The State v Arua Maraga Hariki (2003) N2332

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Salika J
• Judgment Date: 03 February 2003
• Citation: [2003] PNGLR 53
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2003
• Judgement Number: N2332

Full Title: The State v Arua Maraga Hariki (2003) N2332

National Court: Salika J

Judgment Delivered: 3 February 2003

1 Criminal law—sentence—wilful murder—convicted of two wilful murders—imposition of death penalty.

2 Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105 referred to

___________________________

N2332

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR 151 of 2002

THE STATE

-V-

ARUA MARAGA HARIKI

WAIGANI : SALIKA, J

03rd February, 2003

SENTENCE

Criminal law – sentence – wilful murder – convicted of two wilful murders – imposition of death penalty.

Miss Boni for the State

Mr Amet Jr for the Defendant

03 February, 2003

The prisoner has been found guilty of 2 counts of wilful murder after a trial. The crime of wilful murder is the highest of the homicide cases. It is also the most serious of the homicide cases. It is serious because it involves unlawfully taking of life. Taking the life of another person unlawfully with the intention that the person should die is a very serious crime. Life is only lived while one can. It can be taken away by natural death or through sickness. It can also be taken away through accidents like plane crashes or motor vehicle accidents. Death may also be caused through carelessness or wrecklessness. In each instance of homicide cases seriousness is usually measured by circumstances prevailing at the time. What happened before then homicide was committed goes to show the seriousness of the offence.

In this case the offence was committed while the prisoner and the deceased were drinking. Whatever was the prisoner’s state of mind the court does not know, but the evidence is that the prisoner held the deceased Heni Veidiho on his neck and virtually blocked his windpipe thus cutting off precious air from getting into the lungs and the rest of the body. At that moment Heni’s life and survival was dependent on the prisoner’s action.

If the prisoner released Heni’s throat Heni would live. If he continued to hold him and block the air Heni would die. The prisoner would have had the opportunity to release Heni but in this case he saw it fit to continue to hold Heni by his throat. A photograph of Heni’s body showed an incised wound on his throat. Medical evidence is that the wound was sufficient to kill him.

In this case, I am satisfied that whoever inflicted that wound intended to cause Heni’s death. The prisoner was present at the scene of the murder.

The motive for the killing was not established except by the utterance of the words “these are the people”. Whatever those words mean are only known to the prisoner and Siaka Sava.

In the case of Togiri the court does not know how death was inflicted on Togiri. Evidence is that both Heni and Togiri were drinking with the prisoner. John Naime gave an explanation of how Heni met his death. He ran away for fear of his own life leaving Togiri asleep in the blue Mazda. Whatever happened to Togiri is not known but the bodies of the boys were found together along the Papa-Lealea road. This led me to find that whoever killed Heni must also be responsible for the killing of Togiri. I came to that conclusion because it makes sense and in my view is a reasonable conclusion supported by other evidence.

Killing another person with intent is in my view the most serious crime. Life is lived only once. Once it is taken away the person ceases to exist. Life is therefore sacred. It should be revered, respected and preserved and every effort should be made by every person to protect it.

I am mindful of the factors mentioned n the matter of Ure Hane v The State (1984) PNGLR 105 by Bredmeyer J. A wilful murder is a wilful murder. If a murder is not wilful then it must be murder or manslaughter. In this case...