N11535
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 807, 808 & 809 OF 2025

BETWEEN:
STATE

AND:
STANELY KAKS, ASA KAKS & KASEWETA SUMA

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
13 AUGUST, 1, 25 SEPTEMBER, 17 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCE-Guilty Plea- Manslaughter, 302 Criminal Code- Village setting- Multiple offenders- Group attack on defenseless unarmed man who surrendered- No de facto provocation-Use of knife and axe to inflict fatal wounds- -sentenced to 22 years

Cases cited
Mangaea and Anors v State [2022] PGSC 129; SC2324
Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702
Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564
Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
State v Edwin Seriko (2025) N11527
State v Aulo [2023] PGNC 273; N10430
State v Wally [2022] PGNC 265; N9690
State v Malko [2018] PGNC 486; N7606
State v Tuma [2017] PGNC 18; N661
State v Maie [2016] PGNC 406; N6722
State v Towari [2011] PGNC 79; N4353
State v Wanam [2010] PGNC 31; N3981
State v Kapus [2010] PGNC 109; N4114
State v Mondo [2009] PGNC 315; N3882 
State v Aitsi No 2 [2008] PGNC 21; N3296
State v Ulul (2007) N5493
State v Walus [2005] PGNC 147; N2802
State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5

Counsel
S Mosoro, for the State
V Move, for the offender

SENTENCE

1.	WAWUN-KUVI, J: On the morning of 10th December 2024, as Paymbi Yaigi cared for his baby, Stanley Kaks, Asa Kaks, and Kaseweta Suma appeared, brandishing bush knives. Their voices rang out with accusations as they drew closer. Alarmed by their approach, Paymbi hurried inside, locked his door, and called out, insisting on his innocence.

2.	A neighbor rushed over, urging the offenders to stop, reminding them that the problem had already been reported. Ignoring the neighbor, they threatened him and broke down Paymbi’s door. With nowhere left to hide, Paymbi stepped outside, raised hands in surrender. In a sudden burst of violence, Asa Kaks slashed his left hand, Stanley Kaks struck his left leg, and Paymbi collapsed in agony. Kaseweta Suma seized Paymbi’s own axe and delivered a blow to his head. The offenders fled as neighbors and villagers gathered, desperately carrying Paymbi to the health center. Despite their efforts, he died from his wounds. Only later did it become clear he was not involved in the dispute. The offenders later surrendered to the police.

3.	These are the facts to which the offenders have pleaded guilty. I must now decide their sentences.

The Charge

4.	The offenders pleaded guilty to the charge of Manslaughter pursuant to section 302 of the Criminal Code.
Penalty

5.	The maximum penalty subject to section 19 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for life.
6.	The general principle is that the maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious case: Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

Sentencing Range

7.	Both counsels have referred to the Supreme Court case of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789, which sets out the sentencing guidelines for homicide cases. In considering the guidelines, I am reminded that they do not curtail my sentencing discretion and that the overriding consideration is the peculiar circumstances of the case.

8.	Ms. Mosoro for the State submits a sentence between the range of 13 and 16 years, while Ms. Move for the offender submits a sentence between the range of 8 and 13 years. Where there is proper consideration of the facts against the guidelines and comparable cases, there should not be a disparity in the sentencing range by counsel.

9.	The facts of this case, namely, that the offenders acted in concert, that they were armed, that they were told that the issue they were angry about was being resolved, the deceased was unarmed, he had raised his hands in surrender, he was struck repeatedly on venerable parts of his body and he had no involvement in the matter that the offenders were angry over,  place their case between the third category of the manslaughter cases in Manu Kovi (supra) which attracts a sentence between 17 years to 25 years.

Comparable cases
10.	Ms. Mosoro submitted the following cases:

11.	Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702: This was an appeal on sentence. The appellant suspected the deceased of having an affair with her husband. She travelled from her village to her husband’s residence. She found the deceased lying on the couch watching TV. The deceased was seven months pregnant. She stabbed the deceased twice in her chest. The sentence of 9 years was confirmed.

12.	State v Maie [2016] PGNC 406; N6722, Koeget AJ: The offender pleaded guilty. He was among a group totaling 40 who went in search of the deceased. It was believed that the deceased was a sorcerer who was responsible for the death of many people. When they found the deceased, they pulled him out of his canoe. An accomplice cut his head off with a bush knife. The offender and others then cut his body. He was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.

13.	Ms. Move for the offender submitted the following cases:

14.	State v Tuma [2017] PGNC 18; N6618, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty. He came upon his wife naked with the deceased at night.  He cut the deceased not intending to kill him however since they were in a remote location, the deceased died from loss of blood. The Court accepted that there was de facto provocation. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. 4 years of the sentence was suspended.

15.	State v Towari [2011] PGNC 79; N4353, Cannings J: The offenders were indicted for wilful murder. Following a trial and after a no case to answer submission, the offender applied and were granted leave to change their plea to guilty. They then plead guilty to manslaughter. There offenders were three brothers. Earlier in the day, their father had a dispute with the deceased brother. The brothers who were armed with bush knives chased the deceased brother and one of them cut him three times before he escaped. On their return they came upon the deceased whom they chased as well. They caught up with him and one of the brothers cut him all over his body. The other two did not cut him. The brother who cut him was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment while the other two were sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

16.	State v Wanam [2010] PGNC 31; N3981, Sawong J: The offender was drinking alcohol and then went to sleep. Later, he came out and chased a man. The deceased then threw a bottle striking him on him on the head. He cut the deceased with knife that he was armed with. The deceased bled to death. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 11 years.

17.	State v Kapus [2010] PGNC 109; N4114, Cannings J: The offenders are brothers. They are aged 21, 17 and 15. They had a fight with the deceased son. When the deceased went out to enquire, they assaulted him. Two brothers chopped him with axes and the other whipped him with a hydraulic hose. They were convicted following a trial and were sentenced to 13 years. Three years of their sentence was suspended.

18.	State v Ulul (2007) N5493, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty. The offender heard that his son was drinking homebrew with his brother. He went in search of his son and came upon his brother, the deceased. The deceased argued with him and assaulted him. The deceased then an axe and bush knife and attacked the offender. The offender went hiding. The deceased went to the offender’s house and chased his family away and damaged their house. The offender then went to the aid of his family. The deceased attacked him. The offender this time armed with a bush knife cut the deceased on his head. The deceased died from his injury. The Court accepted that there was de facto provocation and sentenced the offender to 10 years imprisonment. 4 years of the sentence was suspended.

19.	The cases submitted by counsel are distinct. Here, there was no de facto provocation, and the deceased was unarmed and attacked when he surrendered.  I have found more comparable cases where the offenders participated with a group and attacked a defenseless victim. They show that a sentence trend within the third category of the Manu Kovi guidelines. 

20.	Mangaea and Anors v State [2022] PGSC 129; SC2324: The applicants were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on their guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter under s 302 of the Criminal Code. They were among a group of people who gathered to mourn a death.  They were at the grave site because of their belief in sorcery. Around 4 am, two stones were thrown onto the grave. The applicants spotted the deceased and identified him as the person who threw the stones and gave chase. The deceased ran into a house, and the appellants called to him to come out, but he jumped out of the window and fled. They gave chase again, and this time, they caught him. They assaulted him with their hands, legs, and weapons. They brought him to where the people had gathered and further assaulted him. He died because of the injuries sustained from the assaults. The Supreme Court found no identifiable error stating that the circumstance of the case place it within the third category of the Manu Kovi (supra) guidelines.

21.	State v Aulo [2023] PGNC 273; N10430, Miviri J: The deceased and the offender were gambling. A mistake occurred with the cards, and all gamblers gave their cards back to the dealer except for one person. He declared that he had won and collected the money and started to walk away. The deceased was not happy and told him to return the money. That person swore the deceased, who was angry and grabbed a bush knife and walked towards him. The offender was with that person and others who fought with the deceased. Eventually, the deceased was disarmed, and he ran off. They chased after him and cut him with the bush knife all over his body. The offender was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment.

22.	State v Wally [2022] PGNC 265; N9690, Miviri J: The offender was angry over being punched by the deceased, who was a female in an earlier altercation. His family demanded K5000 cash and two pigs as compensation. The matter was reported to the village court and was pending resolution when the offender, with two of his sisters, approached the deceased at her home. He went up to her veranda and punched her. She jumped onto the ground, and he followed. A fight ensued between the two of them. His sisters joined him to fight the deceased. During the fight, the deceased fell to the ground. The offender then kicked her hard in the chest. When she attempted to go to the police station, she was met by a fourth accomplice who punched her in the chest. When she was taken to the veranda of her home, one of the offender's sisters again punched her and attempted to strangle her. At this point, she started experiencing shortness of breath and was taken to the hospital, where she later died. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

23.	State v Mondo [2009] PGNC 315; N3882, Kandakasi J: The offender pleaded guilty. He and two accomplices armed themselves with hunting spears and approached the deceased. They assaulted him. Other people who were present approached the offender and disarmed him. He, however, kept assaulting the deceased. One of the accomplices struck the deceased in the back causing him to fall. The offender then picked up a 10 Kg rice bag that was filled with stone and struck the deceased on the head with it. His accomplices also hit the deceased on the head until he lost consciousness. He was taken to hospital and died some days later from his injuries. The offender was sentenced to 20 years. 

24.	State v Aitsi No 2 [2008] PGNC 21; N3296, Kandakasi J: The offender was convicted following a trial. There was a fight in the village involving the offender’s relative. The deceased was attempting to stop the fight when the offender used an iron and struck him on the head. He died from his injuries. The offender was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment.

25.	State v Walus [2005] PGNC 147; N2802, Cannings J: The offender pleaded guilty to causing the death of his wife’s cousin. His wife had an argument with the deceased. She reported the matter to the offender. He walked over to the deceased who was sittings on house stairs. He assaulted her causing her to fall to the ground and break her neck. He continued to assault her. Her spleen was also ruptured. He was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He later withdrew his appeal in Walus v State [2007] PGSC 4; SC882.

Antecedent 
Staney Kaks

26.	 He is 23 years old. He is from Moke Village, Okapa District, Eastern Highlands Province. He completed Grade 12 at Okapa Secondary School in 2024. He has seven siblings.
Asa Kaks 

27.	 He is 25 years old. He is from Moke Village, Okapa District, Eastern Highlands Province. He completed Grade 10 at Okapa Secondary School in 2024. He has seven siblings He is married with two children. His wife gave birth to their second child was he was in custody awaiting hearing of his case.

Kasaweta Suma

28.	The offender is 18 years old and completed Grade 9 in 2024. His parents are alive. He has one sister.

Allocutus

29.	 Having restated the offenders’ statements below, I do not accept that there is genuine remorse. Their statements replicate each other and appear to be self serving than true expressions of remorse.
Staney Kaks
“	Before I was born the law was here. I broke the law. I want to say sorry before God, the Court and counsel. I am a first-time offender, and I will not repeat the offence. I ask for mercy.”
Asa Kaks 
“I want to take this time to say thankyou for the time to run the case. Firstly, I want to say sorry for breaking the Constitution.  I want to say sorry before God, the Court and counsel. I am sorry from my heart. I ask for mercy.”
Kasaweta Suma
“Before I was born the law was here. I broke the law. I want to say sorry before God, the Court and counsel. I am a first-time offender, and I will not repeat the offence. I ask for mercy.”

Culpability

30.	As I stated in several of my decisions on sentences and just today in State v Edwin Seriko (2025) N11527, “generally, reasons for a person committing an offence may not exonerate or absolve criminal liability; instead, they become relevant in sentencing. Such reasons, or the absence thereof, can serve as either mitigating or aggravating factors.”

31.	Here, the offence was premeditated. The offenders acted in concert. They were angry over a prior incident which later turned out that had nothing to do with the deceased. They went armed with bush knives. When they shouted accusations at the deceased, he informed them that he had nothing to do with their dispute. Despite a neighbor’s intervention, despite the deceased running into his house to hide, despite the deceased being unarmed and with his infant child, and despite his attempt to raise his hands in surrender, he was slashed with his hand raised, cut at the same instance on his leg and when he fell, he slashed with his own axe in the head. These circumstances leading to the deceased death indicate a strong intent to harm and a reckless indifference to human life.

32.	This raises their level of culpability to the higher end of the third category in the Manu Kovi (supra) guidelines. 

Victim Impact Statement

33.	The State did not provide a victim impact statement, and the probation officer was not able to contact the deceased family for reasons not stated.

34.	The information available is that the deceased wife and his two young sons have left his village and returned to his wife’s family. 

35.	Logically, I can accept that the deceased family have and will continue to suffer pain and loss from his death. They have lost a husband, father, son, and brother. A life that can never be replaced. His sons will grow up never knowing their father.

36.	His death was senseless and void of any meaning.

Aggravating Factors

37.	I find the following to be aggravating:

1.	Weapons were used.
2.	It was a group attack
3.	The victim was cut multiple times on vulnerable parts of his body.
4.	Life has been lost.
5.	The offence is prevalent.
6.	The deceased was unarmed and had raised his hands in surrender.
7.	The deceased infant child was with him.
8.	The deceased was not involved in the dispute with the offenders.
9.	The offenders disregarded attempts by the neighbor to stop them showing a deliberate intent to harm.

Mitigating Factors

38.	In mitigation:
1.	The offenders have no prior convictions.
2.	They pleaded guilty.
3.	Some compensation was paid.

Consideration

39.	The widespread misuse of bush knives to cause death and inflict bodily harm is   prevalent, now extending into urban areas. There is very little being done to curb the carrying and brandishing of knives in public. 

40.	In this case the offenders were all armed with bush knives. They ignored a neighbor's attempt to intervene. They had multiple opportunities to reconsider, including when the deceased locked himself in his house and when he later surrendered. 

41.	It was after the death of the deceased that they say that they learned that he was not involved. Learning after the fact that someone was not involved and offering compensation does not absolve their actions. While the offenders will eventually return to their families, the loss suffered by the deceased's family is permanent. His life is lost.

42.	Their reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life must be met with a strong and punitive sentence.  Each of them played an active role, they were all armed and acted in concert. Having considered all the matters in this decision, I find that a sentence of 22 years imprisonment is appropriate for each of them and so I impose it.

43.	According to the charge sheet, the offender was arrested 16 January 2025. They have been in custody for 9 months and 1 day. Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence period is deducted, and the offender shall serve the balance of 21 years, 2 month, 3 weeks and 6 days.

44.	 The next question is whether any part of the sentence should be suspended.

45.	I have considered the relevant principles on suspension: see State v Malko [2018] PGNC 486; N7606, State v Winston [2003] PNGLR 5, Public Prosecutor v Hale [1998] SC564 and Public Prosecutor v Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91.

46.	The offenders are young and given the gravity of the offence, its prevalence and that a human life has been lost in a brutal way, suspension of the sentence is not appropriate. 

Orders

47.	The Court Orders:

1.	The offenders are sentenced to 22 years imprisonment.
2.	Pursuant to s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986 the pre-sentence period of 9 months and 1 day is deducted, and the offenders shall serve the balance of 21 years, 2 months, 3 weeks and 6 days.
3.	The CR file is closed.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor