The State v Charles Maniwa and Joseph Utura Maniwa (2004) N2674

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kandakasi J
• Judgment Date: 22 June 2004
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2004) N2674
• Year: 2004
• Judgement Number: N2674

Full Title: The State v Charles Maniwa and Joseph Utura Maniwa (2004) N2674

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2004

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Manslaughter—Group attack on church worker over church property—Breach of Court Order—Defiance of calls by village leaders—Shooting deceased with a stone by one and attempted hitting with a piece of iron by another—Rapture of swollen spleen—Need to deter breach of court orders and defiance of interventions of village leaders considered—19 years less time spent in custody imposed—s.302 Criminal Code.

2 Anna Max Marangi v The State (08/11/02) SC702, Sakarowa Koe v The State (01/04/04) SC739 , Antap Yala v The State, (Unreported judgment delivered 31/05/96), Jack Tanga v The State (1999) SC602, John Kapil Tapi v The State (2000) SC635, The State v Dominic Mangirak (29/04/03) N2368, The State v Jimmy Morgan (17/12/01) N2171, David Bawai Laiam v The State (01/04/04) SC741, The State v Enni Mathew & Ors (No 2) (29/10/03) N2563 referred to

Decision On Sentence

___________________________

N2674

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO.1089 of 2000

THE STATE

-V-

CHARLES MANIWA

&

JOSEPH UTURA MANIWA

WEWAK: KANDAKASI, J.

2004: 15th and 22nd June

DECISION ON SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Manslaughter – Group attack on church worker over church property – Breach of Court Order – Defiance of calls by village leaders – Shooting deceased with a stone by one and attempted hitting with a piece of iron by another – Rapture of swollen spleen – Need to deter breach of court orders and defiance of interventions of village leaders considered - 19 years less time spent in custody imposed – s.302 Criminal Code.

Cases cited:

Anna Max Marangi v The State (08/11/02) SC702.

Sakarowa Koe v. The State (01/04/04) SC739 .

Antap Yala v. The State, (Unreported judgment delivered 31/05/96).

Jack Tanga v. The State (1999) SC602.

John Kapil Tapi v. The State (2000) SC635.

The State v. Dominic Mangirak (29/04/03) N2368.

The State v Jimmy Morgan (17/12/01) N2171.

David Bawai Laiam v. The State (01/04/04) SC741.

The State v. Enni Mathew & Ors (No.2) (29/10/03) N2563

Counsel:

J. Wala for the State

L. Siminji for the Defendants

22nd June, 2004

KANDAKASI, J: Both of you pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter or unlawful killing of one Tobby George, a Catechist of the Catholic Church on 4th December 1997. That was contrary to s. 302 of the Criminal Code. The Court accepted your guilty pleas on being satisfied that, the material in the deposition, admitted into evidence with your consent supported the charge and your guilty pleas.

The Facts

The facts giving rise to the charge and your guilty pleas are straightforward. The deceased worked at the Banak village as a Catechist with the Catholic Church. He spent much of his young live there and ended up marrying a local girl. Out of that marriage, he had 4 children.

The deceased and the local church council were concerned over the village people continuously getting into the mission area and taking away properties belonging to the mission. The deceased and the local church council raised the matter with the village people. There was no improvement and this resulted in the Church obtaining a restraining order against the village people from entering the mission area and removing properties or things from there. The terms of the order were made known to all the village people including you two.

In direct breach of the court orders, you entered the mission area on 3rd December 1997 and cut down sago stems and left them there. Your father sent you back the following day to collect the sago stems. However, on arrival, you discovered that some of the sago stems were missing. You suspected that they were taken away and used on the instructions of the deceased. Therefore, you went and reported that to your father.

Soon you returned to the mission area with your father and your mother and confronted the deceased. You questioned the deceased authority and that developed into an argument. In the process, you, Joseph Utura Maniwa got a stone and threw it at the deceased. The stone landed on the deceased chest. Then you, Charles Maniwa, tried to further attack the deceased with a piece of iron but the deceased managed to grab hold of it and struggled with you, until a third party separated the two of you. By that time, damage was already done to the deceased and he collapsed at the scene because of the injuries he received from you. Other people rushed the deceased to the hospital. Upon arrival at the hospital, the hospital pronounced him dead. An autopsy carried out on the deceased revealed that he died of rapture of the spleen, which had swollen to five times larger than normal.

Prior to your confrontation of the deceased, the village leaders stopped you from doing so in view of the existing court order. In fact, one of them told you that he was tired and that he needed some rest, after which he would give the problem some attention with a view to resolving it peacefully. You showed no preparedness to wait for that.

Allocutus and Submissions

In your allocutus, both of you said sorry for what you have done. You also said sorry to the deceased family and relatives. You said a peace ceremony was conducted in which K1,000.00 in cash and a further K1,000.00 in goods were paid over. You have been under police custody for over seven years. Finally, you asked for probation and mercy of the Court toward you.

Your lawyer added to this by pointing out your respective personal and family backgrounds. You are both young, Charles Maniwa, you are 22 years old now, 15 years old at the time of the offence, while Joseph Utura Maniwa you are 21 years old now, 14 years old at the time of the offence. Both of your parents are alive. You have two brothers and three sisters. Of these, Charles, you are the first born and received grade 6 education while Joseph you are the second born in the family. Both of you follow the Catholic faith and live subsistence style dwelling and have no prior convictions.

You were arrested on 18th November 1997, and have been in custody until 27th March 1998, when the charge against you, then going before the District Court committal process was struck out. You were recharged and arrested on 2nd October 2000, and kept in custody until 19th October 2000, when you were released on a cash bail of K200.00. Therefore, you were in custody for a total of 6 months.

In relation to the kind of sentence you should receive, your lawyer urged the Court to take into account your personal and family backgrounds, that you pleaded guilty and co-operated well with the police and the other authorities up to this Court. This saved the State and the Court substantial time it could have taken if there was a denial. He also urged the Court to note that this is a case of unintentional killing only as opposed to a case of wilful murder or intentional wounding leading to death.

In so submitting, you acknowledged through counsel, that any case of killing is serious because it involves the loss of one human life prematurely. Counsel then referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Anna Max Marangi v. The State (08/11/02) SC702. Counsel also referred to the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakarowa Koe v. The State 01/04/04) SC739. Having regard to these judgments, your lawyer asked for a sentence up to 13 years, in view of your guilty plea, being first time offenders, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.

The State also relies on these two cases and argues for a sentence of up to 17 years. In so submitting, counsel for the State urged the Court to note a number of aggravating factors. The first is the fact that, this was a killing of a church worker who was providing for the spiritual needs of the community. Secondly, you acted in breach of the court order preventing you from entering the church area and removing properties such as the sago stems. You were therefore, trespassing on church land. Thirdly, you disobeyed calls by the village leadership to refrain from confronting the deceased and instead go for a peaceful resolution. Instead, you armed yourself with a stone and a piece of iron to attack the deceased.

Sentencing Trends and Tariffs

The offence of manslaughter or unlawful...