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

State v Mone (No. 1) [2025] PGNC 506; N11647 (17 December 2025)

N11647

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1209 OF 2022

THE STATE

v

JEFFERY MONE
(No. 1)

WABAG: ELLIS J
16, 17 DECEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – Wilful Murder – Accused struck victim multiple times with knife – whether accused had reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm – whether response of accused was reasonable – self-defence rejected

Facts
The husband had an argument with his wife in the house where she lived. After he kicked her, she stabbed him with a knife, once, in the abdomen. He took that knife from her and then stabbed her in both legs, one arm, the head and twice in the back, thereby causing her death. Before doing so, his words indicated an intention to kill

Held
(1) The State had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the victim and that he intended to do so.
(2) The State had also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in self-defence.

Cases cited
Meckline Poning v The State (2005) SC814
R v Kaiwor Ba [1975] PNGLR 90
Tapea Kwapena v The State [1978] PNGLR 316

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

VERDICT

1. ELLIS J: Jeffery Mone, of Longap village in Kandep in Enga Province, was indicted on a charge of wilful murder. He entered a plea of not guilty in response to that charge, which was based on section 299(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA), being a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
   
2. Section 299(1) provides as follows:
   

“Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause the death of that or some other person, is guilty of wilful murder.”

Evidence for the State

3. The records of interview, in English and in Pidgin, were tendered and admitted without objection as Exhibits A and B respectively.
   
4. Betty Simil said she is a neighbour of the victim. She said that, on 18 April 2021, she heard crying and went to the house where the victim lived. Her evidence was that she saw the accused running out of that house, holding a knife. After identifying the accused, she said that the accused was not living with the victim at that time. It was her evidence that, after he went, she went into the house where she saw the victim, who she observed to have been stabbed. She said the victim was lying down at that time and that her two daughters were also there, crying. This witness said that the victim said to her that she had been stabbed and was dying and that she took steps to have the victim taken to a hospital where the victim was said to have died.
   
5. Cross-examination revealed that this witness regarded the victim as her sister. She said that, although she lived near where the victim live, she had not seen the accused living with the victim. She denied seeing the accused and the victim holding onto each other and she also denied that the accused told her that his wife had stabbed him, that he was bleeding, and asked her to separate them. It was put to this witness that, when the accused got the knife from the victim, it cut his hand. Further, that it was the landlord who arranged for a bus to take the victim to the hospital. When it was put to this witness that the accused and the victim were taken to the hospital in that bus, she replied that she only took care of the victim and that she saw the accused at the hospital, when she went down to the bus.
   
6. In re-examination, this witness said she saw the accused near the gate at the hospital. She said she called the victim her sister as they live in the same village. It was the evidence of this witness that she saw six or more stab wounds on the victim.
   
7. Destiny Jeffery, who gave her age as 12, said she was at home on 18 April 2021, with her younger sister, her brother having gone to church. She said her mother was in the house while she and her sister were outside. This witness identified the accused as her father. It was her evidence that the victim, her mother, said to her father that, while she is with the kids, he is going around with other women. After that was said, they went into the house. She said that, from the verandah, she saw her father kick her mother in the face and the back while they were inside the house. Then her mother got a bread knife and stabbed her father on his side, after which her father said: “You want to kill me, then I will kill you”. Her evidence was that her father then stabbed her mother “a lot of times”, that she went into the house to try to stop what was happening, but her father threw her away and she then went to help her mother and that Betty took her out of the house. The Court notes the following question and answer:
   

Q When you tried to stop him, did he stop?

A He didn’t try to stop. He just kept stabbing my mother.

8. When asked what her father did after attacking her mother, this witness said he went after the house, that she just cried there, and that after about five minutes, some people came. Her evidence was that Betty took her mother to the hospital, but she did not go with them.
   
9. In cross-examination, this witness indicated that the police did not come and speak to her or take a statement from her about the death of her mother. She indicated that she was only 8 years old when her mother died and that it was only shortly prior to the hearing that she became aware she would be coming to court to give evidence. She indicated that she was able to recall what happened that day. It was her evidence that she was going to go to church that day, but her father came to the house. Her evidence of the sequence of events was repeated: (1) her father kicked her mother, (2) her mother stabbed her father once, then (3) her father stabbed her mother. She said her father saw his own blood, got the knife and stabbed his mother with the same knife that she had used to stab him. She denied that her mother and father were struggling over the knife, saying that her father got the knife form her mother then stabbed her. She also denied that her father asked Betty to separate them. This witness agreed that Betty and her mother were cousins and said that it was Betty who took her mother to the hospital.
   
10. There was no re-examination of this witness.
    
11. Puli Jeffery said he is now 15 years old which would make him 11 years old at the time of the offence. As was the case with his sister, the Court asked questions to be satisfied that these two witnesses understood giving evidence on oath.
    
12. This witness said he lived with his mother and two sisters, and that he went to church on 18 April 2021. He identified the accused as his father and said he was not living with them at that time. His evidence was that when he arrived back at the house after church, he saw his father with a knife that had blood on it and that he was, at that time, afraid to say anything to his father. He said he saw his mother had been stabbed and was lying on the floor. According to this witness, at that time Betty was there with his mother, and that his two sisters were also there, crying. He said he went to the hospital with his mother and Betty, and his mother had died so they put her in the morgue.
    
13. Cross-examination ascertained that this witness did give a statement to the police but did not talk to any relatives before coming to court. There was no re-examination.
    
14. Dr Pondros, the author of the autopsy report that was admitted as Exhibit C, was required to attend the court for cross-examination. In evidence-in-chief, he explained that the references in his report to a bush-knife should read knife, saying that was a typographical error. He also said that the injuries which he observed on the victim’s body appeared to have been inflicted with the same knife.
    
15. Cross-examination was confined to why there were multiple references to a bush knife, instead of a knife, in his report. There was no challenge to the description of the wounds, which are summarised in the following table:

Evidence for the defence

16. The accused, Jeffery Mone, said he goes home to his family when he has breaks from his work, which was said to involve ten weeks on and two weeks off. His evidence was that the victim was washing clothes and he was boiling rice. He claimed his wife did not join him to eat until she finished the laundry.
    
17. His evidence was his wife asked him “Who gave you Kopiko to drink. You spend money on buai and smokes. You never spend money on us.” (It is noted that Kopiko is a mixture of coffee, milk powder and sugar.) He said that, after she said that, he poured his tea on her and they then had a quarrel, that he cleaned the floor, and the victim came out an used a knife that had cost K8 to stab him in the back. He said he stood up and asked why the victim had stabbed him to which it was alleged his wife replied: “I will kill you. You will die.” When the Court sought to clarify his evidence, the accused said his wife tried to stab him three times and did stab him twice: first, in the hip; secondly, on the hand. He said he then got the knife from her and stabbed her, once, on the back. His evidence was that he stabbed the victim because she had stabbed him.
    
18. The accused went on to say that Betty came into the house and sat in the floor, at which time he asked her to separate them, but she just sat there and watched, after which his daughter, Destiny, came into the house. He maintained that she said: “Daddy, there is a lot of blood coming out of your side” to which he replied: “Your mother stabbed me.” When asked the open-ended question “What happened next?” the accused said both his daughters cried at the door. He then claimed that he and the victim were rolling on the floor, fighting for the knife and suggested “we had been there for at least one hour”.
    
19. According to the accused, Jeremiah Mal then came inside the house, then Betty came in and he and the victim were both taken to the hospital at Mambisanda. He said he was later taken to the hospital in Wabag.
    
20. A report from Dr Nasa and five photos were tendered and admitted, without objection as Exhibit 1. The accused claimed he only stabbed the victim once and said: “when we were fighting, she might have got those other wounds”. The accused’s evidence was that he did not have a knife and that it was the knife the victim had that he used. He claimed that, while he and his wife were struggling in the presence of Betty, he feared they would both kill him.
    
21. Cross-examination established that the accused has two wives. He claimed he divided his time between them. He claimed that his daughter, Destiny told lies in her evidence. He denied kicking the victim and suggested that if she had not stabbed him, he would not have stabbed here. He claimed he served rice not only for himself and the victim but also for his children. When it was pointed out that his claim that the victim said to him “I will kill you. You will die.” was not in his record of interview, thew accused claimed he said it orally. The accused also suggested his son and Betty, in addition to his daughter, gave false evidence.
    
22. In re-examination, the accused was asked if he and the victim were able to separate themselves, he claimed the victim was holding the knife at that time.
    
23. Jeremiah Mal was the landlord of the victim and the accused. He said he came home from mass with his wife, saying she came to pick him up because of the quarrel between the accused and the victim. He said he arranged for them to be taken to the hospital in a bus, claiming there were eight people inside that bus: he, his wife and their two daughters plus the accused, the victim, Betty and one of the victim’s daughters.
    
24. In cross-examination, when asked if the accused was standing when he arrived at the scene, a non-responsive answer was given. When the question was repeated, he said the accused was standing near the verandah. He changed his evidence-in-chief to add Jeffery Puli as a passenger on the bus that went to the hospital. He claimed both the victim and the accused were caried to the bus.
    

Submissions for the defence

25. It was indicated that the accused was raising a defence of self-defence, based on s 269 and s 270 of the CCA. Reference was made to the four witnesses called by the State. It was said that the first of those witnesses (Betty Simil) did not see how the victim was stabbed, the second witness (Destiny Jeffery) did, but the third witness (Jeffery Puli) did not. It was suggested that the evidence of the fourth witness (Dr Kondros) was that the victim sustained multiple bush-knife wounds.
    
26. A submission was made that the oral evidence of Destiny Jeffery as to the first and subsequent stab wounds inflicted by a knife on the body of the victim did not correlate with the expert evidence. That submission was based on the distinction between a knife, and a bush knife was raised. The evidence that was a typographical error was disputed. It was contended that the autopsy report should not be accepted, alternatively that no weight should be put on that report. The lack of photos was also criticised.
    
27. Destiny Jeffery was said to be a key witness, but no statement was provided. It was submitted that she was called at the last minute, indicated only the day before the trial. Reference was made to questions put to this witness that suggested she was coached in relation to her evidence. It was contended that weight should be placed on her evidence as she was only age 8 at the time of the incident. Further, that a statement should have been obtained. A submission was made that the late production of that evidence disadvantaged the accused. Further, that the evidence of that witness should not be accepted as credible. It was contended that someone had directed her to come to court.
    
28. As to the evidence of Jeffery Puli, it was said he had nothing tangible to offer in support of the State’s case. It was said that his evidence should not be accepted but no credible reason was provided in support of that proposition.
    
29. It was asserted that the State’s witnesses were related to the victim but the accused’s supporting witness was independent. Reference was made to his evidence that both the victim and the accused were carried onto the bus that took them to the hospital. It was contended that neither of them was able to walk. It was also said that the victim was admitted to the outpatient section of the hospital. A submission was made that Betty Simil was trying to hide the fact that the accused was severely injured and required “urgent medical treatment”. In relation to what occurred inside the house, it was said the accused visits his family regularly. The argument was said to be based on a cup of tea being poured by the victim on the accused’s head, after which the accused reacted by pouring his cup of tea on her head.
    
30. It was said that while the accused was cleaning up, the deceased got a knife and stabbed the accused. Further, that the victim attempted to stab the accused, which was defendant and that the third blow landed on his hand whereby he sustained a cut on that hand. It was contended that the accused was then trying to defend himself when his wife threatened to kill him and that she had a plan to kill him. That was said to cause reasonable apprehension of death such that, if he did not use equal force, he would die or suffer grievous bodily harm.
    
31. Reference was then made to the contended presence of Betty Simil and the claim that she failed to separate the victim and the accused. It was contended that the accused had no way of escaping and that the victim did not give up trying to stab the accused. It was said to be reasonable for him to stab the victim once. Reference was made to the record of interview in support of a submission that the accused did not intend to kill the victim. Further, it was asserted that the force used by the accused was proportionate. It was claimed that, while they were struggling, the accused grabbed the knife and stabbed the victim. The accused was said to be unable to confirm that he inflicted further injuries as he and the victim were struggling. It was said that, while they were struggling, “the knife may have touched in the victim’s body”. It was claimed that the accused and the victim were both in the house when the landlord, Jeremiah Mal, arrived.
    
32. In summary, it was submitted that the accused would not have caused the death of the victim if she did not attack him. Further, that the accused was unable to escape and that, if he had not stabbed the victim, she would have caused his death. Also, that the only way to prevent his death was to stab the victim. In those circumstances, it was contended that the evidence of the accused and his supporting witness should be accepted and that such evidence sustained a defence of self-defence. It was said that the evidence of the accused’s children was made up and that the accused had no reason to cause the death of the deceased and that he acted in self-defence. A reference in the defence submissions was made to the “beloved wife” of the accused despite him never once during his evidence referring to the victim as his wife. It was contended that a verdict of not guilty should be returned and that accused should not be found guilty of any lower charge.
    

Submissions for the State

33. It was noted that the issues were whether the accused killed the victim, whether he intended to kill her, and whether the defence of self-defence applied. During submissions referring to the evidence of the State’s witnesses, it was said that a statement had been provided to the defence in relation to the late evidence of Destiny Jeffery. Her evidence of what the accused said before he stabbed the victim was noted, as was her denial of suggestion she was saying what she had been told to say. A submission was made that her evidence was consistent with the injuries to the victim recorded in the autopsy report. The evidence of the brother was also referred to, noting that he said he saw his father standing and holding the knife. It was noted that the accused suggested he was lying on the floor of the house until he was carried to the bus which took him to the hospital. That evidence was also said to contradict the evidence of the accused’s supporting witness, Jeremiah Mal. It was observed that the words the accused claimed the victim said to him, that she was going to kill him, were not said by the accused during his record of interview.
    
34. Reference was made to the six injuries to the victim, recorded in the autopsy report. It was submitted that the accused was unable to explain how the other injuries were inflicted. If he was acting in self-defence, it was said that once he had possession of the knife, there was no further threat to him, and he was able to go to the police and/or the hospital. The attack of the accused was said to be disproportionate to what was done to him. It was contended that the evidence left no room for doubt that the accused stabbed and killed the victim, intending to do so.
    

Relevant law

35. In the CCA, s 269 provides a defence of self-defence:
    
    • (1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended to cause, and is not likely to cause, death or grievous bodily harm.
    • (2) If –

(a) the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm; and

(b) the person using the force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm,

it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even if it causes death or grievous bodily harm.

36. There is also a defence of self-defence provided by s 270 of the CCA. That section is also quoted below:
    

(1) Subject to Subsection (2), when –

(a) a person has unlawfully assaulted another person, or has provoked an assault from another person; and

(b) the other person assaults him with such violence as –

(i) to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm; and

(ii) to induce him to believe, on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for his preservation from death or grievous bodily harm to use force in self-defence,

the first-mentioned person is not criminally responsible for using any such force as is reasonably necessary for such preservation, even if it causes death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) The protection provided by Subsection (1) does not apply -

(a) where the person using that force causes death or grievous bodily harm –

(i) first began the assault with intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm to some person; or

(ii) endeavoured to kill or to do grievous bodily harm to some person before the necessity of so preserving himself arise; or

(b) unless, before the necessity arose, the person using such force declined further conflict, and quitted it or retreated from it as far as was practicable.

37. It is well-established that, when self-defence is raised as a defence, it is for the prosecution to eliminate it as an issue by proving beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the accused was not in self-defence.
    
38. Decisions in cases such as R v Kaiwor Ba [1975] PNGLR 90 and Tapea Kwapena v The State [1978] PNGLR 316 establish a defence of self-defence it must be proved that:
    

(1) the nature of the assault was such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm,

(2) that the person believed that he could not otherwise defended himself, and

(3) that such a belief was based on reasonable grounds.

39. The circumstances should not be looked at with the benefit of hindsight, but in the realisation that calm reflection cannot always be expected in a situation such as the accused found himself or herself: Meckline Poning v The State (2005) SC814.
    

Issues

40. There are three issues requiring determination in this case:

(1) whether the accused killed the victim,
(2) if so, whether he intended to kill the victim, and
(3) whether the defence of self-defence provides an answer to the charge.

Assessment of witnesses

41. Betty Simil was resolute, not only in relation to her evidence, but also in relation to her denial of the case for the accused. There is no cogent reason to reject her evidence.
    
42. Destiny Jeffery was a girl, aged 12, whose evidence was unshaken by cross-examination. Her evidence was corroborated by the recording of the stab wounds set out in the autopsy report.
    
43. Puli Jeffery gave evidence that was undamaged by very limited cross-examination.
    
44. Dr Pondros explained an error which involved the use of the word bush-knife rather than knife in his autopsy report. There was no challenge whatsoever to his evidence of the wounds: their number, their location or their dimensions. His oral evidence that the wounds were inflicted by a knife was not challenged.
    
45. The accused gave a version of events that cannot be accepted: having regard to the dimensions of the wound set out above, his claim that “when we were fighting, she might have got those other wounds” was clearly implausible. As was noted in the State’s submissions, the version given by the accused differed in a material respect from what he said in his record of interview, in that he did not tell the Police that the victim said to him: “I will kill you. You will die.” Further, there were aspects of the accused’s evidence that should have been put to the State’s witnesses but were not.
    
46. Jeremiah Mal provided evidence of little utility as he did not see the incident. Like the accused, he gave answers which did not respond to the question and, in cross-examination, said the accused was standing near the verandah. That contrasts with his claim that the accused was so badly injured that he had to be carried onto the bus so he could be taken to the hospital. The issue of who was and who was not on the bus is not considered significant because in the circumstances of incident, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to accurately recall, more than four years later, who was on the bus. What is significant is what occurred prior to the arrival at the scene by this witness.
    

Consideration

47. By reference to s 269 of the CCA, the force used by the accused was not reasonably necessary because once he had taken possession of the knife, there was no longer any threat to him. That is the first reason why s 269(1) does not apply. The second reason why s 269(1) does not apply is that it only permits reasonable force to be used. Six wounds, one of which was as deep as 20 cm, go beyond what can be considered reasonable force.
    
48. Moving to s 269(2), that provision operates to require the accused to have believed, on reasonable grounds, that he could not otherwise have defended himself from death or grievous bodily harm. When the victim no longer had the knife, it cannot be sensibly said that the accused had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. That is the first reason why s 269(2) does not apply here: he could have otherwise defended himself. Secondly, there are multiple things the accused could have done, including to leaving the house and taking the knife with him. As a result, he cannot be considered to have believed, on reasonable grounds, that he could not otherwise preserve himself.
    
49. Turning to s 270, the accused cannot have had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm when the victim was no longer in possession of the knife, and the accused had possession of that knife. Further, as with s 269, the accused cannot be considered to have believed, on reasonable grounds, that she could not otherwise preserve herself.
    
50. The better view is that, when the accused stabbed the victim, she was motivated not by self-defence but by revenge. When the accused stabbed the victim, she was unarmed and posed no threat to the accused.
    
51. There are submissions that were made on behalf of the accused that must be rejected:
    

(1) There is no requirement that an autopsy report include photos.

(2) Despite the late indication of the intention to call Destiny Jeffery, the accused did not seek an adjournment and no prejudice was indicated.

(3) It needs to be recorded that a question asked of a witness is not evidence unless the witness agrees with what is put in that question. In the absence of such answer, the question is no more than an allegation.

(4) A submission that the evidence of a witness should not be accepted carried no weight unless accompanied by reasons why that should be done.

(5) A submission was made that the accused required “urgent medical treatment”, but it must be noted that time was taken to transfer him from a hospital in Mambisanda to a hospital in Wabag, and that the victim was taken to the morgue.

(6) The suggestion that the victim was taken to the outpatient section of the hospital overlooks the evidence she was taken to the morgue.

(7) The closing submission that, “while they were struggling, the knife may have touched in the victim’s body”, is rejected: wounds as deep as 14 cm and 20 cm do not occur when a knife touches a body; they require force to plunge a knife into that body.

52. Using a knife to strike a person six times is highly likely to cause death and will certainly cause grievous bodily harm. The use of words to the effect “You want to kill me, then I will kill you”, as indicated in the evidence of Destiny Jeffery, establishes an intention to kill.
    

Findings of fact

53. The Court makes the following findings of fact:

(1) On 18 April 2021, the accused went to the residence of the victim.
(2) After an argument between them developed, the accused kicked the victim.
(3) The victim then stabbed the accused once in the side of his abdomen.
(4) The accused then gained possession of the knife, sustaining a cut to his hand.
(5) The accused then said to the victim: You want to kill me, then I will kill you”.
(6) The accused then used that knife to stab the victim six times.

(7) The accused’s daughter, then aged eight, tried unsuccessfully to stop that conduct of the accused.

(8) After stabbing the victim six times, the accused was seen standing outside the house, holding the knife he used, which had blood on it.
(9) He stabbed her on each leg, twice in the back, once each on the arm and head.
(10) The depth of those wounds ranged from 4 cm to 20 cm.
(11) The death of the victim was caused by those wounds.

(12) By reason of the number of wounds, their location and their depth, plus the words used by the accused, he had an intention at that time to kill the victim.

(13) The nature of the assault was not such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm to the accused as he obtained possession of the knife that had been used to stab him.

(14) The accused could not have believed that he could not otherwise defended himself.
(15) There were no reasonable grounds for any such belief.

(16) When the accused stabbed the victim six times, he was motivated not by self-defence but by revenge.

Conclusion

54. As a result of those findings of fact, the Court is satisfied the State has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that:
    

(1) the death of the victim was caused by the conduct of the accused,

(2) that conduct was stabbing the victim six times,

(3) that conduct of the accused was intended to kill the victim,

(4) the accused could not have reasonably believed that conduct was necessary, and

(5) even if he did so believe, such conduct was not a reasonable response because he had obtained possession of what was, according to the evidence, the only knife at the scene.

55. Accordingly, the defence of self-defence is rejected. The Court returns a verdict of guilty of wilful murder on the indictment. The accused will be remanded in custody to await sentence.

Verdict accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor