PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2025 >> [2025] PGNC 365

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Mamone [2025] PGNC 365; N11521 (8 September 2025)

N11521


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


CR NO 431 OF 2025


BETWEEN:
STATE


AND:
HEPISEH MAMONE


GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
12 AUGUST, 1, 8 SEPTEMBER 2025


CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Guilty Plea- Domestic Setting -Causing Grievous Bodily Harm, 319 Criminal Code-- Use of knife over argument over tomatoes-No prior convictions and victim seeking reintegration into society- Sentence of 3 years


Cases cited
State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564
The State v. Aruve Waiba [1994] CR1/94
Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193
The State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412
Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294
Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653
State v Konos [2010] PGNC 179; N4157
State v Mais [2014] PGNC 196; N5838
State v Sheekiot [2011] PGNC 165; N4454
State v Hesum [2025] PGNC 170; N11291
State v Agaru [2021] PGNC 379; N9119
State v Kumasi [2020] PGNC 475; N8740
State v Pihmbou [2020] PGNC 123; N8354
State v Sylvester [2019] PGNC 15; N7690
State v Sheekiot [2011] PGNC 165; N4454
State v Kimai [2017] PGNC 63; N668
State v Pakuma [2016] PGNC 351; N6573
State v Maka [2014] PGNC 173; N5817
State v Ambi [2014] PGNC 358; N6531
State v Andrew (2014) Cr No 833 of 2013 Unnumbered delivered on 4 April 2014
State v Kos [2013] PGNC 221; N5365
State v Minimbi [2013] PGNC 266; N5367
State v Kulia [2013] PGNC 244; N5403
State v Busii [2012] PGNC 310; N5267


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


SENTENCE


  1. WAWUN-KUVI, J: Just on Friday, I sentenced a man for causing grievously bodily harm over an incident involving a dog killing hens and another man for assaulting his wife when she refused to purchase alcohol. Today, involves a domestic dispute over the proceeds from the sale of tomatoes. The victim wife sold tomatoes and used K50 to repay a debt. Aggrieved by this, the offender, her husband scolded her over it. During the argument he became more agitated and eventually using a knife cut her on the throat.
  2. Neighbours’ hearing the encounter went to the victim’s aid and rushed her to the hospital.
  3. These are the facts that the offender pleaded guilty to. I must now decide the appropriate penalty.

The Charge


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

Penalty


  1. The maximum penalty is 7 years.
  2. The maximum is reserved for the worst case: see Goli Golu v The State [1970] PNGLR 653.

Sentencing Range


  1. 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.
  2. Counsel for the offender provides cases which were for the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm under s 340(1) of the Code specifically, State v Simon (2022) Unreported decision delivered on 14 October 2022, State v Oa (No. 2) [2021] PGNC 527; N9385, State v Sinowi [2001] PGNC 35; N2175. While these offences occurred in a domestic setting the maximum penalty for the charge is 3 years
  3. Counsel for the State submits the following cases:
  4. 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.
  5. State v Mais [2014] PGNC 196; N5838, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to his brother. The offender approached his brother, who was telling stories with other people, without warning and cut him on the left shoulder, inflicting a deep wound. The victim was given medical treatment the next day, which required application of multiple stitches under local anaesthetic. The offender was under the influence of alcohol and has offered no rational explanation for attacking his brother. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
  6. 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.
  7. I have found comparable cases involving domestic disputes:
  8. State v Hesum [2025] PGNC 170; N11291, Wood J: The offender pleaded guilty causing grievously bodily harm to his mother and the attempted murder of his brother. Using an iron rod, he struck his mother repeatedly causing the bone in her arm to fracture. When his brother came to their mother’s aid he picked up an axe and attacked her. He was sentenced to 3 years for the charge under s 319.
  9. State v Agaru [2021] PGNC 379; N9119, Wawun-Kuvi AJ: A conflict over the offender disrespecting the victim’s brother and mother escalated into the victim assaulting the offender. The offender grabbed a knife and stabbed the victim. The offender was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended the offender was placed on probation.
  10. State v Kumasi [2020] PGNC 475; N8740, Dowa AJ: the offender pleaded guilty to stabbing her de facto husband on his thigh following an argument. She was a first-time offender. There was no permanent injuries. The Court found that the offence was prevalent, and a punitive sentence was necessitated not only to deter the offender but also to send a message to the community at large. The offender was sentenced to 3 years. Time spent in custody was deducted and part of the sentence was suspended on condition that the offender be of good behavior for 2 years. The offender was sentenced to serve 7 months and 7 days imprisonment.
  11. 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.
  12. State v Sylvester [2019] PGNC 15; N7690, Miviri J: The offender pleaded guilty to cutting his mother in the neck. He was drunk at the time. There was reconciliation and a favorable pre-sentence report. The offender was sentenced to 4 years. The sentence was wholly suspended, and the offender was placed on probation.
  13. 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 favourable pre-sentence report more so that compensation was paid and there was reconciliation.
  14. State v Kimai [2017] PGNC 63; N6689, Auka AJ: The offender was in a relationship with the victim. The victim was taking care of their sick child when the offender came from the back and kicked her on the head. When she fell, he continued to kick and punch her and used an iron bar to hit her all over the body. She suffered various injuries all over her body. The offender was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended with conditions.
  15. 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. The offender was a first-time offender. Compensation was paid prior to sentence. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended with conditions.
  16. State v Maka [ 2014] PGNC 173; N5817, David J: The offender pleaded guilty to hitting the victim with a stone and axe. There was an intimate relationship between the parties. The victim suffered multiple injuries. The offender was told to stop but he did not. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, less time spent in custody. No part of the balance was suspended.
  17. 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 older brother of the victim’s husband. 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 her husband. The victim demanded compensation. The Court stated that offences involving bush knives was prevalent. The attack was on a defenseless woman. The Court found that the case fell into the range of 4 and 6 years. The offender was sentenced to 5 years which was wholly suspended on conditions which included compensation.
  18. State v Andrew (2014) CR No 833 of 2013 Unnumbered delivered on 4 April 2014, Kassman, J: The offender pleaded guilty to fracturing her husband’s hand with a piece of wood. The offender and the victim were engaged in an argument in their home which led to a physical altercation. The Court found that there was genuine remorse, and the offender had paid compensation according to customary rites witnessed by the family prior to her guilty plea. The Court also found based on the offender’s evidence that for a considerable time leading up to the offence, the offender was a victim of abuse, threats and actual violence. Further it was conceded by the State that the actions of the offender stemmed from frustration and anger caused by the disgraceful conduct by the victim on the previous day. The offender was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment which was wholly suspended on conditions.
  19. State v Kos [2013] PGNC 221; N5365, David J: the offender pleaded guilty to chopping his wife’s finger with an axe. The offender was away at work when he heard rumors about his wife having extra martial affairs. When he returned on his break, he questioned her and then ordered her to place her hand on a table. He proceeded to chop her fingers off. He was a first-time offender. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Pre-trial custody was deducted, and the balance was suspended with conditions.
  20. State v Minimbi [2013] PGNC 266; N5367, David J: the offender pleaded guilty to slashing her husband more than once. One of the victim’s fingers was amputated because of being cut across the palm and his Achilles tendon was also severed. The offender was aggrieved over the victim giving his bank card to the 2nd wife. The offender stated in allocutus that she and her children were abandoned by the victim. The offender was a first-time offender. She was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Time spent in custody was deducted and the balance was suspended on conditions.
  21. State v Kulia [2013] PGNC 244; N5403, Kassman, J: The offender was found guilty after a trial of causing grievous bodily to her husband. She used a bush knife and cut him in his hand. He suffered fractures which have caused disfigurement. The offender and the victim were engaged in an argument, and both were armed with bush knives. The offender was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment. The pre-sentence custody of 6 months, six days was deducted, and the balance was suspended on conditions.
  22. State v Busii [2012] PGNC 310; N5267, Batari, J: The offender pleaded guilty to hitting the victim with a wood fracturing her right forearm. The offender’s wives were fighting, and the offender took the side of one of his wives. He was in the process of slashing her with a bush knife when the victim, an elderly woman, intervened. The victim demanded compensation. The Court acknowledged the prevalence of the offence. The offender was sentenced to 3 years, which was wholly suspended with conditions which included compensation.
  23. The cases show that generally in guilty pleas in domestic disputes the sentences range between 3 and 4 years.


Culpability


  1. The offence was not pre-planned or premeditated. As demonstrated by the facts that the offender pleaded guilty to, the offence happened during a domestic argument. However, the reaction of the offender especially the use of a weapon to cut a vulnerable part of her body demonstrates reckless indifference to the health and life of his wife. This raises his level of culpability to the higher range of 3 and 4 years.

Personal Antecedent


  1. The offender is 32 years old and hails from Isontenu Village, Unggai Bena, Eastern Highlands Province.
  2. He has been married to the victim for 13 years and has six children. He is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. His mother is deceased, and his father is alive. He is the 7th of seven children from his parents’ marriage. He was educated up to Grade 3. He has had no formal employment. He is a subsistence farmer.

Allocutus


  1. The offender’s statement on allocutus was as follows:

“This is my first time. We have not been married for 13 years, and this is my first time. First time standing before the court even village court, I have never appeared. This offence occurred because of several reasons. She got angry about mobile phone and poured four tomato buckets. For these tomatoes got smashed and we argued. I did not mean to cut her. The blunt side hit her but its sharp, so it cut her. I say sorry for breaking the constitution for cutting her. Before the Court I say sorry, before God I say sorry and before the people I say sorry. Next time I won’t cut her. I ask for mercy”


  1. 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 and his admissions since arrest: see Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 on genuineness of remorse.

Victim Impact Statement


  1. The victim stated that her husband is a good man. The offence was the first in their marriage. She takes responsibility, stating that she instigated the incident, which led to her husband striking her with the knife. Since her husband’s detention, she faces hardship in trying to meet the needs of their children. The stress associated with her husband’s imprisonment has had an adverse impact on her health. She asks that the Court exercise leniency.
  2. There is an inconsistency between her statement to the probation officer that this was the first incident of violence in their marriage and her earlier statement to the police. In the latter, she describes experiencing violence during the marriage and states that the offender did not contribute to the family, while she worked to provide for them.
  3. In reconciling the inconsistency, I note that the offender has been in custody for over a year. The victim’s change of heart appears more to do with the burdens of village life and the difficulty of raising 7 children alone than with any threats to her.

Aggravating Factors


  1. In aggravations, I accept that a weapon was used, the victim was cut on vulnerable part of her body (although the blunt side, it was with significant force), it was intimate partner violence where spouses are to love and care for each other and not to cause injuries, the victim was hospitalized and that the offence is prevalent.

Mitigating Factors


  1. Matters in mitigation are that the offender has no prior convictions, he pleaded guilty, his cooperation with police and early admissions, he was genuinely remorseful and that since the offender pleaded guilty and the wife acknowledged some responsibility, I accept that there was de facto provocation.

Consideration


  1. As I said last Friday, disputes over land, cash crops, livestock, boundaries, and relationships are the cause of many fights in all villages across the country. Domestic violence involving the use of bush knives as a weapon of choice is also prevalent. Wives are being assaulted over trivial matters such as not purchasing alcohol in State v Jim Tijofi [2025] N1146, and here over tomatoes. There appears to be more to the issue than a law-and-order challenge. Whether it’s in early childhood education or spiritual development, the level of violence over trivial matters such as tomatoes and not purchasing alcohol appears to be an extreme response. It seems that there are greater social issues at play that require a collaborative approach from all sectors to change behaviour and mindsets. They demonstrate that society must act together to curb this cancer, which threatens the basic unit of our society, the family. Sentences over the years, demonstrated in comparable cases, show that imprisonment alone has done very little to curb this social illness.
  2. Having said this, I can in no way solve society’s ills; my present task involves enforcing the laws as prescribed by Parliament and sentencing this offender within those parameters. Applying my mind to the matters discussed in this decision and the relevant sentencing principles, a sentence of 3 years imprisonment is imposed.
  3. According to the charge sheet, the offender was arrested and detained on 4 September 2024. The offender has been in custody for 1 year 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 1 year, 11 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day.
  4. The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended.
  5. I have considered the relevant principles on suspension[1] 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.
  6. I thank the Probation Officer, Mr Michael J Yimbal, for his assistance in the preparation of the pre-sentence report and means assessment report.
  7. The offender’s family and community have been interviewed, and they request that the matter be settled by way of compensation. The victim asks for her husband to be released so that he can assist her in raising their children.
  8. In terms of deterrence, the offender has served some time in custody which should act as both personal for himself and general deterrence for the public at large.
  9. 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 K500.00 within 12 months of his release, to be organised by the Probation Officer.
  10. 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 harassing, threatening and assaulting the victim and using others to do so.
    2. The offender is prevented from using any insulting or derogatory language towards the victim or using others to do so.

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 1 year and 6 days is deducted, and the offender shall serve the balance of 1 year, 11 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.
  5. The CR File is closed.

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

[1] State v Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320, State v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91, The State -v- Tendi Kalio Ulio [1980] PNGLR, Public Prosecutor v Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294, Gima v The State [ 2003] SC 730
State v Winston [2003] PGNC 146; N2347

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2025/365.html