Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Harley [2025] PGNC 416; N11548 (6 October 2025)

N11548

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 97 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

AKOA HARLEY

WAIGANI: MIVIRI J
18 SEPTEMBER, 6 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Murder S300 (1)(a) CCA – Trial – Drunken Fight With Deceased – Hit Back of Head with Empty 40-ounce spirit Bottle – Medical Cause of Death – Haemorrhage with Skull fracture – Blunt Trauma to the Head – Internal head Injury – Grievous bodily Harm – Death Resulting – First Offender – Serious Offence – Military Policeman – Prevalent Offence – Strong Deterrent & Punitive Sentence – 25 years IHL minus time on Remand.

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

Held
40-ounce Bottle used to hit Deceased.
Hit on the back of the head.
Venerable part of body.
Military Policeman.
Offence committed in the barracks.
First offender
Prevalent offence.
Strong deterrent & punitive Sentence.
25 years IHL.

Cases cited
Sumai v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2020] PGSC 35; SC1948
Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890
State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Tardrew, Public Prosecutor v [1986] PNGLR 91
State v Paru (No 3) [2021] PGNC 385; N9248
State v Pritchard [2016] PGNC 15; N6183
Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659
Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702
Tanga v State [1999] PGSC 4; SC602
State v Er [1998] PGNC 78; N1749

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

SENTENCE

1. MIVIRI J: This is the sentence of Akoa Harley 35 years old a corporal with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force who was found guilty after trial that he on the 03^rd of June 2023 at Murray Barracks hit his girlfriend 32-year-old Jenny Thomas on the back of the head with a 40-ounce captain Moresby bottle killing her.
   
2. I need not repeat the facts upon arraignment set out in the judgement on verdict suffice to say that the killing took place in the army barracks at Murray Barracks. She had succumbed to internal head injuries sustained because of that hit to the back of her head. And she was reacting to him when hit in that manner. It was a military barracks and should not have seen this crime there. By itself that is a place of strict discipline, yet this is an action of an ill-disciplined member of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force. He has brought disrepute and ill norm to that force. He must be shown that he has no place in that Force, and the long arm of the law will bring discipline orderliness amongst all within. His defiance has no respect of that fact. Let alone observing discipline and military ethics. He is a military police personal, a corporal. That alone is enough to sound that his conduct is very serious. He does not display orderliness as such an officer. It was out of a drunken situation between the prisoner on the one hand, and the deceased over the other.
   
3. Consumption of alcohol is everyday occurrence in the life of every person who has taken it as a way of life. It is rampant across the length and breadth of the country. Its consumption is not a ticket nor licence to become violent and to take that out on another fellow human being. It is freely available without minimum restrictions, but that does not read that it will be used as a cover to avoid the full force of the law upon an assailant as here. The ripple of its use is forever inked across the pages of the jurisdiction and so must on this occasion be spelt out that the law will not tolerate its use to the climax of crime. Because drink is consumed not the other way around, the human being is consumed by the drink. Perhaps the sum is “Volenti non fit injuria” He who volunteers suffers no injury. So, this is a message to all who drink that caution be exercised in the level of alcohol you take because any reaction as a result will be yours to bear in law. There will be no cause that it was alcohol stemming and therefore leniency be exercised.
   
4. Human life taken as here must be sanctioned as it is precious by section 35 of the Constitution. And the maximum prescribed term for the offence of Murder is life imprisonment. I will determine that if all my facts circumstances paint that this is the worst case of murder, prisoner will draw the maximum due by law. Should it be otherwise than a determinate term of years will follow. The bottom line is that the sentence must fit the gravity of the crime committed: Sumai v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2020] PGSC 35; SC1948. The initial sentences that were dished of 40 years, 32 years, 28 years, and 20 years was varied by the supreme Court to 37, 29, 25 and 17 years respectively for wilful murder committed by the appellants upon the deceased. He had burnt down their house and they reacted in that manner. It was de facto provocation not considered by the sentencing Court at first instance. There is no evidence of any defacto provocation to prompt what the prisoner did. It is a trial as opposed to a guilty plea: Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890.
   
5. I have the benefit of the presentence report filed as of the 22^nd September 2025. He is a first offender aged 35 years old who has education level to First year science foundation at the University but no formal graduation as he went out at first year because of funding issues associated. And a soldier in the Military police now serving for 10 since 26^th April 2013. He has been in custody awaiting this trial since June 2023. From a marriage that has not survived he has a five-year-old daughter from that union he remains effectively a single father. But the daughter is with the mother here in the city. Effectively there is nothing in the presentence report that sways that there is alternative to imprisonment. There are no extraordinary circumstances to treat this offence out of the ordinary: State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913.
   
6. Effectively he is 37 years old now a corporal in the Defence Force. This is now extinguished because of a night of by alcohol induced infusion that led. He has demolished by ill-discipline, bringing women into single barracks drunk and consuming alcohol. Such does not have a place in the Papua New Guinea Defence Force 50 years on since independence, nor any disciplined Forces in the Country. It is the decline of moral by unethical ill-disciplined behaviour as here that has drawn bad for the Defence Force and any other disciplined force for the same. He wore the uniform of a military police personal, yet his behaviour was seriously impaired and disabled for the uniform. He committed murder in that barracks. His actions must draw stern deterrent and punitive sentence. His kind have no place in the good record of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force, or any other disciplined force for the same.
   
7. And in the terms of Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789, his circumstances will be placed at 16 to 20 years the second category. Because there is viciousness in the attack, a weapon is used, here a 40-ounce Captain Moresby Alcohol empty bottle to the back of the head of the deceased. There is no strong intent to do grievous bodily harm. But not the worst case of murder given. And will draw a determinate term of years given: Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92. The loss of life serious clear from the views of the relatives of the deceased in that presentence report. Who want no compensation but a jail term. That is not out of the ordinary because this is a very prevalent offence. And a very serious one in view of all set out above. Its facts will spell the sentence fitting, Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.
   
8. I am not fortified by the material in the presentence report to go down the path of Tardrew, Public Prosecutor v [1986] PNGLR 91. There is simply no other material to sway alternatives to imprisonment. Yes, the prisoner is a first offender with a very good military background rising to a corporal in the Military police. But rather than mitigate it aggravates more. I draw the analogy of wilful murder scenes to depict that this offence of murder will draw the sentence due it by its own facts’ circumstances. It is not as serious and well planned as in the case of State v Paru (No 3) [2021] PGNC 385; N9248 who was a well-trained soldier who used that knowledge and skill to kill the deceased as he did. He was sentenced to 30 years IHL for wilful Murder. It would not equate what was seen by this court in State v Pritchard [2016] PGNC 15; N6183 to come to the sentence of 30 years for a well planned and executed crime of wilful murder. She was the co accused of James Paru convicted. And it certainly will be nowhere near Hagena v State [2017] PGSC 55; SC1659. That was a well-planned well executed crime of wilful murder of eight (8) persons at sea. It drew out the death penalty.
   
9. Tariff and range have a cause in the appropriateness of penalty due an offence. Here it is murder. He will lose not seeing his daughter whilst in prison. But that is natural arising and will not discount further. I determine that the fair and proportionate sentence due him for the crime of murder is 25 years imprisonment in hard labour. And I so impose that upon the prisoner taking account that it was not committed in the cause of crime but because of all set out above. It would be erroneous to consider it on the footing due Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702. It is not by fists as in Tanga v State [1999] PGSC 4; SC602, which was a conviction of manslaughter, and quarrel over sentence of 12 years for that crime in the Supreme Court. The sentence at first instance was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Nor would this equate State v Er [1998] PGNC 78; N1749.
   
10. It is therefore appropriate and proportionate to impose 25 years imprisonment in hard labour. Time in custody will be deducted from the head sentence. He will serve the balance in jail forthwith.
    

Ordered Accordingly

__________________________________________________________________

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor