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

State v Neriku [2025] PGNC 468; N11607 (24 October 2025)

N11607

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 775 OF 2023

THE STATE

V

AUGUSTINE NERIKU

WAIGANI: MIVIRI J
15, 24 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Murder S300 (1)(a) CCA – Plea – Chased Wife Stabbed Twice –Fatally Stabbed on Back – Collapse of Left Lung – First Offender – Intention to Cause GBH – Death as A Result – Will of Legislature Protection of Life Sacred – 23 years IHL minus period in Remand.

Facts
Prisoner chased and stabbed the deceased twice with a knife. He intended to cause grievous bodily harm from which he died.

Held
Plea
Intent to cause grievous bodily Harm.
Stabbed on back with knife.
Sanctity of Life
Prevalent offence
PSR MAR considered
23 years IHL minus time on remand.

Cases cited
Kovi v. State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Allan Peter Utieng v The State: SCR No 15 of 2000 (Unnumbered & Unreported Judgment of 23^rd November 2000).
Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890
Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Aquila v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2020] PGSC 113; SC2023
State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913
Oakare v State [2001] PGSC 21; SC1010
Enn v The State [2004] PGSC 36; SC738
State v Mohavila [2006] PGNC 106; N3385
State v Harisu [2006] PGNC 137; N3168
State v Bakamini [2021] PGNC 275; N8983
State v Janet Mara [2025] N11541
State v Akoa Harley [2025] N11548
Tardrew, Public Prosecutor [1986] PNGLR 91
Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653

Counsel:
L. Kombe, for the State
A. Peter, for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. MIVIRI J: Augustine Neriku of Saure village, Wewak East Sepik Province now appears to receive his sentence for murder committed when he stabbed his wife in the back twice.
   
2. Augustine Neriku was married to the deceased Lillian Pouna for five (5) years and together they had three children. Lillian worked at Manasupe haus as a security guard. Accused was seen at Kumul Avenue waiting for Lillian to turn up for work. Between 8.30am and 9.00am Lillian got off a bus at the Immigration office and walked on the footpath towards her workplace. As she made a turn on Melanesian Way she noticed that the Accused was following her, she picked up pace and was walking quickly, the Accused chased her until She reached the gate of Sir Manasupe Haus. As she was running into the gate the Accused took out a black handle kitchen knife and stabbed Lillian on the back of her shoulder blade twice. Stab wound one and stab wound two measuring 1.7cm x 0.6cm and 1.7cm x 0.5cm respectively. The Accused then walked off to Kumul Avenue and at the traffic light intersection boarded a PMV bus. Lillian’s colleagues chased after the Accused and apprehended him. Lillian was brought to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries and was pronounced dead upon arrival.
   
3. Accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm when he stabbed her. And she died as a result. The State charged the Accused with murder pursuant to Section 300 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code reading:
   
   • (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 or to some other person;

(b) if death was caused by means of an act–

(i) done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose; and

(ii) of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intended to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating–

(i) the commission of a crime other than a crime specified by a law (including this Code) to be a crime for which a person may only be arrested by virtue of a warrant; or

(ii) the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit an offence referred to in Subparagraph (i);

(d) if death was caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c);

(e) if death was caused by wilfully stopping the breath of a person for a purpose specified in Paragraph (c).

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

(2) In a case to which Subsection (1) (a) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who was killed.

(3) In a case to which Subsection (1) (b) applies, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) In a case to which Subsection (1) (c), (d) or (e) applies, it is immaterial that the offender–

(a) did not intend to cause death; or

(b) did not know that death was likely to result.”

4. Life is lived once, is sacred and sanctified hence the inscription under section 35 right to life under the Constitution. No man should be denied that right, even as here, chased like a wild animal to be eaten and stabbed at the doorstep of the office of the Department of the Prime Minister and the National Executive Council, where the deceased worked as a security guard. And the stabbing is determined and in broad day light with onlookers and persons immediately there. There is even a video camera recording the sequence of the crime as it unfolded, photos that have been placed before this Court evidencing the vigour and determination on the face of the prisoner, as he chases the deceased down that road in broad day light at 9,00am in the morning. He is undeterred that there are on lookers and persons immediately there.
   
5. There are eleven (11) photographs that depict the play of the crime as it unfolds. It is indeed gruesome with the exposure of the knife at the back of the deceased poised striking the deceased aimed at the back, photograph 09.00:13.346am. And this is borne out in photograph depicted with the numerals 09.00; 13.380am. Prisoner is poised with the knife menacing in a striking motion directed at the immediate back where the injury accrues, photograph 09.00:13.813. Even more so are the chase set out in the photographs and the eventual catching of the deceased by the prisoner, and the delivery of the knife wounds that followed, photographs 09.00: 12.646am: His emotions underlying set out in his face. There is determination portrayed. There is no restraint at all in the face of the prisoner. He knows the consequences of the blows with that knife and proceeds undeterred determined appreciating the spiral of his actions. Because he does not give up in the chase seen as he pursuits her. And this is the play of photographs numerals as 09.00: 07.044am; 09.00:07.878am; 09.00:08.011am; 09.00:09.178am. The place is a very public area frequented by members of the public. It is the main office of the Prime Ministers Department and the National Executive Council. The highest administration and executive authority running the nation. And his determination is there, even in the face of the securities reserve policemen employed by that office. Who apprehend him shortly after the successful execution of the crime with the deceased presented deceased to the Port Moresby General Hospital.
   
6. This is conduct that no sentencing court should ignore and brash aside. Because it is blatant defiance of the rule of law. No one is above the law in any way or form. Papua New Guinea is now fifty (50) years into its independence as a nation. It is not a joke when section 35 of the Constitution writes the right to life. Yes, no amount of sentence will resurrect the deceased. That is why life is lived only once. And whether it is the fault of the deceased not to see her children when asked by the father, that is not a licence, nor right for the father a God-fearing man to take the law into his own hands. His father is a Pastor, a man of God. He does not reflect even though he was living with the father and mother in the Assembly of God Church area at Gerehu. Process of the law must always be followed to see out disputes. It is very serious to be the law unto oneself. And this Court will fail in its duty to ignore that in sentencing the offender here.
   
7. The comprehensive medical report under hand of Doctor Seth Fose further seal that the Stab wound number 1 penetrated the left chest wall at level of 5^th rib space. It was situated 1.37m from the left heel. The wound measured 1.0cm x 0.7cm. The Stab wound number 2 penetrated the left chest wall at level of 4^th rib space to cut the upper lobe of left lung. The wound measured 3.0cm x 1.0cm. It was situated at 1.40m from the left heel. The left lung stab wound measured 3.5cm x 0.7cm. there was collection of 1.5litres of blood and blood clots within the left chest cavity. The left lung was collapsed. The left lung was bruised. And in his opinion the cause of death is left haemothorax and collapsed left lung due to the left lung stab wound due to penetrating stab wounds to the left chest wall due to sharp knife. The contributing factor is history of domestic violence.” The lung is one of the most vital organs of the human body, without which the human will die as here. It is therefore a serious wound that was inflicted on the deceased. She stood no chance of survival from the way its is inflicted in the video set out above.
   
8. I have a presentence report that has been filed in the matter dated the 23^rd October 2025 which does not recommend any other sentence. Importantly the report does not detail any basis or reason as to why the prisoner behaved as he did on that day. There is nothing primary as to the way life was lived between the deceased and the prisoner giving rise to the actions of the prisoner. He says in that report that she was not home in row during Christmas prompting him to look for her to no avail amongst relatives on either side. He says she was out partying and not coming home. That ignited him to commit the offence. Naturally in the report the family on both sides have voiced that they want him out of jail to look after the three young children now left without a mother. This is report that does not see the offence he committed as serious comparably with the life of the children. That he has been forgiven for the murder of the deceased. That the welfare of the children be accorded prominence by getting him out on probation. And together with their church community have paid the sum of K 5,700.00 evidenced by assemblies of God Church letter under hand of Pastors Francis Wolio and Phanuel Woyengu dated the 16^th July 2025.
   
9. It is clear this is a build-up of a separation set out in his record of interview at question 28 they had separated. He was living with the small boy at Gerehu with his parents and she was living with her family in Tokarara. And the separation was in October 2022. And on 26^th December 2022, he committed the murder. That is a period of being apart almost a month and a half. And there is preparation to commit the offence because he lives Gerehu on Sunday night and takes a cab to Waigani at the back of Eliseo Store. Overnights and in the morning follow the back road to Tisa house where he waits for her. He is armed with two kitchen knives of the house at Gerehu that he brings all the way to Waigani overnights and brings that to the murder on Monday 26^th December 2022. This is question 29 to 39 of the record of interview. It would therefore fit category three of Kovi v. State [ 2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (31 May 2005). There is preplanning and a strong desire to cause grievous bodily harm. He has two knives one of which he uses chase and inflicts two stab wounds to the left lung of the deceased. This is a calculated attack because he pursues her with a daring chase seen on the footage of the CCTV ending with the two stab wounds fatally. His penalty would be between 20 to 30 years imprisonment. There is determination and viciousness in the attack. He pursues her as if a pig is chased to kill it for a feast. To bring the life of the children of that union here will not seal what the law is due to him: Allan Peter Utieng v The State: SCR No 15 of 2000 (Unnumbered & Unreported Judgment of 23^rd November 2000). He who seeks to derail his own life by his discretion to violate appreciating will not claim any benefit in the sentence.
   
10. Yes, he has entered a guilty plea and is a first offender law abiding up to this offence: Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 (27 April 2006). But the circumstances of the commission of the offence are relevant consideration in the determination of the penalty due him. They are not ignored or swept aside because of that fact. True he comes from a well to do family. That is more reason to be law abiding and not falling as he did here. It is aggravating more than mitigating. No it is not the worst case of murder and so will draw a determinate term of years given: Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92. But the loss of life is very serious. And the circumstances here are peculiar and very serious. The offence is a very prevalent one. This circuit has seen many come with the use of knives and dangerous weapons. And these circumstances will map out his sentence peculiar: Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.
    
11. K5,700.00 was paid mending of the relationship between the prisoners’ people and that of the deceased. But will not alleviate what the legislature has prescribed in his case in the penalty due. This view is very clear in Aquila v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2020] PGSC 113; SC2023 (29 October 2020). Because by law, the Criminal Compensation Act is a maximum of K 5000 and not more. There are no extenuating and special circumstances that will draw a sentence other than what the legislature prescribes. The presentence report does not detail anything out of the ordinary or exceptional to fill out what this Court saw in State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913 (21 September 2005). The taking of human lives has been random undeterred and very prevalent as ever. This is a peculiar set of facts
    
12. This is an offence that was committed by the prisoner knowing fully what he was doing when he stabbed the knife on the back of the deceased. Because he chased her armed with it. There is no diminished responsibility here. Nor is this a case of voices telling the prisoner to do what he did: Oakare v State [2001] PGSC 21; SC1010 (9 December 2001). Here is a deliberate stabbing with the knife that lands on the left back of the deceased penetrating her lungs causing the injuries that lead to her demise. To my mind this is not a case likened to Enn v The State [2004] PGSC 36; SC738 (1 April 2004), where there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased stopped, and the appellant reignited and chopped off the neck of the deceased. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years IHL for murder. That is more serious than the present scene. Nor would it be similar to State v Mohavila [2006] PGNC 106; N3385 (25 October 2006), where during an argument over sorcery prisoner cut the deceased on his left hand. He retaliated and cut the prisoner on his left side of his head then retreated behind another and dropped the knife. Prisoner picked up the knife and cut deceased on the forehead twice from which he died. Life imprisonment was imposed for murder. That is markedly very serious compared.
    
13. Prisoner is not challenged or provoked to fight as in State v Harisu [2006] PGNC 137; N3168 (24 October 2006) where 22 year was imposed for guilty plea to murder. Nor is this a situation in State v Bakamini [2021] PGNC 275; N8983 (26 July 2021), he is not retaliating after lapsing off time over a scar to his body. This is a deliberate attack prepared in the night culminating to travel to the scene even before the arrival of the deceased. It is feud that has brewed to the climax on this day. It is not in similar vein as State v Janet Mara [2025] N11541(6 October 2025) where there is no pursuit as here. That was 20 years stabbing by a drunk prisoner. This is a perfectly sober person who sets out to do what he did. It will be similar in some respects to State v Akoa Harley [2025] N11548 (6 October 2025) but there it is a bottle used to the back of the head of the deceased defacto. Here it is stab twice to the left shoulder on the back with a knife.
    
14. And is compounded that it is deliberate wait outside Tisa haus for the arrival of the deceased. Then to pursue her walking leading to a chase poised with the knife ready in hand one on standby in the pocket to come on should there be need to. It is not a light matter because the serious aggravating features outweigh the mitigation. The personal antecedents including that he is a first offender viewed in the light of section 19 (6) of the Criminal code read alongside Tardrew, Public Prosecutor [1986] PNGLR 91 (2 April 1986) do not convince that there are alternatives to imprisonment here. The presentence report and Means Assessment Report, do not effectively address Gender based violence well. I am not convinced that there is material to sway other than the custodial term due for murder at the higher end in the light of all set out above. It is my view given all above that the sentence must fit the crime: Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.
    
15. In the aggregate the sentence proportionate is 23 years IHL. And I so impose that upon the prisoner. Time in custody is deducted forthwith. He will spend the balance in jail IHL.
    

Ordered Accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor