Regina v Bulda [Buida] Melin, Koim Komble, Kewa Atep, Talda Reia, Neringa Koi, Wai Wandake, Neng Wam, Maima Kuli, Thomas Konga and Norun Moguwa [1973] PNGLR 278

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Minogue CJ, Clarkson J, Kelly J
• Judgment Date: 17 July 1972
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1973
• Citation: [1973] PNGLR 278
• Judgement Number: FC35

Full Title: Regina v Bulda [Buida] Melin, Koim Komble, Kewa Atep, Talda Reia, Neringa Koi, Wai Wandake, Neng Wam, Maima Kuli, Thomas Konga and Norun Moguwa [1973] PNGLR 278

Full Court: Minogue CJ, Clarkson J, Kelly J

Judgment Delivered: 17 July 1972

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

REGINA

V

BULDA MELIN, AND OTHERS

Port Moresby

Minogue CJ Clarkson Kelly JJ

27-28 June 1972

17 July 1972

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Payback killing — "Extenuating circumstances" such that death penalty not inflicted — Criminal Code (Queensland, adopted) s. 305 (2)

Section 305 (2) of the Criminal Code (Queensland, adopted) provides:

(2) If a court finds that a person committed the crime of wilful murder it shall thereupon consider whether there existed extenuating circumstances such that it would not be just to inflict the punishment of death and if it finds that those circumstances existed the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for life or for such lesser term as the court thinks just.1.

M. and nine others pleaded guilty to wilful murder. The killing was a payback, which occurred in a remote part of the country. The trial judge, taking into account the fact that M. and his associates were primitive and simple tribesmen, passed sentences of imprisonment ranging from two years and eight months to three years and four months.

On appeal by the Secretary for Law against the inadequacy of the sentences:

Held

(1) In considering the question whether "extenuating circumstances" exist within the meaning of s. 305 (2) of the Criminal Code such that it would not be just to inflict the punishment of death the duty is cast upon the Court considering these circumstances and there is no onus upon either the prosecution or the defence. In the fulfilment of its duty the Court may, in an appropriate case, direct further inquiries to be made and information to be furnished.

(2) The sentence imposed in each case was in the circumstances inadequate, and greater sentences should be imposed.

Appeal

The respondents pleaded guilty to charges of the wilful murder of Buru Ongomun, and the trial judge imposed sentences of imprisonment ranging from two years and eight months to three years and four months. The Secretary for Law appealed pursuant to s. 29 (1) of the Supreme Court (Full Court) Ordinance 1968 against the sentence imposed in each case upon the ground that the sentences were inadequate and insufficient. Further facts and circumstances are fully set out in the judgment of the Full Court.

Counsel

L. W. Roberts-Smith, for the appellant.

P. Hoath, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

MINOGUE CJ CLARKSON KELLY JJ: This is an appeal by the Secretary for Law pursuant to s. 29 (1) of the Supreme Court (Full Court) Ordinance 1968 against the sentences imposed on the ten respondents. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence in each case is in the circumstances inadequate and insufficient.

The respondents each pleaded guilty to the wilful murder of Buru Ongomun. The learned trial judge was satisfied that he should accept the pleas of guilty and the respondents were thereupon each convicted of wilful murder. The sentence imposed in the cases of Koim Komble and...