The State v Douglas Mareva (2012) N4805

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Gauli AJ
• Judgment Date: 13 August 2012
• Citation: (2012) N4805
• Docket Number: CR. 219 OF 2010
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2012
• Judgement Number: N4805

Full Title: CR. 219 OF 2010; The State v Douglas Mareva (2012) N4805

National Court: Gauli AJ

Judgment Delivered: 13 August 2012

N4805

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR. 219 OF 2010

THE STATE

V

DOUGLAS MAREVA

Bomana: Gauli AJ

2012: 10 & 13 August

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Murder – Criminal Code, Section 300 – Used iron rod and or sharp object – Inflicted bruises and blackish discolouring all over the body – Deep cuts or wounds on both legs – There was continuous beating over 3 days that protracted and sustained multiple bruises and wounds until it resulted in death – Killing in a domestic setting – Killing was brutal, vicious and in cold blood – Falls in a worst category of murder though no offensive weapon like bush knife used – First time offender – Cooperated with police – Made full admission on an earliest opportunity – No special mitigating factor present – No extenuation circumstances present – Deterrence sentence – Sentenced to 24 years imprisonment – Time in custody deducted – No suspension of sentence

Cases Cited:

The State v Manga Kunjip [1976] PNGLR 86

The State v Saul Ogerem (2004) N2780

Manu Kovi v The State (2005) N789

The State v Joseph Ulakua (2002) N2240

Thress Kumbamong v The State (2008) SC 1017

Maima v Sma [1971-72] PNGLR 49

Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653

The State v Siwi [2003] PGNC 60

The State v Winara (No.2) [2008] PGNC 67

Acting Public Prosecutor v Umane Aumane [1980] PNGLR 510

Steven Loke Ume v The State (Unreported) SCRA 10 of 1997

Counsel

Mr. S. Collins, for the State

Ms. R. Endemongo, for the Accused

SENTENCE

13 August, 2012

1. GAULI AJ: The accused Douglas Mareva pleaded guilty to one count of murder, charged under Section 300 (1) of the Criminal Code. This offence has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment but subject to Section 19 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code. Section 19 gives the court powers to impose a sentence lesser than the prescribed maximum penalty.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts are that on the 8th of April 2009 at Manabe Sub- Station at Cape Rodney Rubber Estate, the accused and his wife the deceased Jumbo Keuru and the children were in their house. At about 4.00am the accused went to his neighbours and told them that his wife was ill. The neighbours went to the house and found her dead. Police and other authorities were contacted. Medical officers from Moreguina Health Centre examined the body later that day. And noticed bruises and blackish discolouring all over the deceased’s body particularly on her ears, lips, face, buttock, arms, legs and back. There were several deep knife-like wounds on both legs. She experienced and protracted these injuries before her death.

3. The accused was arrested on the 11th of April 2009 and he admitted to police that he killed his wife using a car jack handle. The knife-like wounds were caused by using the car jack handle. The State alleged that the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm and that resulted in her death.

4. From the depositions presented to the Court by the prosecution counsel, I noted the following. The Medical Certificate of Death dated 17/04/09 by Dr. Komnapi, stated that the deceased died of multiple stab wounds to her body.

5. The Medical Examination of the deceased Jambo Keuru performed by the Moreguina Health Centre in Abau District on the 8th of April 2009, soon after the death of the deceased showed bruises, swollen and blackish discolouration on her face, cheeks, chin, eyes, lips, left ear, back of the neck, left shoulder, chest wall, buttock, multiple bruises on both arms, bruises on the legs and thighs, deep cut or wound on the left knee, a cut on the left forehead and a cut on the left forearm. There were no bruises or laceration on the genitalia region.

6. In the Record of Interview the accused admitted killing his wife. He said after he brought his wife back from Moreguina on Saturday the 4th of April 2009, both went fishing but they had an argument so they returned to the house and they fought. And they continued to fight for the next 2 or 3 days until the deceased died. In this occasion he assaulted his wife using a car jack handle. He did not use a knife or anything else.

7. The statement of Avea Judy and Bolo Martha stated that during the week they heard the accused and his wife fighting but they did not mind because that was normal for the accused and the deceased. Alphonse Sumanu in his statement said at times he would hide the deceased in his house from the accused whenever he beats her up every now and then.

8. Having read the depositions and heard the plea by the accused, I considered whether it is safe to accept the accused plea of guilty. The law is very well established in The State v. Manga Kunjip [1976] PNGLR 86 at p.88 that a judge should only accept a plea of guilty if it is made in plain, unambiguous and unmistakable terms. And the court must be satisfied that it is safe to accept the plea of guilty if the accused makes his plea unequivocally to every element of the charge: see The State v. Saul Ogerem (2004) N2780. Having considered the depositions and the plea by the accused, I am satisfied that it is safe to accept the plea of guilty and I convicted him of the charge of murder.

Antecedent Report

6. The prisoner has no prior criminal records. He is 32 years old and he hails from Kelekapana village in Abau District, Central Province. The prisoner was married and has two very young age children. The deceased was his wife.

Allocutus

7. In his allocutus the prisoner said sorry to the court and to his late wife for what he did. He said this is his first time and he asked the court to sympathise with him. He said his wife is dead and he has two young children aged 4 years and 2 years that he has left. He asked the court to consider his two children and give him a length of sentence that he can serve and be released to care for his children.

Mitigating Factors

8. He entered a guilty plea at an earliest opportunity. He cooperated with police and he made full admission of the offence. His early guilty plea and his cooperation with authorities and his admission of the charge is a sign of his remorse for the crime he committed.

Aggravating Factors

9. He used a weapon or weapons such as a car jack handle. He continued to assault his wife over a period of 2 – 3 days in his house until her death. He protracted and inflicted serious injuries on the deceased. He is said to be a common wife basher according to the depositions before the court.

Submissions on Sentence

10. Both the defence counsel and the prosecutor provided written submissions in court. In their submission on sentence, both referred to a number of decided cases on sentencing including the sentencing guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Manu Kovi v. The State (2005) SC 789. And they submitted that the present case falls within the Category 2 of Manu Kovi. The defence counsel submitted a head sentence of 20 years while the prosecution counsel submitted a starting point to be between 20 – 30 years but the court should give him some recognizance for his early plea of guilty, as per The State v. Joseph Ulakua (2002) N2240. And he submitted a sentence between 22 – 25 years be appropriate.

Decision of the Court

11. The sentencing guidelines in Manu Kovi (supra) have been criticized by a more recent Supreme Court decision in Thress Kumbamong v. The State (2008) SC 1017, that those prescribed minimum and maximum sentences that

are already within the prescribed maximum sentences are unnecessary and illegal as they restrict the vested discretion of a trial judge in imposing sentence the judge seem fit to impose. It is my personal conviction that I should follow the recent Supreme Court decision in Thress Kumbamong than Manu Kovi case. A trial judge must exercise his or her vested discretionary powers in sentencing within the prescribed penalty legislated by the Parliament rather than be restricted by further prescribed minimum and maximum sentences by a decided case law.

12. The maximum penalty for murder under Section 300 of the Criminal Code is life imprisonment. But sentence is subject to Section 19 (1) (a) (b) of the Criminal Code. This provision gives the court the discretion to impose sentences lesser than the prescribed maximum penalty.

13. The law is very well established in Maima v Sma [1971 -72] PNGLR 49 and Goli Golu v. The State [1979] PNGLR 653 that a maximum prescribed sentence is reserved for the worst type of cases under consideration before the court. The issue is whether the present case is the worst type of a murder case. The beating of the deceased took over several days some 2 – 3 days until the deceased died. It wasn’t just one of incident but the beating was repeated and or continuous attack over a period of days. The deceased was assaulted with a car jack handle, which was a metal rod and inflicted multiple bruises and wounds. The manner in which the killing took place was brutal, cold blooded and vicious. There can be no doubt that given the circumstances of...