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended.

44.	I have considered the relevant principles on suspension: see State v Malko [2018] PGNC 486; N7606, State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5, Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC 564 and Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91.

45.	I am also reminded that in violent offences, the views of the victims are important when considering suspension of sentence: see State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211 and State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723 the Court held 

46.	 I thank the Probation Officer, Mr Michael J Yimbal, for his assistance in the preparation of the pre-sentence report. 

47.	As indicated, attempts made to contact the victim were unsuccessful. 

48.	The offender’s wife stated that her husband is a responsible and caring man. She is presently living with her family and states that she and her family are willing to assist the offender pay compensation.  

49.	A community leader, Ranger Robin, was interviewed. He has known the offender since birth and describes him as an obedient, humble and fine man. He is a leader in his community. He has always prioritised the welfare of his family and provoked into community the offence. He is willing to assist the offender in his rehabilitation in the community. 

50.	Ranger Robin confirms the offender account of a retaliation attack by the victim’s brother. The victim’s brother who is the council president for Upper Bena mobilized men and destroyed his house and properties. The church pastor and the congregation intervened and stopped the men. 

51.	Considering the circumstances, I accept that suspension is appropriate. Pursuant to s 19 of the Criminal Code and s 16 of the Probation Act, the sentence is wholly suspended, and the offender is placed on Probation for 2 years on conditions contained in his Probation Order. Pursuant to section 18(1)(b) of the Probation Act, the offender shall pay compensation to the victim in the amount of K2000.00 within 12 months of his release organized by the Probation Officer.

Orders

52.	The Court Orders:

1.	The offender is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
2.	Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence period of 9 months and 6 days is deducted, and the offender shall serve the balance of 2 years, 2 months, 3 weeks and 1 day.
3.	Furthermore, execution of the sentence is pursuant to section 19 of the Criminal Code and section 16(1)(a) of the Probation Act 1979 suspended and the offender is placed on probation for 2 years on conditions set out in the Probation Order.

4.	The offender shall be released to his Probation Officer upon production of this Order.

The CR file is closed.

Lawyer for the State:  Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender:  Public Solicitor