N11530
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1019 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

JOSHUA APAS LONDARI

WABAG: ELLIS J
16, 17 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – MURDER - s. 300(1)(a) CCA – Plea – Victim confronted offender who struck victim in the neck with a bush knife – need for deterrence – allowance made for plea and the offence involving a relative – 16 years IHL.

Brief facts
The offender and the victim were both under the influence of liquor.  The offender struck the victim in the neck with a bush knife, said to have been done in anticipation of the victim attacking the offender.

Held
(1)	Charge of murder assessed as Category 2 by reference to Kovi.
(2)	Late plea of guilty, offender and victim related, victim’s conduct considered.
(3)	Sentence at low end of range of 16 to 20 years imposed.

Cases cited
Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Mikoro v The State [2015] PGSC 12; SC1424
Nita v State [2020] PGSC 77; SC1983
Tanabo v The State [2016] PGSC 61; SC1543
The State v Pundi (2025) N11522

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

SENTENCE

1.	ELLIS J: 	Joshua Apas Londari, of Pawas village in Wabag in Enga Province, was committed for trial on a charge of wilful murder.  He entered a plea of guilty to a charge of murder, based on section 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA), a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

2.	Section 300, so far as is presently relevant, provides as follows:

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 …

Allocutus

3.	Since the uncontested evidence upon which the State relied supported a conviction, a conviction was recorded then the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions.  

4.	Omitting what have become the standard wording for expressions of remorse by offenders in Wabag, what he said, as translated into English by the Court’s interpreter, may be summarised as follows:

(1)	He did not plan to get into the trouble that brought him before the Court.
(2)	That trouble began during a night when he and the victim were both under the influence of liquor.
(3)	His version of events was that he and the victim had an argument, and they were swearing at each other, after which the victim came after him, armed with a bush knife.
(4)	“I thought he was going to cut me with a bush knife, so I retaliated by cutting him.”
(5)	He did not know on which part of his body the bush knife landed.
(6)	After that, nine houses in his village and a vehicle in his village were burnt.
(7)	“I am only a young man, I did what I did, and I am asking this Court to have mercy on me.  I am asking this court if I can have a fine.  I am asking if this court can transfer me out, to Barawaghi.”

Evidence

5.	The evidence placed before the Court by the State was the Police brief being pages numbered 3 to 28 (Exhibit A), but with pages 22 and 23 (MFI 1) excluded.  Those two pages contained an Autopsy Report, signed by a qualified doctor.  The objection was on the basis that there was no affidavit.  That objection was of no utility because the witness statements and the photos clearly established the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the victim by the offender.

6.	No evidence was relied on by the offender in the sentence hearing.  

Defence submissions

7.	It was contended that this incident was the result of a drunken brawl, as both the offender and the victim were under the influence of alcohol, that the offender did not provoke the incident, and that the offender did not intend to cause the victim’s death but only to inflict bodily harm.

8.	The offender was said to be 23 years old and the third of four children whose mother was alive but whose father was deceased.  It was also said that the offender’s brother was “killed by the deceased a few years ago”.  Having dropped out of school at grade 9, in 2019, the offender was said to be a subsistence farmer who is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church.

9.	Although accepting that this was a serious attack with a bush knife, which resulted in the loss of a life, and that this offence was prevalent, it was submitted that the Court should consider (1) the plea of guilty, (2) the offender having surrendered to the Police, (3) the expressions of remorse, and (4) what was said to be a high degree of provocation.

10.	After referring to Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (Kovi), it was contended this case fell within category two, for which imprisonment for between 16 and 20 years was suggested.  It was said that, because the offender was defending himself, and had no intention to murder, this case could not be assessed as falling within category 3.  It was also contended that Kovi only provided a guideline.

11.	Reference was made to three cases, each involving a charge of murder:

(1)	Mikoro v The State [2015] PGSC 12; SC1424, in which a sentence of 20 years, following a trial, was confirmed on appeal, it being noted that the sentence was within the range of 16 to 20 years, suggested by Kovi for cases within category 2.
(2)	Tanabo v The State [2016] PGSC 61; SC1543, in which a sentence of 20 years was substituted for a first instance sentence of life imprisonment, again following a trial.
(3)	Nita v State [2020] PGSC 77, SC1983 was a case where a sentence of 30 years, following a plea of guilty, was reduced to 18 years on appeal.

12.	It was suggested that the starting point should be 20 years with a reduction for the plea of guilty to 16 years and then a deduction for 2 years and 10 months and 15 days already spent in custody.  There was also a submission, based on the decision in Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182; SC353 (Apo) that the Court should take into consideration that the offender and victim were cousins, said to be revealed by the witness statements in Exhibit A.

13.	In a submission in reply, it was said that the decision earlier this week, in The State v Pundi (2025) N11522 (Pundi), involved more serious conduct because a gun was used and the victim in that case was unarmed, opposed to this case where it was said the victim tried to attack the offender.

Prosecution submissions

14.	For the State, it was noted that the circumstances of the offence were before the Court, in Exhibit A.  This case was summarised as one which involved the death of the victim, a man said to be aged just over 30 years, when he was chopped on the neck with a bush knife.  In short, that a dangerous weapon was used to inflict a serious injury to the neck of the victim.  By reference to the photos in Exhibit A, the killing was brutal.  Those photos were said to suggest a complete disregard for human life, and it was noted that the maximum penalty for the charge the offender faces is imprisonment for life.  

15.	It was said that, although Kovi is not binding, it serves as a signpost to how judges at first instance should approach sentencing.  A submission was made that this case fell within category 3 for which the sentencing range suggested by Kovi was said to be imprisonment for between 20 and 30 years.  Reference was made to the sentence imposed earlier this week, in the case of Pundi, in which a sentence of 20 years was imposed for a case held to fall within what Kovi called category 3.  It was submitted that Supreme Court cases for this kind of murder revealed a range of between 20 and 30 years.

Relevant law

16.	Kovi is a Supreme Court judgment with the result that it binds judges at first instance.  It provided guidelines for sentencing when the charge is murder, by suggesting sentencing ranges under the following four categories which are set out below:

Category 1					12-15 years

Plea						No weapons used.
Ordinary cases.				Little or no pre-planning.
Mitigating factor with			Minimum force used.
No aggravating factors.			Absence of strong intent to do GBH.

Category 2					16-20 years

Trial or plea					No strong intent to do GBH.
Mitigating factors with			Weapons used.
Aggravating factors.			Some pre-planning.
						Some element of viciousness.

Category 3					20-30 years

Trial or plea					Pre-planned. Vicious attack.
Special aggravating factors.		Strong desire to do GBH.
Mitigating factors reduced in 		Dangerous or offensive weapon used
weight or rendered insignificant 	eg. gun or axe.
by gravity of offence.			Other offences of violence committed.

Category 4					Life imprisonment

Worst case - Trial or plea			Pre-meditated attack.
Special aggravating factors.		Brutal killing, in cold blood.

17.	As the prosecution bears the onus of proof and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, it follows that, when considering the findings of fact before sentencing, any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favour of the offender.  That does not necessarily mean that what the offender asserts, either in a statement made under during his allocutus or in a record of interview, must be accepted.  It is noted that, unlike statements made by State witnesses, what is said during an allocutus and in answer to questions during a record of interview, is not said under an obligation to tell the truth. Findings of fact must be based on a consideration of all the evidence before the Court.

18.	Two eyewitnesses provided statements for the State, one of whom was the brother of the victim.  They both suggested that, when the victim was collecting a beer bottle from the offender, the offender struck him with a bush knife, once, in the neck.  On the other hand, both in his record of interview and during the allocutus, the offender asserted that the victim was carrying a bush knife and that he, being afraid of being wounded, struck the victim with his bush knife.  The Court resolves that difference on the basis that the offender’s version creates a reasonable doubt that should be resolved in his favour.

Findings of fact

19.	The Court makes the following findings of fact for the purposes of sentencing this offender:

(1)	The offender and the victim are cousins.
(2)	At about 10pm on 29 November 2023 the offender struck the victim in the neck with a bush knife, killing him.
(3)	The offender struck that blow in anticipation of being struck with a bush knife by the victim.
(4)	Striking a person anywhere on the body constitutes an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

Consideration

20.	The Court resolves the competing submissions (1) that Kovi is a binding decision, and (2) that Kovi only provides guidelines, by approaching this case on the basis that Kovi should be followed unless there are circumstances which clearly warrant a sentence outside the range suggested by that case.

21.	A difficulty that arises when applying Kovi is that cases do not always neatly fall into any one category.  For example, in this case there was little or no pre-planning, which is an element for category 1.  This case involved a weapon being used and an element of viciousness, being features of category 2.  Although it was submitted for the State that this case should be regarded as category 3, the reference in that category to a dangerous weapon being used, gives a gun or an axe as examples.  

22.	It is considered that the use of a bush knife should be considered a “category 2 weapon” and that the sentence imposed in this case should be determined by reference to that category, for which the suggested range is imprisonment for 16 to 20 years.  

23.	The three cases to which reference was made in the submissions for the offender represent no more than an application of Kovi.

24.	While Apo does contain suggestions (in the judgments of Kapi DCJ, as he then was, and Woods J) in support of the proposition that the offender being a relative of the victim is a circumstance relevant to sentencing, that is not considered a major factor, and certainly not one sufficient to justify departing from the guidelines suggested by Kovi.  It is also noted that Apo is authority for the proposition that being under the influence of liquor is not a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.

25.	Having regard to (1) the circumstances of the offence, (2) the circumstances of the offender, including the absence of prior convictions, (3) the late plea, on the day when an indictment on a charge of wilful murder was to be presented, (4) the conduct of the victim, (5) the offence involving the killing of a relative, and (6) the need for deterrence due to the prevalence of deaths caused by the use of bush knives, the Court considers the sentence for this offender cannot be reduced below the lower limit of the range set out in Kovi for a murder conviction falling within category 2.  

26.	The expressions of remorse during the allocutus carry little weight when they follow the same formula which the Court hears in every case.  Reciting a form of words designed to provide the basis for a lesser sentence cannot be considered to constitute genuine remorse.

27.	It is noted that the offender asked the Court to impose a fine.  That reflects a failure to appreciate the seriousness of this offence and a lack of respect for human life.  The Court has no hesitation in rejecting that request.

28.	There was also a request by the offender to serve his sentence in the Barawaghi correctional facility.  However, that request was not pursued by his lawyer and the Court is left with no basis for departing from the current position where those sentenced by the National Court in Wabag serve their sentences at Baisu.

29.	Clearly, this offender would not now find himself facing a lengthy term of imprisonment if (1) he did not drink beer to the point where his judgement was adversely affected by the influence of liquor, and (2) he did not carry a bush knife, which he should not have needed to do.

Sentence

30.	For those reasons, the Court considers that a sentence of imprisonment for hard labour for 16 years should be imposed. As the offender surrendered to the Police soon after the offence on 29 November 2023, he has spent 1 year 10 months and 2 weeks in custody prior to today.   Deducting that period, gives a period remaining to be served of 14 years, 1 month and 2 weeks.

Sentenced accordingly.

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