N11543
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. (JJ) 38 OF 2025

THE STATE

V

MB

WAIGANI: MIVIRI J
7, 8 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Manslaughter S302 CCA – Plea – 16-year-Old Juvenile – Fell from House with Knife in hand penetrated Deceased in Neck – Intent on Getting a Bird’s nest in Roof of House – Unlawful Act – Death Resulting – Body Disposed in Pit Toilet – Sanction Loss of Life – First Time Offender – 5 years IHL. 

Facts
Accused and deceased were intent on getting a bird’s nest that was located in the roof of a house. Accused climbed to the top but missed his footing landing with the knife handed to him by the deceased penetrating him in the neck killing him.

Held
Guilty plea.
First time offender.
Unlawful taking of life
5 years IHL

Cases cited
State v Iparu [2005] PGNC 11; N2995 
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913 
Lialu v The State [1990] PGSC 16; [1990] PNGLR 487 
Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702 
State v Er [1998] PGNC 78; N1749 
Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017
Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 
Acting Public Prosecutor v Aumane, Boku, Wapulae, and Kone [1980] PNGLR 510
Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564

Counsel
T. Kokents, for the State
I. Kaiap, for the defendant
					
SENTENCE

1.	MIVIRI J: Matthias Bila alias MB appears to receive his sentence after pleading guilty to having stabbed one Lowotiki Jesman in the neck causing him to die because of blood loss.

2.	On the 17th July 2024 at ATS Samarai block at the new house of Soho, uncle of the accused. Lowotiki Jesman a 10-year-old boy was stabbed in the neck by the Accused MB who lost his footing falling with the knife in his hand earlier given by the deceased. Deceased had given the knife on the instructions of the accused to get a bird’s nest in the roof of his uncle’s house. As he tried to get that bird’s nest that was in the roof of the house his foot slipped, and he fell with the knife that penetrated the deceased in the neck killing him. MB took the body of the deceased and dumped him into the toilet pit nearby. It was discovered by the owner of the house one Grox Soho on the 19th July 2024 when a bad smell emitted from there, including flies that were drawn. He alerted the police who retrieved the body and investigated leading to the arrest of the accused.

3.	Hence this charge of Manslaughter under section 302 which has followed. That is worded in the following terms:

“A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute wilful murder, murder or infanticide is guilty of manslaughter.
Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.”

4.	He pleaded guilty to the charge confirming the admissions he made to police in his record of interview. It is not the usual manslaughter cases that has come before this Court time and again. Here the circumstances surrounding were clearly of two young boys the deceased aged 10 years old, the prisoner aged 16, intent on getting a bird’s nest that led to the offence when the prisoner fell as he did. There was no intent to kill or cause the death. It simply did not occur to both that the prisoner would fall as he did with the deceased standing posed immediately under where he was struck by the knife in the neck causing his death. What comes out here is that both were children intent on seeing what nature offered in the bird’s nest. They were not fluent with, nor did they anticipate the danger of getting to the scene as here. He was no doubt a 10-year-old who was not alerted of the danger posed with the prisoner at that height with the knife. That if he did fall, he would cause the injury sustained leading to the death. 

5.	Looked at from another perspective the facts here would not be on par with a driver unlicenced inexperienced driving under the influence of alcohol: State v Iparu [2005] PGNC 11; N2995. Because that is criminal negligence overt and apparent certainly as it did climax in the criminal offence of dangerous driving causing death. And therefore, the criminal conduct would be measured to come out with the proportionate appropriate sentence. That would not be so given the facts here. There is nothing to disclose that death was waiting to happen here. Which is what happened in the cases sighted by both counsels. The prisoners in those cases reacted with the weapons posed causing the offences of manslaughter. It is not what that is here. And therefore, I do not consider them as relevant to the fact’s circumstances posed here. The sentences imposed there are individual to those cases. They do not tie here.

6.	But the guide set out in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 is helpful. Comparably the manslaughter range there the first category of 8 to 12 years imprisonment will not draw against the conduct of the prisoner. His use of the weapon is not a willed act. He fell with the knife in his hand that landed on the neck of the deceased. It is exceptional in the way it has come about and of relevance and applicable would-be State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913. He was speared by the relatives of the young girl who he had raped. And had died placed in the Buka morgue, but miraculously came back to life. Death penalty was envisaged but because of the beating by the relatives that led to his demise. It was considered that life years be imposed. The sum is that his penalty will be determined primarily by his facts. It is aggravating that a life is lost as a result. Because there is no adult person immediately there to contain and to point out the danger posed in their conduct. Children are venerable and must always be supervised or protected to avoid the scene here.

7.	And this is a situation that has developed to this level because of the way he set his footing on that height. And made serious with the hiding of the body of the deceased. Presumably more panic then strict concealment of a crime. The sentence will educate more than punish. But in his favour is his guilty plea especially of the fact that he is a sixteen (16) year old juvenile. That is in his favour because he has accepted responsibility for the crime committed. He wants by that fact to face what is due in law to him. He admits that by his allocutus to Court. A first offender who was educated to grade 8 level from which he did not continue. He lives with his father as the mother has since passed on.
 
8.	I will not start from the usual facts portrayed in classical manslaughter scene as in Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487, where a single punch landed the deceased on his back cracking his skull drawing 10 years imprisonment for the crime. That is an unlawful act here there is no anticipation of any illegality until the fall with the knife. Like in all the penalty flows because a life has been lost which will not come back despite whatever sentence is imposed. Its facts do not echo with Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702, or that of State v Er [1998] PGNC 78; N1749, eight (8) years imprisonment was imposed for murder upon the wife killing the young woman the husband was with ignoring her and four children. And certainly not within Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017. Fundamental is "Manslaughter is a very serious matter or offence and it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. And the life imprisonment is because a life is gone and that person is never going to come back. "No matter whose fault it is, the person is dead, and it is tragic.” Marangi (supra). Retribution will be emphasized but educating the prisoner more. Sentence will not crush his life but rejuvenate resuscitate his life. And this Court will determine in the light of section 19 (6) of the Criminal Code.

9.	In making this determination I am mindful that probation has not been recommended by the presentence report filed. But the facts that are set out above do not convince that a long custodial term is appropriate given. It would not be proportionate given the facts that I have set out above. But the deceased was intent with the prisoner to get the bird’s nest. It was not in the mind of the prisoner to stab the deceased in the neck descending falling from that height. This is a guilty plea that leniency must be exercised coupled with all set out above.

10.	I consider that an appropriate sentence befitting his facts and circumstances is 5 years imprisonment in hard labour. It is not the worst case of manslaughter: Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653, so will not draw the maximum prescribed. Nor would it be considered inappropriate within the meaning of Acting Public Prosecutor v Aumane, Boku, Wapulae, and Kone [1980] PNGLR 510, he was not in a feud with the deceased climaxing in the stabbing and death. It was fatal by his footing from that height leading to the stabbing. Had he placed his footing right the offence would not have seen the pages of this judgment. That is in his favour but for the sanctity of life and the right to life. His facts and circumstances write the sentence appropriate proportionate, Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38. 

11.	He will be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment in Hard Labour. Time in custody will be deducted from that head sentence. He will serve the balance in jail at the Juvenile section of the Jail. I do not have the basis upon which to suspend the whole sentence: Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC564. He will serve the balance in jail forthwith.

Sentenced accordingly.

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