N11468
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 806 OF 2025

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

AND:
JIM TIJOFI

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
13, 18 AUGUST, 5 SEPTEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Guilty Plea-Assault occasioning bodily harm, 340(1) Criminal Code- Domestic Setting- Husband and Wife-Several punches to the victim wife’s arm-Bone fractured-first time offender-18 months imprisonment

Cases cited
Gima v The State [2003] SC730
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564
Lialu v The State [1990] PGSC 16; [1990] PNGLR 487
see Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193
State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
The State -v- Tendi Kalio Ulio [1980] PNGLR
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294
State v Winston [2003] PGNC 146; N2347
State v Simon (2022) Unreported decision delivered on 14 October 2022, 
State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] PGNC 527; N9385 
State v Russel [2021] N9295
State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211
State v Pari [2015] PGNC 43; N5962
State v Wamingi [2013] PGNC 329; N5723
State v Peter [2011] PGNC 345; N4320
State v Sinowi [2001] PGNC 35; N2175
State v Aiwa [2008] PGNC 321; N3330
State v Piries [2007] PGNC 186; N4982
State v Sabuin [2006] PGNC 76; N4475
State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320

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

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1.	WAWUN-KUVI J: On 8 September 2023, between 8p.m. and 8.30p.m. Jim Tijofi, the offender, was in the company of his wife, the victim, and two of her brothers, who were heading home to Asaro after a night of consuming alcohol. The offender stopped the vehicle and asked the victim to purchase more alcohol. The victim refused. Her refusal infuriated the offender, who began punching her multiple times on her right arm. Following this, the victim was in severe pain and was taken to the hospital. It was discovered that the bone was fractured.

2.	Later, when the offender failed to meet the demands for compensation by the victim’s family, a complaint was made to police.

3.	The accused pleaded guilty to these facts.

4.	I must now decide the appropriate penalty.

 Purpose of Sentencing

5.	I remind myself that the purpose of sentencing is not only about punishing the offender. It serves purposes such as rehabilitation, reparation by the offender to those affected by the offence, deterrence, community protection in cases of violent offences, and communicating clearly that the offender's behaviour is not condoned.

6.	It is a discretionary process that requires assessing and applying the peculiar circumstances of the case against the relevant sentencing principles: Lialu v The State [1990] PGSC 16; [1990] PNGLR 487.

The Charge
7.	The offender pleaded guilty to Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm pursuant to section 340(1) of the Criminal Code.

Maximum Penalty

8.	The maximum penalty is 3 years.
9.	The maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious case: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

Sentencing range

10.	 The State submits a sentence between 12 and 14 months. Counsel for the offender submits a sentence of 6 months imprisonment.

Comparable cases

11.	Counsel have assisted the Court with the following cases: 

12.	State v Simon (2022) Unreported decision delivered on 14 October 2022, Wawun-Kuvi, AJ (as I was then): The offence occurred in a domestic setting. The offender was the victim’s husband. He was convicted after a trial. He was a close protection officer during the APEC meeting. While he was in the shower getting ready for work, the victim took his vehicle keys and searched it. When he was about to leave, he could not locate his keys. As time was passing, he grew increasing agitated with the victim he persistently denied taking the keys. The victim started an argument over finances. Frustrated the offender head butted the victim and struck her with a table leg. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended, and the offender was placed on probation. 

13.	State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] PGNC 527; N9385, Salika CJ: The offender was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm under section 340 of the Code. He was a Lieutenant in the Army. He arrived home from work and began questioning the victim over a TikTok video. He punched her on the face with his folded fist and burnt her on her thigh with a clothing iron. He also burnt her face, chest, and abdomen. The offender hit her twice on her forehead with the iron and head butted her. The victim was treated at the military aid post and was referred to Port Moresby General Hospital for further treatment. She sustained multiple second degree and superficial burns to her left thigh, left chin, anterior chest, and abdomen, as well as a laceration to her forehead measuring 6 cm in length and 1 cm deep exposing her skull. The offender was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and no part of the sentence was suspended. 

14.	State v Russel [2021] N9295, Ganaii AJ: The offenders pleaded guilty. Their son had gone to the victim’s home and insulted the victim’s family. The next morning, the victim went to the offenders’ home enquiring as to the reasons for their son’s actions. A fight ensured. The offender Betty Russel swung a dry bamboo branch at the victim. When the victim raised his hand to protect himself, the branch struck his arm. As a result, his ulna bone was fractured. The injury left the victim with 55% functional capacity. Betty Russel was sentenced to 2 years while her husband was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Their sentences were wholly suspended, and they were placed on a good behaviour bond with orders for compensation.

15.	State v Pari [2015] PGNC 43; N5962, Toliken, J: The offender pleaded guilty. He and the victim were consuming alcohol. The offender became disorderly, and the victim attempted to calm him. The victim’s elbow was fractured when he blocked a pipe that the offender swung at him. He was a first-time offender. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The pre-sentence custody was deducted, and no part of the balance was suspended.

16.	State v Peter [2011] PGNC 345; N4320, Cannings J: the offender was found guilty after a trial for assaulting a female neighbor with whom there was a series of neighborhood disputes. The mitigating factors were that she was the sole attacker, the victim's injuries were not that serious, the attack was one off and there was going to be adverse effects on her children. The aggravating features were that there was a dangerous implement, facial injuries, lack of remorse and no evidence of reconciliation with the victim. The court held that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating and imposed a sentence of 2 years. The pre-sentence period of one month was deducted. The sentence was partially suspended. The offender was ordered to pay compensation and comply with other conditions upon release.

17.	State v Aiwa [2008] PGNC 321; N3330, David, J: The offender pleaded guilty to using a short metal rod to hit the victim on her right pointer finger. The victim suffered a fracture. The offender and victim were known to each other. The offender was aggrieved over the refusal of the victim to assist her recover debts or what is termed as ‘dinau mani’. The victim was a middle woman who had introduced the borrowers to the offender. The injury was sustained when the victim raised her hand to defend herself. This was the offenders first offence. The prisoner was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance of the sentence was wholly suspended with conditions including compensation.

18.	State v Sabuin [2006] PGNC 76; N4475, Cannings, J: the offenders pleaded guilty to assaulting the victim. The first offender kicked the victim twice in the head and walked off, whilst the second and third offenders were responsible for the rest of the serious injuries to the victim. They were all drunk. The victim accused the first offender of stealing his outboard motor. He punched the first offender twice which caused the offender to assault him. The victim had pre-existing conditions but suffered serious injuries that required hospitalization. The first offender was sentenced to 18 months whilst the 2nd and 3rd offenders were sentenced to 2 years each. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance of the sentences were suspended on conditions including compensation. They were all first-time offenders.

19.	State v Sinowi [2001] PGNC 35; N2175, Kandakasi J: The offender pleaded guilty to assaulting her co-wife. The offender was frustrated with the victim’s continued actions of leaving her children with her following arguments between their joint husband. She used an iron and struck the offender in the arm causing the ulna bone to fracture. She was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment which was wholly suspended.

20.	I have found the following comparable cases:

21.	State v Kogen [2016] PGNC 39; N6211, Cannings J, the offender hit the victim with a piece of wood resulting in the victim suffering from a fracture. She was angry over the victim holding her child. She endangered the child. There was no lawful justification. The victim did not want compensation. The Court said that the victim’s views must be considered. The offender was a first-time offender. The offender was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was not suspended.

22.	State v Piries [2007] PGNC 186; N4982, Cannings J: the offender went to his in-law’s house in search of a friend. He was informed that the friend was not there. He was drunk at the time. He was aggrieved by the response from his in-laws and uttered some words at them. His brother-in-law confronted him. He hit his brother-in-law with a guava stick. His sister-in-law went to her brother’s aid and was also hit with the same guava branch. His mother-in-law went to the aid of her children and was also hit with the same guava stick. The offender pleaded guilty to all three counts of assault causing bodily harm. This was a first offence. He was sentenced to 8 months for each count. The sentence was cumulative, and the resultant sentence was 2 years. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions including compensation. 

23.	The above cases demonstrate that sentences range between 14 months and 2 years depending on their seriousness. 

Culpability

24.	Neither counsel addressed whether the offender's conduct was intentional or premeditated. While these matters are not generally relevant for the purposes of establishing liability, they are relevant in sentencing. Reasons or lack of reasons either become a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor.

25.	The offence was not pre-planned, as demonstrated by the facts. It was a spur-of-the-moment act fueled by alcohol. Having said that, whilst not premeditated, the offender was the husband of the victim. He is expected to love and cherish her and not to assault her when he does not get his way.

26.	The offender here also punched the victim multiple times with such severity that the bone was fractured. 

27.	His level of culpability is between State v Pari [2015], where the assault was senseless and fueled by alcohol, and State v Simon (2022) and State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] cases between a husband and wife. Although State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] involved some premeditation.

28.	The range would therefore be between 18 months and 2 years.
Harm 

29.	 The victim gave a victim impact statement which reads:
“1. I was married to the offender since 2021 to 2024 a total of four (4) years. Since that time he hit me and he broke my arm it is no longer the same. I had that injury for some time, where a I wore a cast for nearly six (6) months which stopped me from doing sales of garden food and I lost money.
2. My arm begins to hurt after I have done hard labor, so I cannot do gardening or cleaning for too long.
3.After he had hit me my family and I asked him to compensate me for the harm that I suffered so we could move on, on three occasions in 2024 between June to July he said he could not do it. I went to the hospital and had to pay for these things myself almost costing me K1,000. I would like him to show some remorse in compensating me some monies for the injuries suffered as I no longer can work for long hours.
4. After he hit me he around with other women. I no longer want to be married to him and I am afraid he might hit me again if he sees me.”

30.	From the foregoing statement, the injuries are significant to the victim as she requires her hand for gardening for her survival and livelihood. The injury has had a significant in that regard. From the medical report in the depositions, the injury has been assessed at a loss of 25%. There is no current medical report before me.

Antecedent

31.	The accused is 33 years old and hails from Lakomiufa Village, Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province. He is baptized in the Lutheran Church and attended Aiyura National High School.

32.	He was in a de facto marriage with the victim at the time of the offence. She attends the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

33.	His only employment was as a shop assistant with GBS bottle shop in 2013. He was unemployed at the time of the offence. He was supported by his family.

34.	He has no prior convictions.

Allocutus

35.	The accused statement reads:

“The incident happened, the victim was my wife, I did not mean to do it but on influence of alcohol I did. I broke the law and I caused the problem, I injured her hand. I want to say sorry before Court, before counsel for what I have done to my wife. I seek the mercy of the Court.”

36.	The State concedes that the offender expressed genuine remorse. I accept that there was genuine remorse because the accused has admitted committing the offence since the date of arrest. During the police interview the accused apologised for his actions: see Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 on genuineness of remorse.

Aggravating Factors

37.	 I find the following to be aggravating:

1.	While the offender did not use a weapon, he struck the victim multiple times wth significant force. The force is significant because it was sufficient to break the bone.
2.	This was intimate relationship violence. There was a violation of trust and security. Wives and husbands are expected to love and care for each other.
3.	The offence occurred at night. But for the assistance of her brothers, she was left in a vulnerable position when she ran away from the offender in the dark. 
4.	Assaults are a common occurrence in all areas of Papua New Guinea. It is a very prevalent offence. Domestic Violence especially intimate partner violence is prevalent in Papua New Guinea. 
Mitigating Factors

38.	In mitigation:

1.	The offender has no prior convictions. 
2.	I accept that he has expressed genuine remorse. He had attempted to pay compensation however the amount he proposed was rejected by the victim’s family. 
3.	He cooperated with police investigations and made early admissions. He continued to make admissions in the committal court and again when he was committed. It is noted that the offence was in September 2023. According to the charge sheet, the accused was arrested on 2 February 2025. Despite the lapse of time, he continued to admit his actions and expressed remorse when questioned by police.
4.	There was no planning.
Consideration

39.	Domestic violence or intimate partner violence is prevalent in Papua New Guinea. The circumstances in this case are unfortunately all too familiar when spouses resort to violence when demands are not met. 

40.	I have applied my mind to all the factors discussed in this decision and consider a sentence of 18 months appropriate and so impose it.

41.	According to the charge sheet the offender was arrested and charged on 25 February 2025. He has been in custody for 8 months, 2 weeks and 6 days. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 that period is deducted. The offender shall serve 9 months, 1 week and 1 day.

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

43.	The State takes no position on suspension. It has, however, submitted that the court considers that the victim seeks financial redress for the harm she suffered. That compensation can be used as a means of deterrence and restoration.

44.	Counsel for the offender took no position as well because time spent in custody was sought.

45.	I have considered the relevant principles on suspension and 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. I have also considered the principles in Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26. While the views of the community are sought for reintegration, the distinction between Don Hale and the present case is that Don Hale was a case of aggravated robbery, an offence which poses a significant risk to the community at large. Here, the victim was the offender’s wife and that the reason he was arrested was because of failure to pay the demanded compensation some seventeen (17) months later. Given that each case is decided upon its own peculiar set of facts, that the offender has already spent some time in custody which acts as a personal deterrent and general deterrent likeminded offenders, the State as the representative of the people concedes to reparation for the victim, that the victim herself seeks reparation, that the offender has no prior convictions, that the victim speaks of no history of violence and that they have been separated since the commission of the offence, I find that a suspended sentence is appropriate. 

46.	The balance of the sentence is wholly suspended, and the offender is placed on probation for the period of 9 months. Pursuant to s 18(1)(b) of the Probation Act as a condition of his probation, the offender shall pay K2000 as compensation to the victim within 6 months of his release. The matter will return on 6 April 2026 at 9.30am for review of the compensation payment. The compensation will be paid in the presence of the arresting officer arranged by the Probation Officer.

47.	The offender shall only be released from custody to his Probation Officer.

48.	I have also directed counsel to consider whether I have powers to impose a Family Protection Order under the Family Protection Act. The State has submitted that the National Court has powers under section 22 of the Family Protection Act. It reads:
“22. POWER OF COURT TO MAKE ORDER ON OWN INITIATIVE.
(1)	A court may, on its own initiative, make a family protection order against a person if –
(a)	the person pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, an offence under Section 6 or an offence under any other law that involves conduct that amounts to domestic violence; and
(b)	the court is satisfied that the order could be made against the person under this Act.”
49.	However, section 2 of Act states:

“"court", unless otherwise indicated, means the District Court.””

50.	Considering the express provisions of the Act and that section 22 does not include the National Court, I consider that I do not have powers to impose a Family Protection Order. 

51.	Having said this, section 18(2) of the Probation Act provides:

“(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the court imposing such other conditions as are necessary in the circumstances of the case for ensuring compliance by the probationer with the conditions of the order and for his good conduct and welfare.”

52.	In addition to the conditions under ss 17 and 18(1)(b) of the Probation Act, and pursuant to s 18(2) of the Probation Act, the offender is placed on the following additional conditions:

1.	The offender is prevented from approaching the victim in any place.
2.	The offender is prevented from communicating with the victim in person or through text, emails, phone calls, any social media platform whether in person or through his relatives, associates, friends or through any person acting at his behest.
3. The offender is prevented from harassing, threatening and assaulting the victim     and using others to do so.
4. The offender is prevented from using any insulting or derogatory language towards the victim or using others to do so. 

53.	In passing, I am aware that the Office of The Public Prosecutor has Victim Support Officers. These officers or the arresting officers or even perhaps any lawyer from the Public Prosecutor’s Officer may in the event of conviction, obtain the conviction certificate and make the relevant application under section 7(1)(b)(d) of the Family Protection Act. This effort provides continued support for survivors of domestic violence.

Orders

54.	The Orders of the Court are as follows:
1.	The Offender is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
2.	Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986, the pre-sentence custody period of 8 months, 2 weeks and 6 days is deducted, and the offender shall serve 9 months, 1 week 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 9 months on conditions set out in the Probation Order.
4.	The offender shall be released to his Probation Officer upon production of this Order.
5.	The CR File and the Bail File are closed.

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