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

State v Boas [2025] PGNC 529; N11735 (24 October 2025)

N11735

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1008 OF 2025

BETWEEN:
THE STATE

v

RAULI BOAS
Accused

KEREVAT, KOKOPO: CHRISTENSEN J
7, 9, 24 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL – Grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm – s 315(b)(d) Criminal Code – unlawful assault – s 335 Criminal Code – family dispute as to land – bush knife used to cut off hand – evidentiary basis for self-defense – ss 270, 281 Criminal Code – unsworn statement – complainant unarmed – self-defence excluded – intention – elements proved – guilty verdict

Cases cited

Paliau v The State [2016] PGSC 54, SC1537
The State v Bruno [2023] PGNC 416, N10562
Ulel, Regina v [1973] PNGLR 254

Counsel

L Rangan for the State
N Katosingkalara for the accused

DECISION ON VERDICT

1. CHRISTENSEN J: On 18 February 2025 at Raluana Ward, East New Britain Province, the accused was involved in an incident in which he cut off the left hand of his niece’s husband with a bush knife. The circumstances that led to his occurring, and in particular whether it was an act done in self defence, are in issue in this trial.
   
2. The alleged offending occurred in a circumstance of there been differences between the accused and his family members, with the accused describing there being “root causes” to the incident involving access and use to land that was his from his father.
   
3. The brief facts provide that between 5pm and 5.30pm on the day of the incident, the accused’s niece, Alysha Boas (the niece), saw that sugar cane had been removed from the boundary between her family’s area and that of the accused. Because of what had occurred in the past, she said negative things about the accused, and he happened to be nearby and heard what was said. There were then swear words and insulting words said by both of them and an argument started.
   
4. What happened after the swear words and insults is the issue in this trial.
   

Charges and trial

5. The accused Rauli Boas is charged with an offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievously bodily harm contrary to section 315(b), (d) of the Criminal Code. He is charged in the alternative with unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 319 of the Criminal Code. He is alleged to have caused grievous bodily harm to Brian Williams, who is the husband of his niece. I will refer to him as the complainant.
   
6. The accused is additionally charged with an offence of unlawfully assaulting his niece, Alysha Boas, contrary to s 335 of the Criminal Code. At arraignment, the accused indicated a plea of guilty to this charge and a provisional plea of guilty was noted.
   
7. The trial proceeded in respect to the alleged grievous bodily harm, with the State calling the complainant and the niece Alysha Boas, and adducing by consent, statements, the record of interview, medical reports, photographs, and the bush knife alleged to be involved. The accused gave an unsworn statement.
   
8. The primary issue in the trial is whether the accused’s conduct was done in self defence, in accordance with s 270 of the Criminal Code. That is, self defence against a provoked assault. The defence counsel indicated there was no reliance on provocation as a defence.
   
9. The accused accepts that he did the act with the bush knife that caused the complainant’s hand to be cut off. He contends that he did so as an act of self defence, with the complainant brandishing a metal rake towards him at the time.
   

Brief facts

10. As to the alleged offence, the brief facts provide that after the accused uttered swear words and insults at his niece, the two began to argue with each other.
    
11. The accused then started shooting his niece with things like stones and sticks, and at the same time was telling her that he would kill her. The complainant was telling the accused to solve the problem in a proper way, but the accused threw a tree branch at him and told him that he would kill him.
    
12. The accused’s niece then ran away, and the accused ran after her, holding a short bush knife. The niece ran towards the family house.
    
13. The accused then went to the complainant and swung the bush knife at the complainant’s neck. The complainant raised his left hand up and the blade of the knife came into contact with his left hand, resulting in his hand been completely cut off and falling to the ground.
    
14. The brief facts allege that the accused continued to swing the knife at the complainant and as a result, the knife cut the complainant on the area of his ribs, his back, and under his left shoulder.
    
15. The complainant ran towards the main road to get into a vehicle to go to the hospital.
    
16. The accused, carrying the same knife, then ran towards his niece and swung the knife at her face. As he did this, the accused slipped and fell. He then punched his niece twice on her eye and face. She ran away into her family home. The accused returned to his area.
    

State evidence

Evidence by consent

17. The evidence tendered without objection includes:
    

18. Several witnesses gave evidence as to the accused throwing a bush knife into a flower garden after the incident and that this knife was collected and provided to police (Exhibit P-C; P-D; P-E; P-F).
    
19. The bush knife used in the alleged offence was tendered in evidence: Exhibit P-K.
    
20. Photographs of the scene taken on 21 May 2025 were also tendered (Exhibit P-L). These show that the incident occurred in a relatively large, cleared area surrounded by trees and vegetation.
    

Evidence of accused’s niece

21. In evidence in chief, the accused’s niece said that the trouble started after she saw that her sugar cane and bananas on the boundary were uprooted. This was not the first time the accused had done this and she, without realising the accused was nearby, started talking negatively about him. The accused then threw words at her, and she threw words back.
    
22. She said that the accused then threw a stone, which missed her head. The accused cam running towards her and she picked up two coconuts and threw them at him. The accused then threw bottles, ands stones and was running towards her with “anger and frustration” on his face. She ran to her house. She found the door was locked and so went towards her husband who was running behind.
    
23. The niece described that her husband was defenceless, and he was trying to avoid the accused’s knife. She turned around to look for something to defend her husband, the accused was nearby, and when she turned, she saw her husband put his hand up. The accused was aiming the knife towards her husband’s head, and he chopped his hand off and it fell to the ground.
    
24. Before the accused did this, her husband had got a coconut and thrown it at the accused. When the accused swung the knife, her husband was not holding anything. The accused had swung the knife three times and got the hand on the fourth swing. The accused then swung a fifth time and hit her husband’s back.
    
25. The niece ran to her cousin’s house, and the accused ran towards her. He threw the knife two times but slipped and fell on her. The accused then punched her to the right eye. She got her children and then went to the hospital.
    
26. In cross examination, the niece agreed that there was a mumu pit in the area where they were standing and it had stones. She disagreed with a suggestion that her and her husband got stones from the mumu, threw them at the accused, and they hit him. Her evidence was that she used two little coconuts, and her husband used a coconut.
27. Further in cross examination, the niece agreed that she got a rake from the house and gave it to her husband. She disagreed that he had both a rake and stones. She described how he used the rake was in a manner of swinging to remove the knife from the accused. When asked if her husband swung the rake five times, she said that he may have, and that she was not looking at him as she went to look for something to help. It was when she turned back around that she saw her husband chopped.
    
28. It was suggested that she did not see the accused cut her husband, and niece said that she did. She disagreed that the cut happened when the accused used the knife to block the rake, saying that the cut occurred after the rake was broken. Her husband was defenceless at the time he was cut. She disagreed with a suggestion that the handle of the rake never broke. She agreed that she did not see how the handle of the rake broke as she was facing away.
    
29. In re-examination, the niece said that the rake was broken on the first swing of the knife. There were three to four swings with the knife in total. When her husband was cut, he was not holding anything.
    
30. Further, she said that the accused was running saying “killem”, and her husband got the rake and was holding it in defence when the rake was chopped and broken.
    

Evidence of complainant

31. The complainant’s evidence was that he recalled the incident “every single day”.
    
32. It started with them arguing. They were swearing at each other and pointing fingers. The complainant initially did not pay attention, but he did when the accused threw a stone. It landed behind him and hit a tree. He then stood put and told the accused to sort it out the proper way.
    
33. The accused then threw sticks and bottles. His wife went to the house. The accused picked up a knife. The complainant walked towards the accused and said for him to sort it out in the proper way and leave it in the hands of the police. The accused swore at him that it was not his business and said that he would sort it out his way.
    
34. The accused was walking towards the house where the niece was, and the complainant said to him he had the right. The accused swore and said he would kill him. The complainant said to him how many people have you killed, and the accused threw a stick, and then ran with the knife. The complainant found two coconuts which he threw at the accused, but he missed. The accused kept coming. The complainant hit the accused’s back with a coconut.
    
35. The complainant thought the incident was over, but Benjamin ran in with rocks which appeared to fuel the accused. The accused came to be charging towards him with a bush knife. The complainant said that he defended himself with a rake, which he swung. The rake broke. The accused moved back and was with Benjamin.
    
36. The complainant picked up some bricks, but he put them down. He was then attacked with stones thrown at him. As he turned, the accused then swung the knife towards his neck. He put his hand up and his hand was cut off. The accused kept swinging and hit his ribs. Just before he was cut twice with the bush knife, the accused had said that he would kill him. He had nothing in his hands at the time he was cut.
    
37. He went to the road to get help. As he did, he looked back and saw the accused attack his wife.
    
38. He was in the hospital for one and half weeks and said that he nearly died.
    
39. In cross examination, the complainant confirmed that he picked up a brick. He said that he was three metres away from them when he did this, and he feared killing them, so he dropped it.
    
40. He disagreed that there was a mumu pit, saying that there was an old mumu pit that he had covered a long time before. There were not rocks from the mumu pit. He said it was not true that he was throwing rocks from a mum pit. The only thing he threw at the accused was coconuts when they were at the beach.
    
41. The complainant disagreed that he swung the rake four to five times. He said it was once, and then it broke. He disagreed that the accused was using the knife to block the rake, saying that “he swung at me” and “my hand fell off when my hands were empty”.
    
42. The complainant agreed that the rake he swung could have caused the accused injury, but it was blocked by the accused. He said that he was aiming for the knife that the accused was coming at him with.
    
43. When it was suggested to the complainant that the accused never swung the knife at him before he used the rake, the complainant said that the accused ran towards him, he threw the knife at him, he was ready to use it and was attacking him. They ran towards each other. The complainant disagreed that the accused was blocking the rake.
    
44. In re examination, the complainant said that the accused swung at him, and he lifted his hand and he was cut. The complainant was holding no weapons at that time. The rake was back near the house, and the complainant was moving away from the house to get the accused and Benjamin away.
    

Accused’s record of interview

45. On 24 February 2025, the accused participated in a record of interview. The accused is 54 years of age and is married with three children. He is self-employed.
    
46. The accused said he knows the complainant as he is married to the daughter of his eldest brother. He admitted that he cut the left wrist of the complainant, and he did this in self-defence.
    
47. His niece verbally abused him and his family and it turned into an argument and a fight broke out between them. The accused said that the complainant stoned him and hit him with a long rake. He said (per the Pidgin version) “[i]t’s a matter of life and death tu ya, [s]apos mi no bin blokim, mi ai kisim bagarap”.
    
48. He used a short bush knife, that normally stays in their cooking hut, to cut him. The knife is (per the English version) “not too long” and is shorter than a 1 metre bush knife. The accused admitted that the knife produced by the police was the knife he used.
    
49. As to the cutting of the complainant’s back, the accused said (per the English version) “I don’t know if I did, I can’t remember cutting him on his back because everything happened so fast”. He was helped by Benjamin Boas junior (who has since died).
    
50. The accused explained in the interview that the issue between him, his niece, and the complainant has been ongoing since Christmas last year. He was furious that his niece had blocked off the road and had used insulting words to his children. He said that he controlled his temper and involved the Ward member, but it was decided to mediate the matter later. He followed up with the Ward member but was told to wait. He would go and help his uncle during the day to avoid arguments. On the day of the alleged offence, he was at home, and the incident happened.
    
51. The accused said that his niece and her husband fight and curse and are disrespectful.
    

Defence case

52. The accused gave an unsworn statement: Ulel, Regina v [1973] PNGLR 254.
    
53. He said that the incident started after he had been clearing up his area. He was resting under the trees. He heard his nice using swear words and being insulting. He told her to stop, but she continued. This made him frustrated.
    
54. There had been friction before the incident, from before Christmas. They had swore at one of the children and told them not to cross a road that had been built by his father. They had barricaded the road which made it hard. He had consulted with the Ward member and did his best to sort it out. There had been no resolution to their issue. There was further friction because they had been insulting about his wife.
    
55. As to the incident itself, the accused said that it was a “total lie” that the husband said words trying to stop the argument. He said that the complainant and his niece have cooked up a story to please the court. The witnesses against him have manipulated the story and have framed him.
    
56. They were prepared with the rake when he came in, and they threw mumu stones. They fight continued and the complainant had a long rake with a wooden handle and metal blades. It was a dangerous weapon that could have hit his head.
    
57. He tried to avoid the complainant four or five times. He was ducking, moving out, coming in, and stepping out. He was “waiting for a better position” and it was an intense fight. He didn’t realise that he had cut the complainant’s hand until the kids said he had.
    
58. He said that he acted in self defence from the weapon that the complainant had. It is a total lie by the complainant that he had no weapon on him. He
    
59. The accused said that his only witness is Benjamin, but he couldn’t access his court files. If he was here, that would be beneficial to him.
    
60. The accused said that there is a reason behind everything and his niece and the complainant show disrespect and are violent. He said that “we don’t get angry or frustrated for no reason”.
    

Self defence: law

61. The defence relies on s 270 of the Criminal Code which provides:
    

s 270 Self-defence against provoked assault

(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 force that 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 arose; 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.

62. It was appropriate that s 270, being self-defence against provoked assault, was raised given the conduct of the accused in throwing items and in pursuing the complainant with a bush knife soon after the argument commenced. The accused provoked the complainant’s response of brandishing the rake.
    
63. I am satisfied that the accused has established on the balance of probabilities an evidentiary basis for self-defence: Paliau v The State [2016] PGSC 54, SC1537; The State v Bruno [2023] PGNC 416, N10562. While further detailed below, the defence is fairly raised because of the evidence that the complainant was holding a rake during the incident, with such an implement capable of causing harm. There is evidence that the accused feared for his life as a result.
    
64. The onus is then on the State to negative the defence beyond reasonable doubt: Paliau v The State; The State v Bruno. That is, the State has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at least one of the elements of self-defence do not exist.
    
65. The query for the court is whether there is any evidence on which the court acting reasonably would be entitled to find that the grievous bodily harm was done in
    self-defence, or to entertain a doubt whether it was done in self-defence.
    
66. In accordance with s 270(1), and the issues that arise in this trial, the court is to consider whether the complainant assaulted the accused with such violence as to:
    
    • (a) cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm; and
      
    • (b) to induce the accused to believe, on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for his preservation from death or grievous bodily harm to use force in self-defence.
      

If this is established, the accused is not criminally responsible for using any such force as is reasonably necessary for such preservation, even if it causes grievous bodily harm.

67. The availability of a defence pursuant to s 270(1) is subject to s 270(2). This provides that the protection provided by subsection (1) does not apply where the accused:
    
    • (a) first began the assault with intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm;
    • (b) endeavoured to kill or to do grievous bodily harm to some person before the necessity of so preserving himself arose; or
    • (c) 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.
      

Submissions

68. The State submitted that the primary elements of the charge are readily established beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the essential issue is whether the accused’s conduct in causing the complainant grievous bodily harm was excused, justified, or authorised by law. That is, whether it was unlawful conduct.
    
69. The State submitted that s 281 is of application, being that there was excessive force. Section 281 of the Criminal Code provides:
    

Even where the use of force by one person to another is lawful, the use of more force that is justified by law under the circumstances is unlawful.

70. The State submitted that the accused, having been provoked by the conduct of his niece, became very aggressive and never resiled from this. He pursued the complainant with a knife in his hand and cut the complainant’s hand off at a time the complainant had no weapon. The State further submitted that the prosecution case has support in the evidence of the witness Elda Boas, whose statement was admitted by consent.
    
71. It was submitted that the accused decided to take the law into his own hands on this day, and that s 270 Criminal Code does not provide a defence for him.
    
72. On behalf of the accused, it was submitted that the court would believe the accused’s evidence. This establishes that the complainant joined the fight, which is plausible given he would want to support his wife. The complainant and the niece had grudges and hatred against the accused, and it was the niece who started the argument.
    
73. It was submitted that the evidence establishes that the complainant got stones from the mumu pit and threw them at the accused. He armed himself with a long handled metal rake and hit the accused with it. The complainant was not a bystander but was actively involved and swung the rake five times. The stones and the rake were deadly weapons, and the accused swung the knife to protect himself from injury and in doing so, hit the complainant’s hand. This action was submitted to be proportionate and not excessive. Accordingly, the accused’s conduct was not unlawful.
    

Onus and Standard of proof

74. It is trite that the accused is presumed innocent: s 37(4)(a) Constitution. The State has the burden of proving the case, and the standard to which that is required to be done is beyond reasonable doubt.
    

Preliminary findings

State witnesses

75. I find the witnesses who gave oral testimony in the State case to have been credible witnesses who gave honest and reliable evidence. They both impressed as confident and articulate witnesses giving a plausible account. They both physically demonstrated their recollection at times, indicative of recalling how an event actually occurred.
    
76. In relation to the niece Alysha Boas, she did not seek to resile from her own poor conduct on this day, acknowledging the offensive words she used, acknowledging that she threw coconuts. This is consistent with her being an honest witness. Further, she did not seek to unfairly implicate the accused, for example, describing only that she was punched once.
    
77. In relation to the complainant, he also did not seek to resile from any poor conduct he engaged in on this day. He volunteered, for example, that he picked up a brick. Further, his credibility is shown by the support of his account in the statement of Elda Boas who also describes the complainant as trying to stop the argument at the start of the incident.
    
78. Further is that the complainant’s account is supported by the medical evidence. This is both in respect to the injury caused that led to his hand been cut, but also by the injury caused to his back, upper left torso. The position of this injury is consistent with the accused having struck him a second time as the complainant contends.
    
79. I recognise that there were some inconsistencies in the account of the niece and the complainant as to, for example, the number of swings that occurred. However, this went to peripheral matters. They were consistent as to the rake having been broken, and that the complainant had no weapon at the time his hand was cut. To the extent there were any inconsistencies, this strengthens their credibility as it shows they did not ‘collude’ to create a made up story. If they had done this, you would expect their stories to entirely match.
    
80. Instead, they both gave credible evidence consistent with what is to be expected from witnesses giving evidence of a quick, and traumatic, incident that they were involved in from different perspectives and positions.
    

Accused’s accounts

81. The accused’s accounts, with reference to a record of interview and his unsworn statement, are not compelling. He focuses his accounts on the “root causes” of the incident, seemingly intent on trying to justify his actions, rather than make clear how it was he needed to act in self-defence.
    
82. As to the critical aspect of his evidence, whether the complainant swung a rake at him 4 to 5 times and he was blocking the rake with the knife when he did the cut, I do not accept the accused’s account. This was an embellishment of his initial account given in the record of interview and does not find support in any other evidence. No other witnesses describe the complainant as holding a rake at the critical time or swinging it that many times.
    
83. His evidence is also implausible. For example, it is implausible that he did not realise he cut the complainant’s hand off, and implausible that he could not recall also cutting the complainant’s back. It is also implausible that given the anger and frustration he plainly accepts that he had, that he was only trying to disarm the complainant and not strike him with the knife.
    

Conclusion as to preliminary findings

84. Based on the evidence that I accept, I make the following preliminary findings:
    
    • (a) the accused pursued the complainant;
      
    • (b) the accused was armed with a bush knife;
      
    • (c) the complainant came to be holding a rake that he used to swing at the accused’s knife;
      
    • (d) the rake was broken by a swing of the accused’s bush knife;
      
    • (e) the complainant was not holding any implement; and
      
    • (f) the accused continued to swing the knife at the complainant, and in doing so, cut off the complainant’s hand.
      

Consideration

85. Applying these preliminary findings to the considerations in accordance with s 270 of the Criminal Code, I conclude that the complainant did not assault the accused with such violence as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and induce the accused to believe on reasonable grounds that it was necessary for his preservation to use force in self-defence. The complainant was unarmed at the time he was struck with the bush knife.
    
86. That is, s 270(1) is disproved by the State based on the evidence that I accept.
    
87. It can additionally be observed that, even on the accused’s own account (had it been accepted), the threat he was faced with by the complainant was a rake. While a
    long-handled metal rake, the accused had the option available to him to retreat from the complainant and the fight, particularly given he had the assistance of another family member who joined the incident. Rather, the accused pursued the complainant with a bush knife that was not particularly short. Even on the accused’s own account, it is not apparent that the complainant’s assault would have caused reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and nor that there were reasonable grounds that the use of the bush knife was necessary for his preservation. The force used was not reasonably necessary and was excessive.
    
88. I otherwise observe that in any event, s 270(2) precludes the protection provided by subsection (1) in this matter. Neither party made any submissions as to this. I consider that:
    
    • (a) the first assault by the accused began with intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm;
    • (b) the accused endeavoured to kill or to do grievous bodily harm to the complainant before any necessity of preserving himself arose; and
    • (c) the accused did not decline further conflict, quitted, or retreated from it as far as was practicable.
      
89. I find that the State’s evidence excludes that the accused acted in self-defence.
    

Elements

90. The elements that the State has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt in the first count are:
    
    • (a) the accused;
    • (b) intended to do grievous bodily harm to the complainant; and
    • (c) unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to the complainant.
      
91. It is not in issue that the accused was the person responsible for cutting the complainant’s hand, and that the injury amounted to really serious injury, being grievous bodily harm. This is plain from the accused’s own admission as to his act, and from the medical evidence. Further, as already observed, the accused is criminally responsible with a defence under s 270 of the Criminal Code disproved. I conclude that I am satisfied that the elements identified as (a) and (c) above are established beyond reasonable doubt.
    

Intention

92. As to whether the State have established that the accused had intention to do some grievous bodily harm at the time, I am satisfied that this is established beyond reasonable doubt because:
    
    • (a) immediately before the conduct, the accused was acting out of frustration and anger from the long standing “root causes” of the incident;
      
    • (b) the accused was saying the words “kill em” during the course of the incident;
      
    • (c) the accused was persistent in his pursuit of the complainant when he had opportunity to retreat from the fight;
      
    • (d) the manner in which the accused swung the bush knife was directed towards the complainant’s head, or at least upper body; and
      
    • (e) the accused continued his attack on the complainant immediately after he cut the hand off the complainant, with further strike as evidenced by the additional injury caused to the complainant’s back.
      
93. In swinging the bush knife as he did, the accused was not defending against a rake, or any other implements, but was pursuing the complainant out of frustration and anger. When he swung the bush knife, the accused did so with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to the complainant, an outcome which he achieved in cutting off the complainant’s hand.
    

Conclusion

94. The State has proved each of the elements of the first count beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is not excused from criminal responsibility pursuant to s 270 of the Criminal Code.
    
95. Accordingly, the accused is found guilty of the first count on the indictment.
    

Orders

96. For those reasons, the following orders are made:
    
    • (1) The accused is found guilty of the first count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to s 315 of the Criminal Code.
      
    • (2) A provisional plea of guilty is entered on the second count of unlawful assault contrary to s 335 of the Criminal Code, subject to the allocutus of the accused.
      

Verdict: Guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the accused: Public Solicitor