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

State v Liyap [2025] PGNC 490; N11651 (18 December 2025)

N11651

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1469 OF 2025

THE STATE

v

ELIAS LIYAP

WABAG: ELLIS J
17, 18 DECEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – ARSON - s. 436(a) CCA – Plea – offender burnt down church – threatened others who tried to stop it burning down – 8 years IHL

Brief facts

The offender set fire to a church and threatened, with a bush knife, those who tried to stop it from burning, resulting in the complete destruction of that church.

Held
(1) Aggravating factors: church, preventing others from stopping the fire
(2) Mitigating factors: no priors, early plea, de facto provocation

Cases cited
Kongian v The State [2007] PGSC 45; SC928
State v Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261
State v Damu [2025] PGNC 110; N11219

Counsel
P. Tengdui for the State
L. Toke for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Elias Liyap, of Lakumas village in the Laiagam District of Enga Province, was charged with arson, based on section 436(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA), a charge which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.
   
2. Section 436(a) provides as follows:
   

A person who wilfully and unlawfully sets fire to –

(a) a building or structure, whether completed or not; or
(b) a vessel, whether completed or not; or
(c) a stack of cultivated vegetable produce; or
(d) a stack of mineral or vegetable fuel; or
(e) a mine, of the workings, fittings or appliances of a mine; or
(f) an aircraft or motor vehicle

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

Allocutus

3. After the verdict was delivered and a conviction was recorded, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court. What he said was as follows:
   

What I want to say is written in the documents. Here on this earth, the judge is hearing the Court, but God above, when he brings the judgement down, he will hear my case and judge me. So, I will make a little statement. The problem started with my wife. I had a wedding inside the SDA church. That’s why I burnt it down.

I went to the church, not to get that woman, but because of my life I went to that church. The woman was given to me by the elder in the church. He has given a son to that woman and later he just goes around with her. I laid down a complaint in the OMS Court and the Chairman, he advised me to go back to the village and said we will see what goes on. And when we were there, the elder goes around with the woman who gave birth to his child.

The frustration built up, so what I have to do, I have already done. I am ready to get the decision and I will say thank you to the decision that is made. I have been in custody for eight months.

Evidence

4. The evidence that was placed before the Court by the State warrants the following findings of fact:
   

(1) On 4 February 2025, between 2pm and 3pm, the offender set fire to the Seventh Day Adventist church as Lakumas village in the Laiagam District.

(2) He added wood to help that church burn.

(3) At that time, he said “I have a reason to burn the church”, in Engan.

(4) When people tried to intervene, the offender threatened them with a bush knife.

(5) When asked by the Police, during his record of interview, what was his reason for setting fire to the church, the offender said that a church leader was one of two people who had affairs with his wife.

(6) The cost of the church building that was burnt down was said to be K55,000.

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

Submissions for the State

6. As the offender was not legally represented, the Court heard submissions for the State then provided the offender with an opportunity to respond to those submissions.
   
7. It was noted that the church that was burnt down had been recently completed, at a cost of K55,000. The conduct of the offender was said to have been deliberate, that he added timber to make sure the church was burnt to the ground, and that he threatened others with a bush knife to prevent them from stopping the church from burning to the ground. In those circumstances, it was said that this was one of the worst cases of arson.
   
8. Reference was made to a case, for which no citation was provided, in which five categories were said to have been set out. That case was said to suggest that the starting point for outhouses or incomplete structures was five years and that the starting point for the other four categories should be ten years.
   
9. There was also reference to Kongian v The State [2007] PGSC 45; SC928 (Kongian) in which it was said that provocation is no defence to arson, the appeal against sentence was allowed, and sentences of between 3 and 5 years were imposed.
   
10. It was suggested that the burning of a church, and the consequential disruption, was a serious matter as it affected many people and that churches were particularly important in Enga Province at this time due to the level of tribal violence. A sentence of seven to nine years was suggested.
    

Submissions of the offender

11. When the submissions for the State were summarised for the offender, his response was that the church was built on his own land, that the church was newly built and the roofing iron cost K7,000. He disputed that the cost was K55,000, said it was a building that had not yet been completed, and that it could not have cost K55,000: only K7,000. The offender asserted that what he had said was true. He also said that he would accepted whatever was the decision of the Court.
    

Relevant law

12. In State v Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261 the following factors were listed as being relevant considerations in that case:
    

(1) The deliberate or very reckless putting of lives at risk;

(2) The deliberate pouring of kerosene and setting fire to the roof, knowing that people were inside;

(3) The deliberate locking of the door, so preventing escape by the occupants;

(4) The deliberate cold-blooded planning of the offence;

(5) The value of the house and its contents to the occupants;

(6) The complete lack of provocation offered to the defendant by the occupants and their children.

13. In that case, a starting point for sentencing of six to seven years was suggested and that starting point was used in State v Damu [2025] PGNC 110; N11219 (Damu) where a sentence of imprisonment for five years was imposed.
    
14. It is noted that, in Damu, the submissions made on behalf of the offender referred to many reported decisions in which the sentence ranged from 5 to 8 years.
    
15. In Kongian, it was noted that (1) the offenders were first offenders, (2) no-one was inside the building which burned down, (3) no dangerous substances were used, and (4) the offenders did not carry firearms.
    

Consideration

16. The matters which make this offence serious are that the building that was burnt down was a church and that the offender threatened people with a bush knife in order to prevent them from stopping the fire which he had started.
    
17. On the other hand, while provocation is not a defence to arson (as was indicated in Kongian), there was what is often referred to as de facto provocation, being a reason that explains the conduct of the accused. In this case, it appears the accused would not have carried out the crime but for the conduct of others with his wife. The mitigating factors are the early admissions and plea of guilty plus the fact that the offender has no prior convictions.
    
18. Having regard to the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the cases referred to above, the Court starts with a sentence of ten years, allowing for the fact that the building was a church, but reduces that sentence by 20% to 8 years to allow for the mitigating factors, notably the early admissions and plea of guilty.
    

Sentence

19. For those reasons, the Court considers that imprisonment for hard labour for 8 years should be imposed. Deducting the period the offender has spent in custody of 7 months and 2 weeks gives a period to be served of 7 years, 4 months and 2 weeks.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

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