N11520

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 537, 538 & 539 OF 2025

THE STATE

V

BOINE DENNY SOTNO
SANZE SAM RICHIE
ERICKA KUKS SAM

LAE: KANGWIA J
10 OCTOBER 2025

MURDER – Brutal attack with bush knives – monumental consequence- 18 bush knife wounds of varying sizes- sanctity of life - prevalence of offence - guilty plea by first time offender-sentenced to 28 years. 

Cases cited
Manu Kovi v State (2005) SC789
Public Prosecutor v Panikuiaka Nopi [1979] SC165
Kesino Apo v the State [1988] PNGLR 1880
Thress Kumbamong v the State (2008) SC1017
Lialu v the State [1990] PNGLR 487 
Lawrence Simbe v the State [1994] PNGLR 38 
Goli Golu v the State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Polin Pochalau Lopai [1988-89] PNGLR

Counsel
N. Pare, for the State 
J. Steven, for the defence

1.	KANGWIA J:  The offenders appeared for sentence after they were convicted on their guilty plea to one count of Murder pursuant to s 300 of the Criminal Code. It is alleged that the offender attacked the deceased with bush knives after the deceased failed to pay K600 as compensation for an earlier incident involving missing cows. 

Bonine Denny Sotino is 20 years old, single and a villager. 
Sanze Sam Richie is 19 years old, single and a villager.
Ericka Kuks Sam is 19 years old, single and a villager. 

2.	On their allocutus each and severally said, “I say sorry to God for breaking the Law and the Court for taking its time. I say sorry to the family of the deceased and my family for spoiling their name. I ask for leniency”. 

3.	On their behalf Ms. Steven submits that a sentence of 20 years is appropriate as this case falls into the 3rd category of the guidelines in Manu Kovi v State (2005) SC789. The offenders pleaded guilty as first-time offender and have expressed remorse. There was de facto provocation present given the background of the offenders as villagers.

4.	For the State Mr. Pare while referring to several comparable sentences, submits that a sentence between 20 and 30 years is appropriate. There was a loss of life when offensive weapons were used in a vicious attack of a defenseless man. 

5.	The offenders have each and severally been indicted of Murder pursuant to s 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code. This provision states:

300. MURDER 

(1) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who kills another person under any of the following circumstances is guilty of murder: 
(a)	if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to the person killed or to some other person; or 
(b)	….
(c)	….
Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life

6.	Parliament as the lawmaker prescribed life imprisonment for murder and all other homicides basically to preserve the sanctity of life which is irreplaceable after it is removed. The Supreme Court has consistently endorsed the proposition on the sanctity of life for sentencing offenders associated with loss of lives. 

7.	In the case of Public Prosecutor v Panikuiaka Nopi [1979] PNGLR 536 the Supreme Court said,

“The sentence the Court imposes must also be geared towards preserving human life in obedience to the Constitutional mandate under s. 35.  Courts have time and again placed great importance on the sanctity of human life and the need to impose adequate sentences on offenders who cause a death or are involved in any way in the loss of a human life”.

8.	The Supreme Court further endorsed that proposition in the case of Kesino Apo v the State [1988] PNGLR 1880 when it proclaimed that imprisonment should be the starting point owing to the sanctity of life, a consideration which parliament intended.

9.	I have stated in various homicide cases that sanctity of life demands nothing less than a custodial sentence for any type of homicide. It must be the common denominator in sentencing for all types of killings. To do otherwise renders the sanctity of life as a valueless commodity. I will continue to stand by that proposition unless persuaded otherwise because there can never be any justification for forced removal of one’s life. 

10.	In the present case the sentencing principles canvassed by counsels in submission are adopted for sentencing the offender. The overarching principle though is that sentencing is an exercise of the unfettered discretion of the Court.

11.	The sentencing discretion of the Court is amplified by the Supreme Court in the case of Thress Kumbamong v the State (2008) SC1017 where the Court pronounced that the sentencing Court is not bound by guidelines or minimum or maximum tariffs. 

12.	The proposition is further enhanced by the Supreme Court in the case of Lialu v the State (1990) PNGLR 487 by observing that there is no mathematical or scientific formula for arriving at a particular specific sentence which was further affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lawrence Simbe v the State [1994] PNGLR 38. 

13.	The offenders are to be sentenced for Murder for which the maximum prescribed penalty is subject to s 19 life imprisonment. 

14.	However, the maximum prescribed penalty shall not apply owing to the principle of law which states that the maximum is reserved for the worst category of each case.  (Goli Golu v the State (1979) PNGLR 653).

15.	An appealing consideration in sentencing generally that the court will adopt in the present case, is what the Court stated in State v Polin Pochalau Lopai [1988-89] PNGLR. In that case the Court said:

“Every form of punishment takes into account ... both seriousness of the intention behind the act or omission and the seriousness of the consequences....with consequence the more serious the consequence the greater the punishment”.

16.	The seriousness of the consequence appears to be the reason why earlier sentences cited by counsels in submissions are varied 

17.	In the offenders’ cases all of them have two common aggravating factors operating against them. First is that the consequence of their respective acts and omissions is monumental. A life was lost, and the sanctity of life demand a custodial sentence.  

18.	Secondly murder is and for that matter all homicides are prevalent in this country and more so Morobe Province which many regard as a peaceful province. These two factors when combined render any mitigating factor insignificant. 

19.	Despite that, there are two mitigating factors which cannot be just ignored. The offenders have all pleaded guilty early and it saved the Courts time and expenses involved in conducting a trial. They are also first-time offenders who cooperated with police and expressed remorse. Generally, these factors alone entitle an offender to a lower sentence and the offenders in the present cases cannot be denied the same benefit.  

20.	Since the offenders acted in unison the sentence shall be the same for all of them. They committed an horrendous attack using bush knives on the deceased who was unarmed and defenceless. The Doctors report states that 18 bush knife wounds of various sizes were found on the body. It makes their offence to fall into the very serious category of murder bordering on wilful murder. There appears to be no valid reason for attacking the deceased in the way they did. For the K600 that was never paid they should have taken him to court. That is the only proper way to settle disputes. They did not do that and took the law into their own hands.  

21.	The circumstances of the offence places it into the third category of the Manu Kovi guidelines and they would have been sentenced up to 30 years or more for that. However, for pleading guilty early as first-time offenders the head sentence shall be 28 years imprisonment. 

22.	From the 28 years the pre-sentence period in custody shall be deducted and the balance shall be served at CIS Buimo. 

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor	
Lawyer for the defence:	Public Solicitor