N11515

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 791 OF 2023

THE STATE

V

AMIT PARO

WABAG: ELLIS J
8, 9 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – ACTS CAUSING GREIVOUS BODILY HARM – s 315(b)(d) CCA – Plea – Compensation paid – 7 years IHL – Reduction for time served

Brief facts
Victim attacked at the front gate of his residence, on his way home from work, at 11pm.  Injuries suffered included lacerations to the face which included a bone fracture that resulted in swelling of the eye, and fracture injuries to both hands.  Offender surrendered to the Police the following day.  Some compensation was paid.

Held
(1)	Had this matter gone to trial the appropriate sentence would have been in the range of 10 to 12 years.
(2)	Aggravating factors:  the nature and extent of the injuries.
(3)	Mitigating factors: next day surrender to the Police, early admissions, plea of guilty, expressions of remorse and a payment of compensation.
(4)	A sentence of 7 years was imposed.  The pre-sentence custody period was deducted.

Cases cited
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789

Counsel
J. Kesan for the State
L. Toke for the defendant

SENTENCE

1.	ELLIS J: 	Amit Paro of Amale village, Wabag, Enga Province, pleaded guilty to charge of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm on 2 November 2022.  That charge was based on paragraphs (b) and (d) of s 315 of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (the CCA) which, so far as is presently relevant, provides:

A person who, with intent:
…
(b)	to do some grievous bodily harm to some person
…
does any of the following is guilty of a crime:
(d)	unlawfully wounding or doing a grievous bodily harm to a person
…

Evidence
	
2.	The evidence placed before the Court by the State was a copy of pages 4 to 27 of the Police brief, which became Exhibit A.  Evidence on which the defence relied was oral evidence from a witness as to what compensation was paid, said to have been 20 cartons of Coca Cola and K6,500 in cash.

Findings of fact

3.	That uncontested evidence justifies the following findings of fact:
(1)	At the time of this incident, the victim was a 47 year-old doctor who was the Director of Medical Services at Wabag General Hospital.
(2)	After finishing work at 11pm on 2 November 2022, he drove home.
(3)	When he arrived home and parked outside the front gate, the offender and two others tried to steal the vehicle he was driving.
(4)	At that time the offender was under the influence of liquor, having drunk beer earlier that day and the previous day.
(5)	During that incident the offender attacked and wounded the victim.
(6)	During that incident, an attempt was made to strangle the victim with a belt, but the victim successfully defended that aspect of the attack.
(7)	As a result of that incident, the victim was taken to Wabag Hospital, and later to Port Moresby Hospital, for medical treatment.
(8)	The injuries which the victim sustained in that incident included:

	(a)	lacerations to the upper and lower lips, left cheek and left brow;
	(b)	fracture injuries to both hands;
	(c)	a left ethmoid bone fracture; and
(d)	a resulting macula edema (ie swelling of the macula, the central part of the retina, caused by fluid buildup from leaking blood vessels) of the left eye that required treatment by an ophthalmologist.
(9)	The offender surrendered to Police the day after the attack.
(10)	Compensation of K6,500 in cash plus 20 cartons of Coca Cola was later paid.

Allocutus

4.	Since that evidence supported a conviction, a conviction was recorded, after which the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions.  The effect of what the offender said in Engan, translated into English, was:
“I have never committed any offence, and this is the first time I have committed this offence. I am a first-time offender and I am asking this court to have mercy on me.  I have violated the Constitution of this country. and I say sorry to the law/lord.  Secondly, I say sorry to my family for giving them a burden. I also say sorry to Dr Kondros and his family.  I have done the wrong thing already. I am asking for mercy from this Court.  I have done a wrong thing already and my community contributed Coca Cola and compensated the victim.  So I am asking the court once again to have mercy.  There were several breakouts from Baisu but I did not join the escapes from there, but my intention was to come here before this court.  So I stayed back.  Now I face the court and ask the court to have mercy again.  Finally, sorry again to the V and his family.  We were both under the influence of liquor and we did what we did.  Families have contributed in paying compensation and I would also like to give or pay compensation to him.  And I am asking this court to have mercy again. That is all.”

Defence submissions

5.	The offender was said to be aged 30 and from a family of four.  His father has already died, and his mother is elderly.  He was said to have had a Grade 11 education and to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church.

6.	Aggravating factors were said to be the offender being under the influence of liquor, the use of a beer bottle to hit the victim, the offence occurring at night and the prevalence of the offence.  

7.	Mitigating factors were said to be (1) admissions in the record of interview, (2) the expression of remorse, and (3) the payment of compensation.  It was conceded that a term of imprisonment was warranted and suggested that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors.  

8.	A sentence of imprisonment for seven years was suggested.  It was noted that the offender surrendered to police on the day after the incident which meant that he has been in custody since 3 November 2022, a period of 2 years and 48 weeks.  A further submission was made that suspension of any portion of the offender’s sentence was a matter for the court’s discretion.

Prosecution submissions

9.	The aggravating factors were said to be (1) the kind of assault, and (2) the seriousness of the injuries, as revealed by the medical report and photos.  It was noted that the maximum penalty for this offence was imprisonment for life which was said to indicate the seriousness of this offence.  A sentence of 7 years was conceded to be appropriate.  It was noted that the court had a discretion, provided by s 19 of the CCA, as to whether to suspend any portion of that sentence.  Further, it was accepted that the offender had already spent 4 years and 48 weeks in custody.

Relevant law

10.	In Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 the Supreme Court considered the question of what role compensation should play in relation to sentencing.  The position may be summarised in four propositions:
(1)	Compensation is not an alternative to the application of the criminal law.
(2)	Local customs may make compensation relevant for sentencing purposes.
(3)	The form and amount of compensation must be considered.
(4)	Compensation can be regard as a special mitigating factor.

Consideration

11.	The statement of the victim suggested that the offender struck him with a log while, in his record of interview, the offender suggested he used a full bottle of beer.  It is not necessary to resolve that issue because it is sufficient to find that the offender struck the victim and caused the injuries set out in an uncontested medical report.  Simply stated, the offender should not have struck the victim with either a log or a bottle of beer.

12.	It is the nature and extent of the injuries that makes this case serious.  Had this matter proceed to trial, it appears that a sentence of between 10 and 12 years would have been imposed.  

13.	However, allowance needs to be made for (1) the offender surrendering to the Police and making early admissions, (2) his expressions of remorse, and (3) the compensation that has been paid.  A reduction to imprisonment with hard labour for 7 years is considered appropriate, as suggested by both lawyers.  From that sentence, there should be a reduction for time already served.

14.	As was noted in Kovi, compensation is not an alternative to the application of the criminal law. Were that to be the case, an accused person could buy their way out of appropriate punishment and the rule of law would be undermined.  In this case, the compensation is of lesser consequence because it is not considered substantial by reference to the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the victim.

15.	By reason of the nature and extent of the injuries, the Court does not consider that any portion of the sentence should be suspended.

Sentence

16.	For those reasons, and by way of summary, the Court considers that imprisonment with hard labour for between 10 and 12 years would be appropriate if the accused had been found guilty following a trial.  Making an allowance for (1) the plea of guilty, (2) expressions of remorse, and (3) the compensation that has been paid, a sentence of 7 years is considered appropriate.  

17.	Deducting the period already spent in custody of 2 years and 48 weeks gives a remaining period to be served of 4 years and 4 weeks.

Sentenced accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor	
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor