N11639

PAPUA NEW GUINEA 
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 1104 OF 2025

THE STATE

V

TREVOR BRU

VANIMO: MESA AJ
17, 20, 21 NOVEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW- guilty plea- section 302 Criminal Code Act (Code) - manslaughter- multiple injuries, use of bush knife – prevalence - presence of defacto provocation- sentence

The prisoner used a bush knife and attacked the deceased, causing multiple injures to his body. He died from loss of blood from the extensive injuries. 

Held:

1.	Serious instance of manslaughter killing, but not worst type.
2.	Manslaughter is a prevalent offence
3.	Sentence in high range of Category 2, Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789.
4.	Mitigating and extenuating factors must be given appropriate consideration.
5.	15 years imprisonment imposed with some suspension for guilty plea and extenuating circumstance of defacto provocation.

Cases cited
Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789
State v Tipor Mareko (2017) N6885
State v Steven Maie (2016) N6722
State v Anita Kelly (2009) N3624
State v Wamaong Robert (2010) N4065
State v Joshua George (2021) N8776
State v Jimmy Mogoi (2012) N4680
State v Tale Anton (2019) CR 392 of 2019
The State v Henry Aulo & Daniel Ramram (2023) N10430
State v William July Kimkilala (2017) N6908
State v Asha Sims Soreiu (2018) N7582
State v Yeipa Karu (2024) N10674
State v Yuanis Ipiri (2008) N3512
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Avia Aihi v The State [1982] PNGLR 44
Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105
Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91

Counsel
Mr. A. Kaipu, for the State
Mr. O. Himore, for the defence 

1.	MESA AJ: The prisoner, TREVOR BRU, of Munai village, Aitape-Lumi, Sandaun Province, pleaded guilty to the charge of Manslaughter, pursuant to Section 302 of the Code. This is the decision on sentence. 

2.	The State alleges that on 5 November 2024 between 5pm and 7pm, at Munai village, the deceased had gone to the beach with the prisoner to cook and eat bananas. They joined two other persons there. After they had started to eat, and during a conversation the prisoner attacked the deceased with his bush knife, causing multiple grievous injuries to his body and limbs from which he died. The other two persons fled. 

Allocutus

3.	In allocutus, the prisoner said he knew that he was wrong for doing what he did. He apologised and asked for mercy and the leniency of the Court to be placed on probation or for a fine. 

Defence Submissions

4.	Mr. Himore for the Defence submitted that this was not a worst type of manslaughter killing and fell within Category 2 of Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 (Kovi); a sentence range of between 10 to 14 years was appropriate. 

5.	He submitted the following mitigation factors were present: guilty plea; the prisoner is a first-time offender; his cooperation with the police and his admissions in the record of interview; the prisoner’s genuine expression of remorse and the payment of K 11, 000.00 compensation to the family of the deceased; the prisoner acted in provocation in the non legal sense; there was no pre planning; and a favourable presentence report.
  
6.	Counsel submitted that the factors in aggravation included: loss of life; severity of injuries caused by the use of a dangerous weapon; the demonstrated intention to cause bodily harm; and the prevalence of the offence in Sandaun Province and the country. 

7.	Defence Counsel cited the following cases to assist the Court:

a)	The State v Tipor Mareko (2017) N6885; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. 
The prisoner had been drunk and acting disorderly, and threatening employees of the logging company in the area. He had been armed with a bush knife at the time. The deceased, who was a fellow villager, ran after the accused and attempted to disarm him, wherein a tussle ensued. 

During the tussle, the prisoner swung the bush knife and injured the deceased’s right forearm. The bush knife severed the main artery to the right hand and there was heavy loss of blood. The deceased was taken to the hospital, but he died on arrival from the heavy loss of blood. The prisoner was sentenced to 14 years, less time spent on remand.

b)	The State v Steven Maie (2016) N6722; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. He and at least 40 other men went to Teapopo Government station (Western Province) in search of the deceased, who was reputed to be a sorcerer responsible for many deaths in the area. 

When they came upon the deceased, they dragged him out of the dugout canoe he was in and one of the men in the group cut the deceased at the neck, almost completely severing his head from his body. The prisoner and the other men in the group then cut at the dead body with their bush knives. For his part, the prisoner was sentenced to 13 years. 

c)	The State v Anita Kelly (2009) N3624; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. The prisoner and deceased had been married to the same man (common husband). It transpired that the husband had been abusive to the prisoner, and he went to live with the deceased. 

The prisoner was upset and went to the deceased’ house; an argument eventuated between the prisoner and deceased, wherein the prisoner used a knife and stabbed the deceased through her neck. The deceased died from the injury, the medical report stating that death occurred from internal bleeding from the neck injury. The prisoner was sentenced to 12 years. 

d)	The State v Wamaong Robert (2010) N4065; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter, causing the death of her brother-in-law. 

The prisoner had seen the deceased at the market and confronted him over his stealing from her garden. The deceased punched the prisoner, and they began to fight. During the fight, the prisoner took out a knife and swung it at the deceased; she cut him on the back of his neck. 

The medical evidence was that there was a deep penetrating wound to the left side of the neck measuring about 20-25 cm x 8-10 cm wide which lacerated the neck muscles and the left jugular vein causing excessive bleeding and blood loss, which caused the death as a result of the knife wound. The prisoner was sentenced to 12 years. 

Prosecution Submissions

8.	The State acknowledged the facts pleaded to and the severity of the injuries received by the deceased. 

9.	Mr. Kaipu for the State argued that this matter fell into Category 2 of Kovi, and cited the following cases to assist the Court:

a)	The State v Joshua George (2021) N8776; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. The deceased was an elderly man of about 83 years of age at the time of the offence. 

In the early hours of the day, the deceased heard his name being called and so he went outside of his house despite his wife telling him not to. Outside, he got into an argument with the prisoner over a piece of land that the prisoner had begun to clear for a garden but which the deceased secured a traditional taboo plant, ‘gorgor’, signifying a dispute. 

The argument developed into a fight, in which the prisoner cut the deceased with a bush knife on his right hand and left arm; the deceased died because of severe loss of blood. The prisoner was sentenced to 15 years less time on remand. 

b)	The State v Jimmy Mogoi (2012) N4680; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. Prior to the prisoner stabbing the deceased, the deceased and some others had earlier that same day attacked the prisoner with an iron rod causing superficial wounds to his body. 

The prisoner later armed with a kitchen knife, saw the deceased and chased him; while fleeing the prisoner, the deceased fell whereupon the prisoner set upon him and stabbed him twice in the chest. The wounds were deep enough to cause loss of blood from which the deceased died. The prisoner was sentenced to 13 years less time on remand. 

c)	The State v Tale Anton (2019) CR 392 of 2019 (Kangwia J); the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. The prisoner and deceased are brothers. 

Both had met on the road in the early hours of the day of the offence and argued. Their argument concerned the deceased having taken the prisoner’s daughter away for a few days and had had sexual relations with her; she had been 14 years old. The argument developed into a fight, with prisoner using his bush knife and the deceased using a stick. 

During the fight, the prisoner cut at the legs of the deceased and severed the leg of the deceased almost completely off. He died from the injury and loss of blood. The prisoner was sentenced to 12 years. 

10.	For this matter before me, the State also submitted that this was not the worst type of manslaughter case, but, on its own circumstances, it was very serious; whatever mitigation or extenuating factors that are present will pale in comparison to the aggravating factors.  The State submitted that a sentence from 14 to 16 years was appropriate, without any suspension. 

Law

11.	I set out Section 302 of the Code:

‘302. MANSLAUGHTER.
  
A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute wilful murder, murder or infanticide is guilty of manslaughter.

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.’

12.	In the case of persons convicted of manslaughter, I accept that the starting reference on sentence is the Supreme Court matter Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789 (Kovi) (see my discussions in The State v Mollen Vima CR 1105 of 2025).

13.	I reproduce the Kovi guidelines for manslaughter below:

Category	Factors	Sentence	
1. Plea

•	Ordinary cases.
•	Mitigating factors with no aggravating factors.	•	No weapon used.
•	Victim emotional under stress and de facto provocation e.g. killings in domestic setting.
•	Killing follows immediately after argument.
•	Little or no preparation.
•	Minimal force used.
•	Victim with pre-existing diseases which caused or accelerated death e.g. enlarged spleen cases
	8-12 years.	
2. Trial or Plea

•	Mitigating factors with aggravating factors.
	•	Using offensive weapon, such as knife on vulnerable parts of body.
•	Vicious attack.
•	Multiple injuries.
•	Some deliberate intention to harm.
•	Pre-planning.
	13-16 years	
3. Trial or Plea

•	Special Aggravating
factors.
•	Mitigating factors reduced in weight or rendered insignificant by gravity of offence.
	•	Dangerous weapons used e.g. gun or axe.
•	Vicious and planned attack.
•	Deliberate intention to harm.
•	Little or no regard for safety of human life.	17-25 years	
4. Worst Case – Trial or Plea

•	Special aggravating factors.
•	No extenuating circumstances.
•	No mitigating factors or mitigating factors rendered completely insignificant by gravity of offence.
	•	Some element of viciousness and brutality.
•	Some pre-planning and pre-meditation.
•	Killing of innocent, harmless person.
•	Complete disregard for human life.	Life Imprisonment	

Comparative Cases

14.	In assessing how the death was caused here, in my view, these factors are relevant: use of a dangerous weapons, deliberate intention to harm and it was a vicious attack. These factors place the circumstance of death more within Category 2 of Kovi. 

15.	The prisoner here used a bush knife to inflict multiple injuries on the deceased, which caused his death. The injuries were quite extensive and severe. The medical evidence depicts the injuries to include, multiple lacerations to the body, complete slicing off of the left kneecap, complete severing of the left arm below the elbow. 

16.	In the cases I refer to below, I have looked at manslaughter killings that involve a similar extent or severity of injuries resulting from the use of a weapon. The commonalties include: multiple injuries or cuts/lacerations to the body, injury or piercing of a vital organ including the brain, heart, lungs, liver and kidneys, or severing of a limb.

a)	The State v Henry Aulo & Daniel Ramram (2023) N10430; the two prisoners pleaded guilty to manslaughter. They had been part of a group that had been playing cards for money. At some point in the game, there was a mistake in the way the cards had been dealt, so all players returned their cards to be re-dealt. The prisoner Ramram refused to do so, holding on to his cards and declaring that he had won. He proceeded to collect the money that had been bet and walk away. The deceased went after him to bring the money back; he had gotten his bush knife. 

When the deceased reached the prisoner Ramram, the latter was already in the company of prisoner Aulo and two other persons (they were found not guilty). The four men proceeded to disarm and assault the deceased. When the deceased tried to flee, they caught up with him; the two other persons assaulted the deceased, then prisoners Ramram and Aulo proceeded to use the bush knife to cut him all over his body, inflicting multiple wounds. He died as a result of the injuries and loss of blood. 

The Court held this to be a very serious circumstance of killing, even after the fact that plea bargaining had brought the charge down to Manslaughter from Wilful Murder. The Court heard that the deceased had begged for mercy but was brutally killed in front of his young wife. The injuries sustained were described by the Court as extensive and gruesome. Both prisoners were sentenced to 18 years. 

b)	The State v William July Kimkilala (2017) N6908; the prisoner pleaded guilty to count of manslaughter. The deceased was his nephew. Some years before the incident, the deceased had committed adultery with the wife of the prisoner, which resulted in the prisoner’s wife giving birth to a child. The prisoner had not separated from his wife despite this but raised the child as one of his own children. 

It transpired that at the time of the offence, the prisoner became angered over this and punched the deceased with his left hand while holding a knife in his right hand; the deceased avoided the punch but was stabbed in the back with the knife. The force of the stab penetrated through to his lung, piercing it; he died as a result. 

The Court took the offence to be very aggressive and severe, as the prisoner had stabbed the deceased in daylight in a public area; he had no regard for the law or for the sanctity of life. 15 years IHL was imposed.

c)	The State v Asha Sims Soreiu (2018) N7582; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. There had been an existing dispute between the prisoner and the deceased over land where the oil palm block was situated. The prisoner had taken out preventative orders against the deceased from entering the block to get food stuff and betelnut. 

At the time of the offence the deceased had climbed a betelnut tree on the block which the prisoner noticed and went to investigate. On seeing the deceased in the tree, they both entered into an argument wherein which the prisoner took the bush knife he had in possession and cut the deceased on the arm below his left elbow, completely severing his left arm. The deceased died as a result of loss of blood from the injury.  

The Court noted the severity of the injury and that witnesses had stated that the prisoner had done nothing to aid the deceased after he was cut. He was sentenced to 17 years. 

d)	The State v Yeipa Karu (2024) N10674; the prisoner pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. At the time of the offence, the prisoner had been drunk and had just gotten off a PMV. He walked into a bottle shop wherein he got into an argument and fight with some boys inside. 

The deceased had been intending to go into the same bottle shop to buy alcohol as well and was getting his money ready outside with other persons he was with. He and his group had observed the prisoner going into the bottle shop; when the fight broke out, the deceased reacted to help the prisoner as they were from the same Provincial district. 

The deceased entered the shop and took the prisoner out, but the prisoner in his drunken state punched the deceased on the mouth. He then took out a Bowie knife (described as a ‘Rambo knife’) and swung it the at deceased. The deceased held it back; the prisoner swung the Bowie knife again and this time stabbed the deceased straight through the chest. He took out the knife and fled. 
The medical evidence confirmed that the stab wound resulted in a deep penetrating wound to the left side of the chest rib area and the left ventricular region of the heart.  The prisoner was sentenced to 18 years. 

e)	The State v Yuanis Ipiri (2008) N3512; the prisoner had pleaded guilty to a count of manslaughter. Sometime prior to the date of the offence, the deceased had been stealing food crops from the prisoners’ garden. It wasn’t until the morning of the day of the incident that the prisoners caught him in the garden stealing. They had been armed with bush knives, bows and arrows for a hunting trip. The deceased had also been armed with a bush knife. 

An argument started and got heated; the deceased was then held by one prisoner while the other prisoner chopped him on his legs and hands. The deceased sustained multiple wounds on his legs and hands. As a result, he lost a lot of blood and died. The prisoner was sentenced to 10 years. 

Consideration

17.	I find that this is a serious case of manslaughter due to the extensive injuries received by the deceased to his body. This was done with the use of a bush knife which is becoming more a weapon than the useful tool for which it was intended. The cases I have cited describe serious killings using a knife to the body, and I note the range of sentences were 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18 years’ imprisonment. 

18.	To my mind, this matter would fall into Category 2 of Kovi; the only distinction I can draw with Kovi Category 3 is that here there was only a bush knife used and no other weapon. That said, this is a high Category 2 instance, in my view, as I consider that the evidence shows the deceased was not armed at the time to put up any sort of fight or defence. In that situation, it would draw a comparison to Aulo; however, again there is a distinction, here it was only the accused who attacked the deceased whereas Aulo involved two persons acting in concert. 

19.	It follows that I do not think this is the worst type of manslaughter killing and on its own circumstances, a penalty would be like or less severe than Aulo (Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653; Avia Aihi v The State [1982] PNGLR 44; Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105). 

20.	In mitigation, I accept that the prisoner has pleaded guilty and his apology in allocutus was genuine. I also accept that he is a first-time offender, as I do not see a record of any prior offence on his antecedent report; this goes to his benefit.

21.	In my reading of the depositions, I examined the prisoner’s record of interview with the police, wherein he admitted to committing the offence. In his allocutus, he told the Court that he knew the deceased to have a history of violence; that the deceased had burned houses and caused trouble in their village previously before fleeing. On the day of the offence when he heard the deceased speaking of killing a man in Angoram, East Sepik, and a woman in the Highlands, he became apprehensive and fearful that the deceased was intent on killing him there as well, so he attacked the deceased. He said he acted out of a sense of danger and provocation. 

22.	The Supreme Court in Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890 pronounced the principle that matters raised in the depositions or in allocutus by the prisoner that are not opposed by the State must go to his benefit. I note that the State did not strenuously argue against these claims, and that they accept that defacto provocation is a mitigation factor here. I take this into account for the benefit of the prisoner. Moreover, factors of extenuation and mitigation must be given their appropriate consideration by the Court (Gideon Wally v The State (2025) SC2802).

23.	The presentence report also contains collective views of the prisoner’s community. The prisoner’s father and community leaders express a concern for the prisoner’s wellbeing and confirm that K 11, 000.00 paid to the family of the deceased has restored peace in the community. While the probation service recommends probation, the collective view of the community are rather he be imprisoned for a time to rehabilitate. 

Findings

24.	This is a serious instance of a manslaughter killing, but not the wort type. I consider the following factors are relevant -  

Aggravation
1.	The loss of life.
2.	Use of bush knife as an offensive weapon
3.	Multiple serious wounds to the body of the deceased. 
4.	Demonstrated intention to cause bodily harm.
5.	Deceased was defenceless.
6.	Prevalence of the offence.

Mitigation
7.	Guilty Plea.
8.	First Offender.
9.	Genuine expression of remorse.
10.	Cooperation with the police in investigations.
11.	Initiative and payment of K 11, 000 to the family of the deceased

Extenuation

12.	Acting out of defacto provocation of apprehension of being killed. 

25.	Applying the principles of Kovi to these factors, and in consideration of the case law cited, this matter is in the high sentencing area of Kovi Category 2, in my view. 

Sentence

26.	I note the Court’s sentencing discretion under Section 19 of the Code, and I acknowledge Thress Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC1017. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this mater and the cases cited, I determine that a head sentence of 15 years is appropriate given the prevalence of this type of killing; this sentence is consistent, in my view, with the sentencing trend for manslaughter cases of this nature. I reiterate that I distinguish this matter as the prisoner here acted alone in causing the injuries; this goes to his benefit. 

27.	I have also considered whether to suspend part or the whole of the sentence, in line with the authority of Public Prosecutor v Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91. I do not think that a wholly suspended sentence is appropriate in this matter, but some suspension is warranted in recognition of the plea and extenuating circumstance. He is aged about 26 or 27 years old, so I do not take him as a person of youth for purposes of consideration in sentencing. Lastly, I will deduct the time spent on remand consistent with Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986.

28.	The orders I make as to sentence in consideration of all the discussions above are these:

1.	Head Sentence of 15 years.
2.	Less 11 months in remand.
3.	12 months is suspended in recognition of the plea.
4.	12 months is suspended in recognition of the extenuating factor of defacto provocation. 
5.	Balance of 12 years and 1 month is to be served IHL.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State:  A/Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the prisoner: Public Solicitor