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

Roth v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2023] PGSC 178; SC2574 (1 September 2023)

SC2574

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCRA NO.65 OF 2018

BETWEEN:
SAMUEL ROTH
Appellant

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Respondent

Madang: Gavara-Nanu J, David J & Kassman J
2023: 30^th August & 1^st September

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – appellant originally charged for murder under Criminal Code s.300(1)(a) – death allegedly resulting from assault within domestic setting – alternative verdict of manslaughter under Criminal Code s.302 entered pursuant to Criminal Code s.539(2) – whether the alternative charge properly proved on the evidence – no identifiable error – verdict not unsafe or unsatisfactory – appeal dismissed – Section 23, Supreme Court Act

Cases Cited:
John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115
Rimbink Pato v Umbu Pupu [1986] PNGLR 310
Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Limited (2007) SC853

Counsel:
Nasson Katosingkalara, for the Appellant
Pondros Kaluwin, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1^st September 2023

1. BY THE COURT: INTRODUCTION: The appellant, Samuel Roth (the Appellant) has appealed against the conviction by the National Court here in Madang on 20 November 2018 for the manslaughter of his wife one Lenneth Rus (the deceased) at their house on the campus of Divine Word University (DWU), Madang on the afternoon of Sunday, 11 January 2015. He was indicted for murder, but was convicted of the crime of manslaughter under s.302 of the Criminal Code exercising the power to return an alternative verdict other than that with which he was charged under s.539(2) of the Criminal Code.

THE TRIAL

2. The Appellant pleaded not guilty in the National Court to an indictment presented by the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (the Respondent) for the killing of the deceased under s.300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
   
3. The Respondent's case was that the Appellant killed the deceased by assaulting her with a piece of timber and a belt and by bodily assault in the bedroom of their house on Sunday afternoon 11 January 2015 and that she died the next morning on Monday, 12 January 2015 due to the injuries he inflicted on her.
   
4. The Respondent’s evidence consisted of both oral and documentary evidence.
   
5. Sworn oral testimony was given by four witnesses namely, Charmaine George, cousin sister of the deceased, police officer Snr. Sgt. Frank Kikoli, Dr. Vincent Atua and Dr. Jiuth Gawi both of the Modilon General Hospital, Madang.
   
6. Charmaine George’s evidence in summary is this. She and the deceased arrived at the DWU house around 7:00 am on Sunday 11 January 2015. On their way from Mt. Hagen to Madang, the deceased told her that she was afraid the Appellant would be cross with her and would hit her. The Appellant was not home when they arrived. He returned home in the afternoon.
   
7. When the Appellant arrived, he showed her a piece of paper that contained a list of unanswered calls and text messages and said that was why he was going to hit the deceased. The Appellant had a piece of timber, took the deceased into their bedroom with no one else in it and locked it. The deceased was at that point in good condition. She heard the Appellant assaulting the deceased and heard the deceased screaming ‘Samuel. Please stop. Enough! Enough!’
   
8. She left the house with Priscilla and a small boy called TJ who was also a member of the household as she did not like to hear her sister screaming in pain and went for a stroll around the campus. When they returned to the house, she saw the deceased lying on the ground at the back of the house with the appellant pouring water over her. The deceased was in pain and had excreted in her trousers and was struggling to breathe. She and Priscilla washed the deceased with a hose while the Appellant stood and watched them. The Appellant then asked them to take the deceased to the hospital. She and Priscilla helped the deceased to a car as she could not walk by herself and they proceeded to the Accident and Emergency Department of the hospital. She and Priscilla left the deceased and walked to the nearby Tree Line Store to buy some mobile phone credits.
   
9. When she and Priscilla returned to the house late in the afternoon, the Appellant and the deceased were in the house. The deceased was in the bedroom, but she did not go into the bedroom to observe her condition. Priscilla cooked dinner and the household had dinner then went to sleep. During the night, she heard the deceased calling out for water. She heard the bedroom door opening and closing several times and presumed that that was the Appellant fetching water for the deceased.
   
10. The next day on Monday morning while watching television with TJ, she heard the Appellant calling Priscilla to get an ambulance for the deceased as she was not in a good condition and unconscious. The deceased was lying on the bedroom floor and she could see no sign of movement. The Appellant tried to resuscitate her without response. Neighbours rushed in and assisted the Appellant in getting the deceased into the Appellant’s car and was taken to the hospital. At the time, the deceased could not walk, her eyes were closed and her skin was swollen.
    
11. She went to the Accident and Emergency Department at the hospital later with Pricilla. The Appellant came out and asked Priscilla and herself to go with him to the house to find the medicine (which the Appellant claimed later) with which the deceased had overdosed and bedsheets and a blouse. She later received news that the deceased had passed away. During cross-examination, she said when the Appellant and the deceased returned from the hospital on Sunday afternoon, there was no further argument between them and that on Monday morning, she heard the Appellant saying that the deceased had overdosed.
    
12. Police Officer Snr. Sgt. Frank Kikoli’s evidence is this. He attended the crime scene at the house on Monday afternoon. He went into the bedroom and observed various personal properties strewn about the room. He gathered bedsheets and pillow cases containing blood spots. Sergeant Elisha took photographs of the crime scene. He was the corroborator in the police interview of the Appellant conducted by Snr. Constable Sagem.
    
13. Dr. Vincent Atua was the Director of Medical Services, Modilon General Hospital. His evidence is essentially this. He conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased jointly with Dr. Jiuth Gawi and was the primary author of the post-mortem report and the medical certificate of death. It was noted that the deceased had a height of 159 cm, weighed 85 kg and was approximately 30 years old. He said the cause of death was hypoxia, ie., lack of oxygen resulting from bilateral lung contusions (being amongst the injuries inflicted on the deceased). The conclusion that the cause of death was hypoxia was supported by the findings that the post-mortem examination revealed:
    
    1. Bilateral severe contused posterior. This was caused by blunt trauma, ie, lung tissues become mashed and tiny blood vessels and capillaries leak into lung tissues causing blockages in vessels required for oxygen exchange. The injuries were indicative of significant force being applied to the back which was transmitted to the lungs causing tissue damage.
    2. Extensive deep bruising of the entire upper back and posterior upper right and left arms (multiple linear bruises and deep haematomas on the entire posterior chest, and deep bruising covering whole of the posterior and lateral surfaces of both upper arms, extending from shoulder tips to elbows).
    3. Extensive deep bruising to both buttocks, hips and posterior thighs (deep bruising over right and left iliac crests): soft tissue injuries – most injuries were on the back (posterior) areas of the body.
       

Other observations were:

• blood was in the trachea and main bronchi (the windpipe): indicating that blood had seeped from the lung tissue into the bronchi;
• swollen left and right eyelid;
• deep bruising over the left scapular region.
  

14. Asked about the possibility that the deceased overdosed with medication such as Panadeine, paracetamol and amoxicillin, he said the issue was not addressed in the post-mortem report and a pathological test was desirable to determine whether a person had died of drug overdose, but that could not be undertaken in Madang. He also said that paracetamol-caused death where a large quantity of paracetamol was taken would take place over about 48 hours after ingestion and death would be caused by liver failure and there was no such evidence. As to mixing paracetamol with drugs like amoxicillin, he said this would not significantly enhance the onset of death as amoxicillin was a relatively non-lethal drug even in high quantities. He said although he could not objectively exclude the possibility that an overdose of drugs was a cause of death, he maintained his finding that the cause of death was hypoxia.
    
15. Dr. Jiuth Gawi was the Medical Registrar, Emergency Department, Modilon General Hospital. He assisted Dr. Atua in conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased. His evidence in essence is this. The liver and other systems were OK, but there was heavy bruising on the back – both lungs had an accumulation of blood, air and fluid as a result of direct trauma causing breathing difficulties and a lack of oxygen to the brain, eventually causing the heart and brain and other organs to fail resulting in death. He confirmed that the cause of death was bilateral lung contusion as a result of direct trauma caused by a blunt object and extensive force. He checked the deceased when the deceased was brought in to the Modilon General Hospital and there was no pulse and no signs of life and was regarded as “dead on arrival”. Asked about the possibility that the deceased had overdosed with some medication and was told by the Appellant on presentation of the deceased, he said he did not take any note of that in his medical notes and that if the deceased had overdosed, it would have been detected in the liver by its blackness, but the liver was normal. A pathological test was desirable to determine whether death was caused by an overdose, but could not recall if one was done. There were no signs of any drug overdose such as yellowing of the eyes or skin or other signs of jaundice.
    
16. The documentary evidence admitted into evidence by consent consisted of the following:
    
    1. Witness statement of Paul Rus, adult male, father of the deceased (Exhibit P1);
    2. Witness statement of Nancy Rus, adult female, mother of the deceased (Exhibit P2);
    3. Witness statement of James Rus, adult male, uncle of the deceased (Exhibit P3);
    4. Witness statement of Rex Tupiap, adult male, friend of deceased (Exhibit P4);
    5. Witness statement of Mathew Tes, adult male, DWU campus resident, friend of the deceased (Exhibit P5);
    6. Witness statement of Eva Ali, adult female, relative of the deceased (Exhibit P6);
    7. Witness statement of Regina Ropra, adult female, relative of the deceased (Exhibit P7);
    8. Witness statement of Willy Ropra, adult male, relative of the deceased (Exhibit P8);
    9. Witness statement of Emerald Rus, adult female, relative of the deceased (Exhibit P9);
    10. Witness statement of police officer, Constable Salir Aweti, Exhibit P10);
    11. Witness statement of police officer, Snr. Constable Chanel Sagem (Exhibit P11);
    12. Witness statement of police officer, Sgt. Tangi Elisha, crime scene examiner (Exhibit P12);
    13. Record of Interview of the appellant (Exhibit P13);
    14. Post Mortem Report for the deceased (Exhibit P14) and
    15. Medical Certificate of Death for the deceased (Exhibit P15).
        
17. The defence case was that the Respondent failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant killed the deceased, there being no direct evidence that the Appellant killed the deceased using a weapon, but relying on circumstantial evidence and there was an alternative hypothesis explaining the deceased’s death by drug overdose.
    
18. The defence evidence also consisted of oral and documentary evidence.
    
19. Sworn oral testimony was given by five witnesses namely, John Yama, family friend of the Appellant and the deceased, John Rasta, self-employed businessman, Priscilla Roth, younger sister of the Appellant, Daniel Marum, Correctional Officer of Beon jail and the Appellant himself.
    
20. The Appellant’s evidence in essence was this. He and the deceased had been married by custom and under statute since about 2011. They generally had a good marriage except for interference by the deceased’s parents and other relatives. The deceased with the assistance of her uncle James Rus left the family home and went to Mt. Hagen without his knowledge and he was very cross when that happened. The deceased had an argument with his cousins regarding a small block they had at Nagada and he did not support her as she started the argument. He looked for the deceased all over Madang and called and texted her, but she did not respond until she reached Mt. Hagen. The deceased returned on Sunday morning, 11 January 2015 while he was out. He welcomed her home, but the deceased was still angry with him for not supporting her in the argument she had with his cousins and became rowdy and wanted a fight. He showed Charmaine all the text messages that he had sent to the deceased. They went into the bedroom away from the children and had an argument which developed into a fight. It was an intense fight, the deceased punching him first and hitting him with a bilum that had heavy objects in it. During the fight the deceased squeezed his testicles so tight that he feared for his life. He grabbed a leather belt and used it to hit the deceased across her back in self-defence causing the deceased to release her grip on his testicles and he started punching her. He did not strike the deceased with any piece of timber. The fight went on for 10 to 15 minutes. They both calmed down after that, made peace by saying sorry to each other, made love and they both went to sleep. The deceased was in pain so they went to the outpatients department at the Modilon General Hospital and got some tablets.
    
21. As they had no money to buy food, they drove to Kusbau Police barracks and borrowed K150.00 from a policeman they knew.
    
22. They then went to Madang Bakery at Redscar to buy food and returned to the house around 4:00 pm. Charmaine was asleep. He did some work on the computer. They had dinner at about 7:00 pm. His testicles were still very sore. The deceased slept early, but was getting up every now and again to go to the shower, but did not say she was unwell.
    
23. When he woke up early on Monday morning, the deceased was not next to him in the bed, but found her on the floor. He found some open packets of medicine namely, Panadeine, painkillers and anti-malarial tablets on the floor. The deceased was not in a good condition so he shouted for someone to get an ambulance. He tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate her. Neighbours came in and helped him to get her to the hospital, but he knew she was already dead.
    
24. He showed the nurses attending to the deceased the medication she had taken, but they were not interested. He also showed the medication to Dr. Gawi who pronounced her dead.
    
25. He returned to his house and fearing for his life, he called a clansman and told him that the deceased had taken a drug overdose.
    
26. A Mrs. Ropra went to the house and made a lot of noise.
    
27. He was later apprehended by the police and taken to the police station where he was locked up while experiencing pain and could not sleep. He was then taken to Beon Jail where he started urinating blood. He was treated for that by a Health Extension Officer at the jail.
    
28. John Yama said he knew both the Appellant and the deceased. They went to see him at the Kusbau Police Barracks on the afternoon of Sunday, 11 January 2015 and he gave them K150.00 cash because they were short of cash. They stayed with him for 10 to 15 minutes. He did not know that they had fought earlier on and they seemed to be in good health.
    
29. John Rasta said he knew the Appellant and the deceased very well because they were his regular customers at his market in the Admin Compound area close to DWU. On the afternoon of Sunday, 11 January 2015 between 3:00 pm and 3:30 pm, they visited him at his market and they did not display that anything was wrong with them.
    
30. Priscilla Roth’s evidence essentially is this. In January 2015, she and her adopted son TJ were living with her big brother, the Appellant. Charmaine and the deceased arrived early on Sunday morning, 11 January 2015. The Appellant arrived home around midday. He asked the deceased if she had any money and she said she had none. She raised her voice and an argument started between them. The Appellant went into the bedroom and was followed by the deceased. She did not see the Appellant was armed with a timber when he went into the bedroom. They locked the door and she heard them fighting. She and Charmaine heard noises so both of them went for a walk as Charmaine was new in Madang. They returned to the house and did the laundry. The deceased went out, washed her face and said she and the Appellant were going to the hospital. The Appellant and the deceased returned home around 4:00 pm with food. She prepared dinner while Charmaine was asleep. They had dinner at about 7:00 pm. Early the next day, she was woken by the Appellant who asked her to get an ambulance because the deceased was sick. The neighbours assisted to get the deceased to the hospital. Soon after, she heard that the deceased had died. She did not at any stage see any mark on the deceased’s body to indicate that she had been injured. Both the Appellant and the deceased looked normal when they returned home together that afternoon.
    
31. The documentary evidence was in the form of a clinic book in the name of the Appellant (Exhibit D1). It included an entry for 20 January 2015 recording his presentation at the Aid Post at Beon Jail and his referral to the Modilon General Hospital when he was in remand at the Beon Jail. He had complained of experiencing pain in the testicles and passing dark red urine due to an injury sustained in “domestic violence” and was treated with doxycycline and paracetamol.
    
32. The trial judge accepted Charmaine George’s evidence. He assessed her as an honest, reliable and truthful witness and that her answers to questions were concise, convincing and credible.
    
33. The trial judge said the defence witnesses including the Appellant gave evidence that was not credible and not believable giving false testimony calculated to favour the Appellant so he rejected them. In addition, the trial judge said the evidence by the Appellant that after the fight which he said was intense in which he feared for his life as the deceased squeezed his testicles so tight, they made peace and made love was incredible, irrational and unbelievable.
    

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

34. While the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 12 December 2018 contains seven grounds of appeal challenging the conviction, four of the grounds ((d) to (g)) were abandoned at the commencement of the hearing so they are dismissed. The remaining grounds are:

"a. The Learned Trial Judge erred in fact and in law in finding that the State had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had died of hypoxia as a result of bilateral lung confusion when:

1. There was no medical examination conducted at the time of the death of the deceased on the 12^th January 2015 or during the time of post mortem examination to exclude medical drug overdose although the Appellant had informed the relevant medical workers at Modilon General Hospital that the deceased had overdosed;
2. There was no explanation provided by any of the expert medical witnesses explaining why and how it took around (18) hours from the time of the assault (approximately 1:00 pm on 11^th January 2015) to the time of death (around 7:30 am on 12^th January 2015) for the deceased to die of hypoxia;
3. Both expert medical witnesses namely Drs. Jiuth Gawi and Vincent Atua admitted during cross-examination that medical drug overdose could not be ruled out as a possible cause of death;
4. His Honour rejected the allegation by the State that a piece of timber was used to assault the deceased thereby creating considerable doubt and inconsistency with the opinions of the medical witnesses as to the amount of force applied on the deceased’s back an the cause of death;
5. There was no basis to reject the evidence of John Rasta, John Yama and the Appellant that on 11^th January 2015, the Appellant and the deceased were seen together around Madang town between 2pm and 4 pm after their visit to the Modilon General Hospital and that the deceased was not showing any sign of illness.”

2. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in failing to find or make a specific finding that the State had an onus of disproving the possibility of medical drug overdose and that the standard of disproving the possibility of medical drug overdose was proof beyond reasonable doubt.

100. The learned trial judge erred in fact and in law in failing to apply the law to the facts and find or conclude that the State had disproved or negatived the possibility of death by medical drug overdose beyond reasonable doubt.”

ISSUES

35. The main issues that emerge from the remaining grounds of appeal for determination are:
    
    1. Whether there was evidence supporting an alternative cause of death of the deceased by drug overdose?
2. Whether there was in all the circumstances a reasonable doubt as to the safeness or satisfactoriness of the verdict?

36. These issues can be addressed together.
THE LAW

37. With regard to an appeal against conviction, s.23(1) of the Supreme Court Act states that the Supreme Court must allow the appeal where it is demonstrated that:
    1. under all the circumstances of the case, the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory; or
    2. it was a wrong decision on any question of law; or
    3. there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial.

38. In John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115, the Supreme Court said:

"On an appeal against conviction, the Supreme Court must be satisfied that there is in all the circumstances a reasonable doubt as to the safeness or satisfactoriness of the verdict before the appeal will be allowed."

SUBMISSIONS
39. Mr. Katosingkalara of counsel for the Appellant relied on his submissions both written and oral and essentially submitted that in all the circumstances, there was a reasonable doubt as to the safeness or satisfactoriness of the verdict for manslaughter. He urged the Court to quash the conviction and a verdict of not guilty be substituted because the totality of the evidence shows that the trial judge fell into error when finding that death caused by bilateral severe contused posterior leading to hypoxia was the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn on the evidence before him when there was evidence demonstrating that death would have been caused by drug overdose.

40. Mr. Kaluwin for the Respondent relied on both his written and oral submissions and essentially submitted that all the grounds of appeal have no merit and the appeal should be dismissed. He said that the suggestion that death was due to a drug overdose was not supported by the physical examination of the deceased’s body in particular the liver. He also contended that for the Respondent to disprove a defence, some evidence, more than just a verbal assertion of complaint ought to have been advanced by the defence before the Respondent could be put to the task of disproving the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

41. Mr. Kaluwin also argued that what exactly occurred in the Appellant’s bedroom was unknown, but it is not disputed that there was a fight and that the deceased was badly injured requiring immediate medical attention. He said the trial judge rejected the Appellant’s evidence following an assessment of the witnesses’ evidence and the injuries sustained were consistent with or supported by the photographs and medical reports forming part of the evidence before the trial judge.

42. In addition, Mr. Kawluwin submitted that no material irregularity has been shown in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence and therefore the verdict reached was safe and satisfactory. Mr. Kaluwin urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction.

CONSIDERATION

43. We are unable to agree with that Appellant’s submissions. The trial judge eloquently addressed and discussed the evidence. He accepted the evidence of Charmaine George which was critical as she was present in the Appellant’s house with Priscilla Roth and her adopted son TJ when the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant in a fight with the deceased in their bedroom and was assessed as a honest, reliable and truthful witness. The trial judge rejected the defence evidence for reasons given already.

44. Ground (a)(i) has no merit as:

1. there was inadequate information on the drugs allegedly taken such as their names and the quantities taken (64 AB lines 4-8);
2. Dr. Atua explained that it would take up to at least 48 hours from ingestion for medical drugs such as Panadeine, paracetamol and amoxicillin to cause death by drug overdose due to a liver failure and that a mixture of paracetamol with amoxicillin was not fatal (64 AB lines 10-19), but said that a mixture of Panadeine and paracetamol in large quantities would be fatal ( 64 AB lines 31-35);
3. Dr. Atua said a drug overdose would lead to a liver failure first and in the present case, no liver injuries had been discovered on examination (64 AB lines 35-40);
4. Dr. Gawi said a drug overdose causing death would be shown by black appearances on the liver suggestive of toxicity to the liver. He confirmed that the liver was grossly normal (75 AB lines 31-40) and there was no jaundice or yellowing of the eyes or skin to suggest an overdose (77AB lines 24-33); and
5. The cause of death due to bilateral severe contused posterior leading to hypoxia was confirmed by the evidence of both Dr. Atua and Dr. Gawi and they both signed the post-mortem report (264-268 AB).
   

45. Ground (a)(ii) is without merit as the issue was not raised before the trial judge: Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Limited (2007) SC853.

46. Ground (a)(iii) has no merit as both Dr. Atua and Dr. Gawi provided explanations that it was possible for death of the deceased to have been caused by drug overdose, but there was lack of information on the quantities of the particular drugs allegedly taken (64 AB lines 1-19). There was no indication of a drug overdose and that the liver was grossly normal. Death by drug overdose was not supported by any worthwhile or strong evidence and properly explained away by the two learned medical doctors.

47. Ground (a)(iv) has no merit. The Appellant said the fight he had with the deceased was intense and lasted for 10 to 15 minutes. The trial judge found that the Respondent failed to prove that the Appellant used a piece of timber to strike the deceased and most serious blows were to the back. The Appellant conceded grabbing a leather belt and used it to hit the deceased across her back and he started punching her. The trial judge also found that the Appellant injured the deceased so seriously that she was unable to walk by herself to the car to be taken to the hospital and she excreted in her trousers. The two learned medical doctors said the injuries to the deceased was caused by blunt trauma. Their findings were consistent with the injuries inflicted on the deceased by the Appellant.

48. Ground (a)(v) has no merit. The trial judge was best placed to analyse or assess the witnesses’ evidence including observing their demeanours and this Court should respect that: Rimbink Pato v Umbu Pupu [1986] PNGLR 310. His Honour discussed all these aspects of the evidence of each witness and reached the conclusion that the Appellant killed the deceased, but the Respondent failed to prove the offence of murder as it had fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The trial judge after finding that the killing was unlawful because the Respondent had disproved to the required standard the defences of self-defence under s.269(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code and provocation under s.267 of the Criminal Code convicted the Appellant for manslaughter instead. He found that the defence witnesses and the Appellant himself gave evidence which was not credible and not believable. He found that Priscilla Roth’s evidence was mainly to protect her brother, the Appellant and that the Appellant’s evidence was incredible, irrational and unbelievable in relation to his evidence of making love after assaulting the deceased. There was sufficient basis to reject the evidence of the Appellant, John Rasta and John Yama.

49. Grounds (b) and (c) are considered together. They have no merit. It is trite law that the burden of raising a defence is on the balance of probabilities. Once that is done, the onus shifts to the prosecution to negative the defence beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant failed in that respect. The medical evidence of the two learned medical doctors did not suggest that there was a drug overdose as the deceased’s liver was found to be of normal size and appearance and no jaundice.

CONCLUSION

50. We have essentially agreed with the submissions of Mr. Kaluwin. It is our opinion that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial judge committed any identifiable error in addressing the evidence and reaching the verdict he returned. It is also our opinion that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial. Consequently, it has not been established that the verdict of manslaughter is unsafe or unsatisfactory. We will dismiss the appeal and affirm the National Court’s conviction.

ORDER

51. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

________________________________________________________________

Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Appellant
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the Respondent