N11547

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 97 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

AKOA HARLEY
(NO 1)

WAIGANI: MIVIRI J
18 , 19 , 20 AUGUST, 2, 3  SEPTEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Murder S300 (1)(a) CCA – Trial – Question of Credibility – State Case – Accused Assaulted Deceased – With a 40 ounce empty spirit Bottle – Medical Cause of Death – Haemorrhage with Skull fracture  – Blunt Trauma to the Head – Accused Denial  – Blaming Primary State Witness identifying Accused – Not Version to Police In Record of Interview – Sexual Intercourse with State Witness  – Motive for Attack – Military Policeman Abuse breach of Barracks Regulation – Two versions in Defence – Which is the Credible version – No Ring of Truth – State version Credible – Blunt force injury – Accused perpetrated assault – death ensured – Internal head Injury – Grievous bodily Harm – Death Resulting – Guilty of Murder – Remanded for Sentence .

Facts
Accused assaulted the deceased to the back of the head with a bottle causing internal injuries from which she bled to her death.

Held
Deceased with Accused.
Assaulted by him.
40-ounce spirit Bottle used.
Hit on the back of the head.
Medical cause of death Blunt trauma injury there.
Incredible Account by Accused.
Two versions.
No ring of truth.
Defence Version rejected.
State version accepted.
Guilty of Murder.
Remanded for sentence.

Cases cited 
Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558
Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980
John Jaminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318
Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659
Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498

Counsel
S. Patatie & E Kariko, for the State
S. Wanis, for the defendant
		
VERDICT

1.	MIVIRI J: 	This is the verdict on the indictment that the State has levelled against the accused of murder.

2.	The Accused Akoa Harley is 35 years old, a corporal with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force. He is a military police person. He was in a romantic relationship with the deceased Jenny Thomas who was also 32 years old from Tatape Village Komo- Magarima, Hela Province.

3.	On the 03rd June 2023 around 8.00am, the deceased Jenny Thomas accompanied by her friend Jacklyn Igiman went to the White house Club at 5 mile where they met the Accused. He left with his friends whilst Jenny and Jacklyn took a taxi to the single man’s quarters at Murray Barracks. There the Accused gave his room keys to Jenny and Jacklyn to go and sleep. And he continued drinking with his friends. Around 3.00pm to 4.00pm Accused returned and woke them up. He shouted offensive words at them, Jenny got up and argued with him. Accused punched Jenny in the face, she sat down covering her face. Accused took an empty 40-ounce Captain Moresby bottle and hit her on the back of the head and she remained sitting bleeding from the head. After the Accused left Jacklyn checked on her and realized that she was having trouble in breathing. The Accused came and with Jacklyn tried to revive Jenny but could not. Accused then sought assistance from a defence force medical who saw Jenny but could not revive her. Ambulance was called and attended taking her to the Port Moresby General Hospital where she was declared dead upon arrival.

4.	I am ably assisted by the submissions of both the State and the Defence filed into court as to the verdict due in law. Drawn common to both sides is the issue who caused that blunt force injury that she sustained to the back of her head leading to her demise.

5.	And common also to both sides are that the injury was grievous and life threatening. That whoever intended that assault upon her to that part of the body intended that she should suffer grievous bodily injury as a result. And there is no doubt that, that injury was the sole reason leading to her death. In my view therefore this element is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts. That the person who inflicted that grievous injury caused the death of the deceased as a result. What remains now is whether I should accept the evidence of Jacklyn Igiman or the Accused as to the author of the death of the deceased.

6.	It is not in issue that on that night the 03rd June 2023 access into the accused room at Murray Barracks was given by him to the deceased and Jacklyn Igiman. He had given them the room key either at the white house or later at the Barracks Ben Moide Club. What is disputed here is that the Accused says he left the room to the deceased and Jacklyn Igiman because Deceased had ignited an argument over the fact that he was sleeping with his hand around Jacklyn Igiman’s shoulder as they slept. He stated on oath he had had sexual intercourse with Jacklyn and fell asleep in this manner as seen by the deceased. Rather than argue with her he left the room to Jacklyn and the deceased. He did not see what happened in the room but was called back to the room by Jacklyn alerting that the deceased was finding difficulty breathing. Then he brought in the army medic who checked presumably her pulse and vitals with no positive response. So, ambulance was called to the scene. And they also went to the process after which one shook his head, which he took to mean that all was not well for the deceased. The ambulance took the deceased with Jacklyn on board to the hospital. There he left her in the care presence of Jacklyn because she was a woman. He went off even though the deceased was his girlfriend. She was declared dead on arrival.

7.	He had not assaulted her. He had nothing to do with the injury that she sustained but he left her to the care of Jacklyn who was alone in that room when she sustained the injury. If indeed it was in this way he showed no concern for her serious condition when she was taken to the hospital. He took no pain to check her even after leaving her at the hospital. He was a military police personal who had been drinking that night but could make out that he had left the room with deceased and Jacklyn. It did not occur to him that he must secure the person who was responsible for her demise. He went off as if her death did not matter to him. If the last person in the company of the deceased was Jacklyn, he made no move to be with her and to take her up for the matter. He refuted Kilot Ranson’s evidence of seeing bottles in the room and a 30-ounce warrior bottle underneath the bed, it was broken. That he kept the room clean because of barracks regulation and inspection to which he adhered. So there was no bottle in that room. Here I accept the evidence of Kilot Ranson who was sober and not effected in any way by alcohol. He was a medic who was called to see the body of the deceased trying to revive her because the accused complained to him, she was unconscious. He did not tell him how she becomes unconscious. But explained when questioned by this witness, that she had fallen from the bed, which was 50 to 60cm in height, just below the knee. How she fell from this bed it is not explained by the Accused. 

8.	Against this evidence is Exhibit P2 statement made by the Accused tendered by consent into evidence. It is dated 05th June 2023. He is cautioned and states that on that Saturday 03rd June 2023 he came out and saw three of his soldier buddies relaxing in the house wind in front. He joined them to share some cigarettes. He was facing the Signal Squadron Barracks building about 20 to 30 meters away. All military units have their own accommodation building for their troops.

9.	“After some minutes I noticed soldiers gathering at the Signal Squadron Building. I went over to see what was happening and I saw a lady on the floor with another lady next to her. The lady said her friend was not breathing so she had called someone to check on her. The soldiers were drunk and reluctant, so I called a medic and as soon as the medic arrived, I assisted him. I had my phone in my hand, so I called the St Johns Ambulance for assistance. The St Johns Ambulance arrived, and I assisted the medic, and the St Johns Para Medics carry the casualty to the Ambulance to Port Moresby General Hospital accident and Emergency area. I confirm that the lady friend was inside the Ambulance, and I left.” 

10.	This evidence removes the deceased from inside his room to the Signal Squadron Building where she is seen together with her lady friend to revive her. The scene is not in his room but outside signal Squadron Building. These are details that the accused has not given in the record of interview dated 12th June 2023, Exhibit P1 and P1(a) the English translation of that record of interview. In the record of interview, the deceased is in the room after erupting an argument with him over the way she saw him sleeping with the Jacklyn. And then he leaves both in the room and he walks out of the room closing the door behind him. He is alerted back into the room by Jacklyn because the deceased is finding hard to breath. This is the evidence also on oath by the accused. He explains that because of barracks regulations he does not keep any bottles in the room. And admits that he broke barracks regulation to bring both women into the room.

11.	Is there any truth and credibility in the differing versions that the Accused has given set out above. Firstly, he does not have consistency in his accounts. Both versions of his evidence do not see eye to eye. There is very distinctive departure one version from the other.  There are two locations one now by his Statement to police at the Signal Squadron Building outside, and secondly in his room where the only persons in that room where the deceased with Jacklyn and he outside after closing the door. In the former he has called none of the soldiers who were in that group trying to help the deceased who was finding difficulty in breathing. This version shifts the blame he was to the signal building where there were several soldiers. Possibly with intent to shift the blame away from himself as the assailant of the deceased. But this story does not stand well with the evidence of army medic Kilot Ranson (Ranson) who attends to the deceased in the room of the Accused. Accused fetched him to come and see the deceased there, not at the signal squadron Building surrounded by soldiers. And Ranson’s evidence ties in with Jacklyn and the Accused.  Ranson testifies that the Accused told him that she had fallen from the bed that was in the room. This is about 50 to 60cm up in height. It was at the back of the table. He checked for oxygen there was none, so he called the ambulance. Who also checked and confirmed at the scene before taking the body to the hospital. Remarkably he saw 30-ounce warrior bottle broken under the bed in the room. And there were bottles in the room. He said Jacklyn appeared confused and shocked when they took the body to the hospital.

12.	Jacklyn says that the Accused was swearing obscenities at them, that “Yu tupela kirap ol army bai kwapim yutupela. Rausim ol clothes bilong yutupela,” interpreted, “Wake up both of you the army will have sex with you both. Remove your clothes.” Jenny went up and fought him and he punched Jenny in the face. Then he got an empty Captain Moresby 40-ounce bottle at the side of the door and hit Jenny at the back of the head. And she sat down when he hit her there. Then he went outside the room slamming the door and complaining. That Jenny had punched him first and he fought back. Jenny had blood on her mouth. I turned her then called him to come and he tried to revive her by applying CPR or Cardiopulmonary resuscitation but to no avail. He tried to give her breath also to no avail. And they called for Ambulance. He hit her on the back of the head she was finding it hard to breath. And saliva came out of her mouth. When she was turned blood came out from where she was lying on the floor. Which was the skull back of the head.

13.	Persons who were immediately with her just before her death was the Accused and State witness Jacklyn Igiman (Jacklyn). It is undisputed facts that the Accused was Initially at Chilli Pepper on that Friday night 2nd June 2023 with the deceased. It is common between his evidence and that of Jacklyn, that together with the deceased they went to the White House at five (5) mile. There she saw this man, the Accused. He is the one who killed the deceased. I don’t know his name he was drinking there where Jenny worked. I went to the Club to drink. Jenny was there with her brother. These facts the accused has denied in his evidence on oath. He distances himself from ever meeting and seeing the brother Eddie Paglipari whose evidence is the contrary that he did meet the accused introduced to him by the deceased. And that he bought beer for them and went back continued to drink and play pokies. 

14.	I have observed the demeanour of the Accused compared to the Eddie Paglipari, Jacklyn Igiman and Kilot Ranson. I determine from my observations in open court that I am not impressed with the demeanour of the Accused. Eddie Paglipari in my view was a very honest witness. He showed no emotion but had a sense of giving the best evidence as he saw it on that night meeting his sister the deceased who introduced the accused to him. Yes, he was playing pokies and drinking but his sense of the chronology of events on that night was clear. He was not affected by the consumption of alcohol. I do not have any reason to doubt the veracity of his evidence. The accused denial that he did not see Eddie Paglipari is an endeavour to disassociate himself from the deceased. Eddie’s evidence is parallel with that of Jacklyn Igiman.

15.	In the case of Jacklyn Igiman, I find no reason to doubt the veracity of her evidence. She was a best friend of the deceased. Yes, she lost a friend, but if she was the assailant because she was left in that room with the deceased and the Accused was outside, she made no effort to run away from the dead body of her friend. She was with the body from the room to the hospital to where the deceased was pronounced dead on arrival. Her evidence was given with a sense of lighting the truth as it unfolded before her eyes. Her evidence is consistent with that the accused bringing the army medic Kilot Ransan to the room, and not to the signal Squadron Building his statement to police set out above.

16.	Kilot Ransan’s evidence is hand in hand with Jacklyn Igiman. The deceased was seen in the room of the Accused. He had brought him there to try to revive her as she was unconscious from his report to him. He is a sober witness unaffected by the consumption of alcohol. He comes to the scene because of his position as an army medic. And that is what he set out to do on this occasion revive the deceased. He did not get any response for oxygen. When we tried to take to the hospital she had a wound on the back of her head. Akoa Harley had called me to see the deceased who was unconscious. And he himself was drunk. There was bottle broken in half under the bed in the room. I have seen this witness give evidence. I do not have any reservations as to his credibility nor the veracity of his evidence. I accept his evidence as the truth seen witnessed by himself on this day.

17.	When I weigh all the evidence side by side, I prefer and accept the State’s evidence for the reasons I have set out above, over the accused. I do not accept his evidence, because comparably he has given differing versions of evidence that are not consistent one from the other. There are a lot of material inconsistencies which I have set out above to show that he is a witness who has tried to disassociate himself from being with the deceased on that night, or immediately before she met her demise. His evidence is calculated to draw that he was not the assailant of the deceased. He could not have assaulted the deceased because the assault did not take place in his room but at the signal squadron Building. Alternatively, he was outside his room separated by the door that was closed. And that inside was the deceased and Jacklyn Igiman. He could not have killed the deceased. The problem with aligning with this evidence is that it is not consistent with his record of interview. Which is more closer to the time of the allegation. He has had to think about his evidence initially given and so the evidence he has now given in court on oath. I do not find him to be a truthful and honest witness. 

18.	He tried to avoid what was glaring at him. His criminal conduct that was witnessed by Jacklyn Igiman from when they were together that night to when he assaulted the deceased and killed her in the process. Whose evidence is corroborated by Eddie Paglipari and then Kilot Ransan. The latter is sober and a medical professional. He is not concerned with aligning to any side but telling the truth as he saw. It means the Accused credibility is not worthy of belief. It is inconsistent and not on par with common sense and logic. I rely on fact in law that any serious unexplained inconsistency in evidence and evidence not in keeping with logic and common sense are basis for rejection of such evidence:  Kandakason v The State [1998] PGSC 20; SC558; Waranaka v Dusava [2009] PGSC 11; SC980. Fortified by this I reject the evidence of the Accused outright. Reliance on it would be erroneous given my evidence here. Further he has in my view lied to paint and alibi that was not there in the first place ever. The effect of which is to corroborate the account of the state in its assertion against him, John Jaminan v The State [1983] PNGLR 318.  He does not take his evidence to any level that would cast any doubt against the State evidence. On the balance of probabilities, he fails. The State on the other hand excels because they have discharged beyond all reasonable doubt that Jenny Thomas was hit with an empty 40-ounce bottle of captain Moresby in the room of the accused. He had picked it up and used it as described by Jacklyn Igiman injuring Jenny Thomas. And that bottle broken in two pieces was seen by Kilot Ransan under the bed when he went into that room to try to medically assist her to no avail.

19.	 The denial that there was no bottle in the room, let alone a 40-ounce Captain Moresby bottle does not hold water in his favour. He is an accused person. There is no corroboration of is account: Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659. It is not the same for the State there is very strong fibre of truth spiralling so much so that the accused version does not stand even past the balance of probabilities when view circumstantially: Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498. Because he left her with Jacklyn Igiman who he says was responsible for her death. He made no attempt as a military policeman to secure her apprehension for that homicide. If that is not enough, he was not there when She was being revived to no avail at the signal squadron Building. He tried to bring the army medic Kilot Ransan there. It is not the latter’s evidence. I accept the Kilot Ransan treated deceased in the room of the Accused. And Accused took it upon himself to bring the medic because he was the last person with the deceased in the presence of Jacklyn Igiman. Who did what this witness saw. 

20.	I do not have any doubts that that is the verdict against the Accused guilty of Murder pursuant to section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act. And I return that on the Indictment presented.
 
Ordered Accordingly

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