Anna Max Marangi v The State (2002) SC702

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Jalina J, Injia J, Sawong J
• Judgment Date: 08 November 2002
• Citation: (2002) SC702
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2002
• Judgement Number: SC702

Full Title: Anna Max Marangi v The State (2002) SC702

Supreme Court: Jalina J, Injia J, Sawong J

Judgment Delivered: 8 November 2002

1 Criminal Law—Appeal against sentence—Manslaughter—Nine (9) years—Multiple stabbing with kitchen knife, by wife of husband's "girl–friend"—Deceased seven (7) months pregnant—Sentencing tariff for manslaughter and murder cases discussed—Appeal dismissed.

2 Antap Yala v The State (1994) (CRA No 64 of 1994, Unnumbered and Unreported Supreme Court judgment of Amet CJ, Salika J and Injia J dated 31 May 1996 at Mt Hagen; SCR 69/96), Jack Tanga v The State (1999) SC602, John Kapil Tapi v The State (2000) SC635, Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38, Public Prosecutor v John Mela (2001) (Unreported and Unnumbered Supreme Court Judgment dated 28 June 2001; SCRA 17 of 2001), Rex Lialu v The State [1990] PNGLR 487, The State v Eddy Kava Laura (No 2) [1988–89] PNGLR 98, The State v Margaret John (No 2) [1996] PNGLR 298, The State v Maria Er (1998) N1749, Saina Paul v The State (Unreported and Unnumbered decision of the Supreme Court), Noring John v The State (Unreported and Unnumbered decision of the Supreme Court) and The State v Peter Kose Wena [1993] PNGLR 168 referred to

___________________________

SC702

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCA 11 of 2002

BETWEEN:

ANNA MAX MARANGI

- Appellant –

AND:

THE STATE

- Respondent –

Mt Hagen : Jalina, Injia & Sawong JJ.

2002 : 2 – 3 October

: 8 November

Criminal Law – Appeal against sentence – Manslaughter – Nine (9) years – Multiple stabbing
with kitchen knife, by wife of husband’s “girl-friend” – Deceased seven (7) months pregnant
– Sentencing tariff for manslaughter and murder cases discussed – Appeal dismissed.

Cases cited in the judgment:
Antap Yala v. The State CRA No. 64 of 1994 (Unreported)
Jack Tanga v. The State SC 602 [1999]
John Kapil Tapi v. The State SC 635 [2000]
Lawrence Simbe v. The State [1994] PNGLR 402
Public Prosecutor v. John Mela SCRA 17 of 2001 (Unreported)
Rex Lialu v. The State [1988 – 89] PNGLR 487
The State v. Laura No. 2 [1988 – 89] PNGLR 98
The State v. Magret John (No. 2) [1996] PNGLR 298
The State v. Maria Er N1749 [1998]
The State v. Peter Kose Wena [1993] PNGLR 168

Counsel:

B. Aipe for the appellant

R. Auka for the respondent

8 NOVEMBER, 2002

BY THE COURT: This is an appeal against sentence imposed by the National Court at Mt. Hagen on 6 August, 2001. The appellant was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment upon pleading guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The only ground (of 3 grounds) of appeal pursued by the appellant and argued before us is that the sentence was excessive in the circumstances.

The circumstances of the killing were that the appellant is a 26 year old woman from Pasalagus village, Maramuni, in the Enga Province. She was married to a man from her area by the name of Max. They lived at Tabubil for some time where her husband worked. Sometimes in 2000, she returned to her village and lived there. On 22nd December 2000 she received information that her husband was coming home via Mt. Hagen. So she got on a MAF plane and flew down to Mt. Hagen and in the night, she went to one Nancy John’s house, where she expected Max to be staying. She entered the house and saw the deceased one Ms Juliana Ansu, “sleeping” on a lounge chair watching TV. The deceased was seven (7) months pregnant at that time. The appellant had suspected Juliana of being her husband’s girl-friend and having an affair with her husband. She then stabbed the deceased with a kitchen knife on her chest twice. The appellant then left the house with the knife in her hand which she later threw away. The deceased was immediately rushed to the hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

There was some argument before us between counsel as to whether there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased which preceded the stabbing. We need to resolve this factual issue first because it is relevant on sentence.

The State’s version of facts upon which the accused pleaded guilty was that the appellant was armed with a kitchen knife which she took with her when she went to Nancy’s house. She approached the deceased who was “sleeping away” on a chair, took out the knife and stabbed her twice. The deceased died of massive internal bleeding from the wounds.

These facts were not disputed by the appellant in her statement on the allocatus or by her counsel in his submissions on sentence. There was no suggestion from the appellant or her counsel of any fight between the appellant and the deceased which preceded the stabbing.

In the trial in submissions on sentence, her counsel Mr. Aipe who is also her counsel in this appeal, made vague references to the appellant’s answers to questions 17 – 23 of the Record of Interview. We reproduce questions and answers No. 17 – 21 below:

“Q.17 What did you do to Juliana when you saw her in the house?

Ans. Juliana asked me saying who are you looking for and I said I came to look for my husband Max and Juliana said he is my husband too and not only you and she fought me with a pocket knife of hers and I got the knife and stab her with the knife.”

Q.18 Where did you go after stabbing her?

Ans. I went to the police station.

Q.19 How many times did you stab Juliana with the knife?

Ans. I stabbed her twice with the knife.

Q.20 What type of knife did you use to stab Juliana?

Ans. Big kitchen knife.

Q.21 After you finish stabbing Juliana, where did you put this knife?

Ans. I throw the knife into the rubbish outside the store near the main market.”

The only other evidence suggesting some form of “fighting” between the appellant and the deceased is from Nancy Takoni but her suggestion of “a person fighting another person” does not clearly indicate if the two were actually fighting each other.

The trial judge sentenced her on the State’s version of facts. This is clear from his judgment where His Honour makes no reference to any fight between the two women. His Honour sentenced the appellant on the basis that the appellant was armed with a knife when she went to Nancy’s house and that she used this knife to stab the deceased.

Mr Aipe now contends that there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased when the appellant entered the house. He did not say whether the appellant was attacked first by the deceased with her own knife and the former responded by stabbing the deceased with the same knife.

On the face of the above record, it seems to us that the appellant’s counsel and the prosecutor no doubt have engaged in some pre-trial plea bargaining which resulted in the State’s reduction of the charge from what in our view would otherwise constitute murder or even willful murder, to manslaughter in exchange for the appellant abandoning her claim of first attack by the deceased with her knife and her retaliation using the same knife as stated in her Record of Interview. This is clear from the transcript that there was no suggestion of a fight by the appellant or her counsel at any stage of the trial. In these circumstances, we are not prepared to disturb the factual basis upon which she was sentenced.

The only submission advanced before us by Mr. Aipe for the appellant is that the present sentence is above the present range of sentences given by the Courts in manslaughter cases. He submits that for this reason, the sentence should be reduced to seven (7) years. He refers us to three decisions of the Supreme Court namely, CRA No. 64 of Antap Yala v. The State (Unreported), SCA No. 88/89 Saina Paul v. The State (Unreported) and Noring John v. The State, (Unreported), SC No. 23 & No. 24 of 2002. He also refers us to the National Court decisions of State v. Magret John (No. 2) [1996] PNGLR 298 and The State v. Maria Err [1999] N1749. We are aware of the decisions in Antap Yala, Margret John and Maria Er because they were published whereas the other decisions were not published. The appellant’s counsel did not furnish us copies of any of the unpublished decisions he relied upon to enable us to peruse to determine if his submissions should be accepted. So we are unable to comment on them.

Mr. Auka of counsel for the respondent submits that the current range of sentences for manslaughter cases, is between 6 and 12 years. The present sentence was therefore within that range and it should not be disturbed.

In our view, it seems to us that neither counsel are...