The State v Ipu Samuel Yomb

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Doherty J
• Judgment Date: 12 February 1992
• Citation: [1992] PNGLR 261
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1992
• Judgement Number: N1102

National Court: Doherty J

Judgment Delivered: 12 February 1992

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

THE STATE

V

IPU SAMUEL YOMB

Lae

Doherty J

12 February 1992

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence in arson offences — Matters to be considered — Burning of a building putting lives at risk more serious.

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Arson — Relevant considerations.

Facts

The accused pleaded guilty to an act of arson in setting fire to the house occupied by his sister-in-law and her family. This act was in reprisal for the ill treatment of his sister by her husband, who was the brother of the victim of the arson.

Held

Extended liability for the wrongs of a family member, although acknowledgeable by tradition when it comes to compensation payment, is not a mitigating factor in cases of this type of "pay back".

The accused was sentenced to 5 years in hard labour.

Cases Cited

Papua New Guinea cases cited

Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267.

Gimble v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 271.

State v Boas Nodai unnumbered, unpublished.

State v Else Marasmalik unnumbered, unpublished.

State v Linus Kameko unnumbered, unpublished.

State v Wangar (1991) unpublished N975.

Other case cited

R v Sangha [1988] 3 All ER 385.

Counsel

S Kesno, for the defendant.

Mirou, for The State.

12 February 1992

DOHERTY J: The defendant was indicted and pleaded guilty to one count of arson contrary to s 436 of the Criminal Code.

The incidence of this arson was a particularly bad one, as counsel for the defence has conceded.

The facts show that the householder, his wife and family were asleep in their home on 1 December 1990. It is not clear how many children were with their parents. The evidence refers to "children", making it clear there was more than one child. The list of personal effects lost (accepted as part of the evidence) shows clothes belonging to other people (including one baby), leading to an inference that there were between 2 and 5 children in the house at the time in question.

At about 3.30 am in the morning, one of the daughters woke the parents because she felt the heat coming from the roof. As soon as they woke up, they could see that the roof of the house was burning.

They tried to leave only to find that the door was locked on the outside, barring their way out. This aspect of the case is, to my mind, one of the worst aspects of this offence. Both eye witnesses, Steven Koborogi and his wife, Ester, say that they tried to open the door, but it was locked from the outside. The children were crying and screaming, the roof fire was rapidly spreading and eventually they got out by "forcing the wall made up of roofing iron and jumped out". They had hardly anything except the clothes they were wearing.

The evidence shows that the defendant had approached other people with a view to burning the house, but they had refused to participate. This indicates to me an element of pre-planning in cold blood rather than an act in the heat of anger or passion. The defendant and the victims were related by marriage, and I think I can safely conclude that the defendant knew they had children. The locking of the door from the outside indicates that he knew people were inside, although this is not stated in the record of interview, and I can make no definite finding on this point.

The crime of arson pursuant to s 436 of the Criminal Code carries with it a sentence of up to life imprisonment, subject to the provisions of s 19 of the Code.

The crime of arson, as distinguished from negligent use of a fire, provides for a wilful...