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

State v Mone (No. 2) [2025] PGNC 511; N11648 (18 December 2025)

N11648

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1209 OF 2022

THE STATE

v

JEFFERY MONE
(No. 2)

WABAG: ELLIS J
18 OCTOBER, 18 DECEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – WILFUL MURDER - s. 299(1) CCA – Sentence following trial – argument between husband (offender) and wife (victim) – offender stabbed victim six times with a knife – 25 years IHL.

Brief 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. A defence of self-defence was rejected.

Held
Sentence following verdict
Kovi, category 2
Family setting, no priors, some compensation paid
25 years IHL
Period on remand deducted, with balance to be served

Cases cited
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Marangi v The State (2003) SC703
State v Kilala (2012) N5080

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

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Jeffery Mone, of Longap village in Kandep in Enga Province, was charged with wilful murder, based on section 299(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA), 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 his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder.

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:
   

If the woman had not stabbed me, then I would have not done this. She did that so I have done what I did. For what I have done, so I am sorry for my late wife. I say sorry to the Court. The law is there and I have done what I have done and may the law have mercy on me and I will try to compensate the deceased.

Evidence

4. The evidence that was placed before the Court during the trial resulted in the following findings of fact:
   

(1) On 18 April 2021, the offender went to the residence of the victim.

(2) After an argument between them developed, the offender kicked the victim.

(3) The victim then stabbed the offender once in the side of his abdomen.

(4) The offender then gained possession of the knife, sustaining a cut to his hand.

(5) The offender then said to the victim: You want to kill me, then I will kill you”.

(6) The offender then used that knife to stab the victim six times.

(7) He stabbed her on each leg, twice in the back, once each on the arm and head.

(8) The depth of those wounds ranged from 4 cm to 20 cm.

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

(10) After stabbing the victim six times, the offender was seen standing outside the house, holding the knife he used, which had blood on it.

(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 offender, 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 offender as he obtained possession of the knife that had been used to stab him.

(14) The offender could not have believed that he could not otherwise defend himself.

(15) There were no reasonable grounds for any such belief.

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

5. The defence tendered a letter from a Police officer dated 13 July 2021 (Exhibit 1) that suggested 10 pigs worth K10,000 and cash of K5,000 had been paid to the victim’s relative. That letter also suggested: “The full compensation will be given any time when pigs money will be ready.”
   
6. In response, the State called a witness who said it was pigs given for safekeeping due to tribal fighting that were returned and thus were not paid as compensation.
   

Defence submissions

7. The offender was said to be married with six children, three born of the victim and three by his second wife. It was said too that he had been educated to Grade 10, was employed at the Ok Tedi site at the time of the offence, and that he was a member of the Revival Church.
   
8. By reference to what was said in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789 (Kovi), it was submitted that this case fell within category 2, for which the sentencing range is imprisonment for between 20 and 30 years. A sentence of 25 years was suggested, and the Court was informed that the offender had already spent 3 months in custody. It was suggested that six years of any sentence should be suspended and that full compensation was yet to be paid.
   
9. It was contended that the mitigating factors were that the offence occurred in a family setting, that the offender had no prior convictions, and that some compensation had been paid. The aggravating factors were said to be the use of a knife, the prevalence of the offence and that a life was lost.
   
10. A submission was made that part of the offender’s punishment was that he had lost his first wife and that he would be separated from his children. There was also a request for the offender’s bail money of K1,000 to be refunded.

Prosecution submissions

11. It was accepted that this case fell within what was referred to as category 2 in Kovi, and that while there was no pre-planning, there was a vicious attack. Further, that the offender had said he would kill the victim before stabbing her multiple times. The suggested range for sentencing purposes was said to be imprisonment for between 25 and 30 years.
    
12. On the question of whether any portion of that sentence should be suspended, it was said that may have been warranted if the offender had entered a plea of guilty, but not following a trial. It was submitted that compensation had not been paid.
    

Relevant law

13. In Kovi, the Supreme Court specified sentencing ranges for wilful murder:
    

Category 1 15-20 years

Plea No weapons used.

Ordinary cases. Little or no pre-planning.

Mitigating factors with Minimum force used

no aggravating factors. Absence of strong intent to do GBH.

Category 2 20-30 years

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Mitigating factors with Weapons used.

Aggravating factors. Strong desire to kill.

Category 3 Life imprisonment

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Special aggravating factors. Strong desire to do kill.

Mitigating factors reduced in Dangerous or offensive weapon used

weight or rendered insignificant eg. gun or axe.

by gravity of offence. Other offences of violence committed.

Category 4 Death

Worst case - Trial or plea Pre-meditated attack.

Special aggravating factors. Brutal killing, in cold blood.

Killing of innocent, harmless person.

Killing in the course of committing another serious offence.

Complete disregard for human life.

Consideration

14. When considering the factual basis for sentencing, it is well-established that any doubt should be resolved in favour of the offender. For that reason, the Court proceeds on the basis that some compensation has been paid. However, it is noted that the letter regarding compensation was dated 13 July 2021, more than four years ago, and there is no evidence that any compensation has been paid since then. Indeed, the offender wanted his K1,000 bail money returned but it was not suggested that money should be paid to the relatives of the victim, such as to her three children.
    
15. The payment of compensation was a topic that was considered in Kovi. What was said in that case on that topic may be summarised as follows:

(1) Compensation is not an alternative to the application of the criminal law.
(2) Local customs may make compensation relevant for sentencing purposes.
(3) The form and amount of compensation must be considered.

16. As to the submission that a portion of the sentence should be suspended on the condition that compensation be paid, that submission is rejected for the following reasons. First, compensation is not to be treated as a way of buying a lesser sentence. Secondly, the offender has had four years in which to pay compensation. Thirdly, if the offender was serious about paying compensation he would have requested that his bail money be paid to his children.
    
17. The submission that part of the offender’s punishment was the loss of his wife and separation from his children is also rejected. During the hearing, the offender never once referred to the victim as his wife. Further, the evidence was that he only visits his children during some of time when he is not at work.
    
18. It is clear this case involved (1) an offence committed in a family setting, (2) an offender with no prior convictions, and (3) some compensation having been paid.
    
19. Apart from the usual considerations of the importance of protecting life, the prevalence of the offence, and the need for deterrence, it is noted that this offence involved the use of a knife.
    
20. In relation to the use of a knife, the Supreme Court made the position clear in Marangi v The State (2003) SC703 when it was said:
    

...a lot of lives are being lost in this country from the use of a knife than with any other weapon. Therefore, a strong and punitive sentence is required.

21. It is also noted that, in State v Kilala (2012) N5080, Lenalia J said:
    

... the basic principle that the sanctity and value of a human life is more precious and valuable than wealth must be given serious consideration by this Court. Neither wealth nor worldly business or money paid in the form of compensation nor would any remorse restore or revive a life that has been lost.

22. Having to (1) the offence having occurred in a family setting, (2) the offender having no priors, and (3) some compensation having been paid, the Court considers the sentence in this case should be imprisonment for 25 years. For a charge of wilful murder with the sentence being imposed after a trial, it is not considered appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of this case, to suspend any of the sentence.
    

Sentence

23. For those reasons, the Court considers that imprisonment for hard labour for 25 years should be imposed. Deducting the period the offender has spent in custody of 3 months gives a period to be served of 24 years and 9 months.
    
24. Any bail money that has been paid may be refunded.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

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