Kutapa Keapu v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kapi DCJ, Hinchliffe J
• Judgment Date: 02 September 1994
• Citation: [1994] PNGLR 135
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1994
• Judgement Number: SC469

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Hinchliffe J

Judgment Delivered: 2 September 1994

SC469

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCA 82 OF 1992

BETWEEN:

KUTAPA KEAPU

Appellant

AND:

THE STATE

Respondent

Waigani: Kapi DCJ, Hinchliffe J

26 June and 2 September 1994

D. Koeget for the appellant

M. Unagui for the respondent

2 September 1994

By The Court: The appellant was charged with two counts of wilful murder and one count of attempted murder. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

The facts were not disputed and may be shortly stated as follows. That on 3 April 1989 at Kira village at about 6.00pm, the appellant was said to have gone "berserk" and was wielding an axe and chasing people in the village. One of the victims, an elderly woman could not escape or run away. She was trapped in her house and the appellant hit her once with the axe and she fell down unconscious. She was admitted to the hospital and died two months later.

On 4 April 1989, the appellant confronted a group of men and struck a man, Wanbina Marepa on his shoulder. He did not die.

On the same day, the appellant went to Upipi village. He approached a woman in her house and as she came out he struck her with the axe and she died instantly.

The appellant called no evidence but tendered a medical report by Dr Brother Andrew MBBS by consent.

The trial judge convicted the appellant of the two wilful murder charges only and sentenced him to 25 years IHL on each count to be served concurrently.

The appellant has appealed against the convictions and against the severity of sentence.

The defence of insanity under s. 28 of the Criminal Code was the reason for the trial. In dealing with the defence the trial judge said:

"The report of Dr Brother Andrew does not assist the accused in establishing a defence of insanity. The doctor in his report says that in order to establish the state of the accused's mind at the time of the offence was committed he had to establish whether there were such demonstration of unsoundness of mind prior to and...