N11507

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 244 OF 2025

THE STATE

V 

JACOB TILI

BAISU: CROWLEY J
15 AUGUST, 6 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – murder – guilty plea – whether there was preplanning-whether the accused had a strong intention to do grievous bodily harm- Category 1 & 2 of Manu Kovi

Facts

The offender stabbed his friend once in the chest during a fight. The offender believed his friend had stolen a bag of coffee cherries that the offender had spent much time and energy collecting. The offender confronted the deceased about the theft and a verbal, then physical, fight broke out. The offender was carrying a knife and during the fight, it was used to stab the victim once. The offender pleaded guilty to one count of murder per s300 of the Criminal Code.

Held

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of murder and was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment with presentence custody period deducted. 

Cases cited
Manu Kovi vs The State (2005) SC789
The State vs Alois Lagu [2011] N4354
The State vs Ian Puri [2021] PGNC 533; N9357
The State vs Jackson (2006) N3237
The State vs Kanjip Manjing (No 2) (2021) N9181
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890

Counsel
Ms T Kag for the State
Mr D Pepsin for the offender

1.	CROWLEY J This is the decision on sentence for Jacob Tili who pleaded guilty and has been convicted of one count of murder under section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. 

2.	The brief facts the prosecution alleged are that on 26 June 2024 between 6am and 7am, the accused Jacob Tili was at Walgo Village in Dei Council District, Western Highlands Province, He was armed with a sharp knife and was searching for the deceased Barinu David.  Two days earlier the deceased had stolen a coffee bag which belonged to the accused. On the morning of the offence, the accused met the deceased and there was a confrontation between them about the stolen coffee. During the argument, the accused produced a sharp knife and stabbed the deceased on his left chest. The deceased fell down and laid unconscious on the ground. The knife penetrated the chest of the deceased piercing his left lung and heart. He was rushed to the nearest Health Centre but he died there. 

3.	The State alleged that when the accused stabbed the deceased, he intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased which lead to death, thereby contravening Section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. 

ANTECEDENTS

4.	The accused was born and lives in Walgo village Dei, Western Highlands. He attended school to Grade 5. He has no employment but supports himself through subsistence farming. He is not married and has no previous criminal history. 

ALLOCUTUS

5.	In his allocutus he said that he was sorry to God. He had spoilt his image and broken his commandments. He apologised to the constitution, he was sorry for breaking the law. He was sorry to this court. Sorry to the victim Barinu David. “We had not been enemies” he said. “Because of his theft we had an argument and he died. I’m sorry for that.” The offender said he was sorry to the deceased family, his father, his mother, his sister, brother and grandfather. He had never committed a crime before but the burden of this crime was born by the deceased family. The offender said he was sorry to his family; to his father, mother, brothers and his sisters. The offender was sorry to his Councillor and community leaders and to his Pastor. He said “I have not done anything wrong before. Sorry for the burden they have to bear.” He finished by saying “Can the court have mercy on me.” 

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 

6.	As the offender has pleaded guilty, he will normally be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890. 

SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL

7.	The defence produced written submissions in which they gave a detailed history of the accused family history. The accused was 20 years old. He was a member of the Lutheran Church and is the third of five children. His older siblings have left home. He had two primary school aged siblings. He was the eldest child living at home. He left school in grade 5 after contracting malaria and never returned. He looked after his parents and younger sibling. He farms the garden that they have. He further made money from selling coffee. After a hard day harvesting coffee cherries he had the bag he had collected, stolen from him. He asked around and eventually decided that the deceased was the culprit. He confronted the deceased sometime later. An argument ensured and a fight broke out. During the course of the fight the accused stabbed the deceased. 

8.	The defence counsel urged the Court to accept that the accused had not armed himself with a knife in order to confront the deceased but that he routinely carried a knife. Further, the defence counsel submitted that his client had not planned to stab the accused but that it was a spur of the moment event coming during their fight. The accused surrendered himself to the police the next day

9.	When I questioned the defence counsel, he submitted that his client was not arguing the defence of self defence, provocation or accident. The accused accept what he had done. 

10.	 Giving the offender the benefit of any doubt and the prosecution not challenging these submissions, I accepted them. The brief facts on which the accused pleaded guilty could be read consistently with them. 

11.	 The mitigating factors the defence submitted were: 

a.	The young age of the accused; 
b.	This plea of guilty; 
c.	The fact that he surrendered to police; 
d.	That there was no preplanning; 
e.	That the prisoner acted alone; 
f.	He is a first-time offender; 
g.	His family paid compensation to the deceased family of K40,000, 40 pigs and 1 cow; 
h.	There were separate moneys paid to the father and the mother of the decease; and
i.	There was de facto provocation in terms of stealing of the bag of coffee cherries. 

12.	 The defence counsel accepted that the aggravating factors were that a knife was used and the prevalence of this offence in the community.

13.	 The defence counsel referred me to five cases. He began with Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 (Manu Kovi) and the schedule within that case. The defence submitted this case was at the higher end of Category 1 or lower end of Category 2.

14.	 He further referred to the case of The State v Ian Puri [2021] PGNC 533; N9357 (State v Puri). There the offender pleaded guilty to one count of murder and one count of grievous bodily harm. The victim was his half-brother and the GBH was against a cousin. He was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.

15.	 The third case the defence made reference was The State v Alois Lagu [2011] N4354 (State v Lagu) where the offender received 20 years for murder after pleading guilty to stabbing a fellow villager. 

16.	 The fourth case was The State v Jackson (2006) N3237 (The State v Jackson) the offender was sentenced to 24 years for murder cutting the victims neck twice on the suspicion of sorcery. 

17.	 Finally, the defence referred to The State v Kanjip Manjing (No 2) (2021) N9181 (State v Manjing). The offender was sentenced to 28 years after bludgeoning the victim to death with a digging iron. 

18.	 Ultimately the defence submitted the range was between 12-15 years because of the mitigating circumstances.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE

19.	 The State produced written submissions and addressed me orally. The written submissions were Exhibit 2. The State submitted that the aggravating factors were: 

a.	The prevalence of the offence;
b.	 A dangerous weapon was used;
c.	 There was a strong intention to do grievous bodily harm to the deceased;
d.	 The deceased was unarmed and posing no threat to the accused;
e.	 The prisoner stabbed the deceased on a vulnerable part of the body namely the chest;
f.	 The prisoner used excessive force that the knife punctured the lung and heart of the deceased;
g.	 The killing occurred 2 days after the theft

20.	 The prosecutor in her written submissions did not provide any factors in mitigation. In oral submissions she identified the plea of guilty.

21.	The prosecutor referred to three cases. The first was Manu Kovi. Her submissions reproduced the schedule from that case. The prosecutor said that the present case had elements of Category 2 and low end of Category 3. The explanation for this was that the accused:

“…had a strong intention to cause GBH to the deceased, although it was a single blow, excessive force was used causing death. He used a lethal weapon namely a USA knife and it was a vicious attack. There was some pre-planning in that prisoner armed himself with a hunting knife and set out to look for the deceased when he was told that the deceased stole his coffee bag and sold it”.

22.	 The prosecution also referred to the case of The State v Lagu [2011] PGNC 80; N4354. In that case the offender stabbed the victim once with no motive. He pleaded guilty. Justice Cannings determined that for a vicious attack with a weapon and a strong intent to do grievous bodily harm the starting point for the court is 20 years imprisonment.

23.	 The prosecutor also referred to The State v Nguntsnga (2024) PGNC 77; N10737 in which an offender received 18 years imprisonment for one count of murder. The offender pleaded guilty to stabbing the victim in the chest, in the marketplace. Justice Toliken judged the offence to fall between Category 1 and Category 2 of Manu Kovi.

24.	 Ultimately the Prosecution submitted 25 years. The prosecutor concluded that the range for the matter before the Court was 20- 30 years.

ANALYSIS

25.	 The maximum penalty for an offence under section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is life imprisonment.  

26.	 Category 1 of Manu Kovi identifies that the starting pointy is 12 to 15 years for an offence of murder where no weapon is used, minimum force, little or no preplanning and the absence of a strong intent to do GBH. 

27.	 Category 2 is a range of 16 to 20 years for murder where there is no strong intent to do GBH, a weapon is used, some preplanning and some elements of viciousness is present. 

28.	 Category 3 provides a range of 20 to 30 years for a pre-planner vicious attack where there is a strong desire to do GBH and an offensive weapon such as a gun or an axe is used and other acts of violence are present.

29.	 I have accepted that there was no preplanning, and the stabbing came during the course of a fight over a stolen bag of coffee cherries. As such I could not describe it as a vicious attack nor could I say there was a strong intention to do grievous bodily harm. The stabbing was a spur of the moment action in which the offender formed an intention to do grievous bodily harm in the instant he grabbed his knife.  His blood was up because he was having a physical altercation with the deceased and he believed that the deceased had stolen his coffee cherries. Viewing the facts like this means the murder, while illegal and tragic falls between Category 1 and 2 of Manu Kovi. 

30.	 As such, cases like The State v Lagu, The State v Manjing and The State v Jackson are distinguishable because they involve more vicious or pre-planned attacks .

FINDINGS

31.	I find that the mitigating factors are: 

a.	The young age of the accused; 
b.	This plea of guilty; 
c.	His genuine remorse in his allocutus;
d.	The fact that he surrendered to police;
e.	That the offence was not preplanned;
f.	The prisoner acted alone; 
g.	He is a first-time offender;
h.	There was de facto provocation in terms of stealing of the bag of coffee cherries;
i.	And his family has paid compensation to the deceased family of K40,000 and 40 pigs 1 cow. Further, there was separate moneys paid to the father and the mother of the deceased. 

32.	 I find the aggravating factors are:

a.	The prevalence of the offence; 
b.	A dangerous weapon was used; 
c.	The deceased was unarmed;
d.	The offender stabbed the deceased on a vulnerable part of the body namely the chest;
e.	The offender used excessive force that the knife punctured the lung and heart of the deceased.

33.	 There are more mitigating factors than aggravating factors. 

34.	 I find the cases of The State v Nguntsnga, The State v Ian Puri and The State v Alois Lagu most applicable and I accept that this matter falls between Category 1 and Category 2 of Manu Kovi. 

35.	 I fix a head sentence of 18 years.

THE PRE-SENTENCE PERIOD IN CUSTODY 

36.	 The offender surrendered himself to police the day after the offence on 27 June 2024. He has been in custody since that time. That is a period of 1 year and 98 days of pre-sentence custody. I will deduct that from the sentence.

SUSPENSION?

37.	 No part of the sentence should be suspended. 

SENTENCE

38.      Jacob Tili, having been convicted of one count of murder under s 300 of the Criminal Code, is sentenced as follows:

Length of sentence imposed	18 years	
Pre-sentence period to be deducted	1 year 98 days	
Resultant length of sentence to be served	16 years and 267 days	
Amount of sentence suspended	Zero days	
Time to be served in custody	16 years and 267 days	
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: 	Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: 	Public Solicitor