The State v John Laiam (2010) N3995

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Sawong, J
• Judgment Date: 22 April 2010
• Docket Number: CR.443 OF 2006
• Citation: (2010) N3995
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2010
• Judgement Number: N3995

Full Title: CR. 443 OF 2006; The State v John Laiam (2010) N3995

National Court: Sawong, J

Judgment Delivered: 22 April 2010

N3995

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR.443 OF 2006

THE STATE

V

JOHN LAIAM

Kokopo: Sawong, J.

2010: 8, 16 & 22nd April

SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder, Criminal Code, Section 300 (1) (a),

Plea- Male Offender – used knife to fatally stab victim – victim bled to death – 15 years imprisonment.

Facts:

The Offender pleaded guilty to murder. He used a knife to stab the victim, a young 20 years old man, once on the chest. This was a culmination of an ongoing uneasy relationship between the offender and the deceased.

Cases Cited

Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 65

Avia Aihi v The State (No.3) [1982] PNGLR 92

Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105

State v Laura (No.2) [1988-89] PNG

Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38

State v John Elipas Kalabus [1977] PNGLR

Simon Kama v The State (2004) SC 740,

Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789

State v Kiri Kirihau Harisu [2006] N 3168

State v Jimmy Ketu (No.2) (2007) N 3394

State v Gein Man (2008) N 3516

State v Amos Young (2008) N 3548

State v Steven Tabogani (No.2) (2008) N 3559

State v Issac Parao (2009) N 3625

Counsel

N. Miviri, for the State

P. Kaluwin, for the Accused

22nd April, 2010

1. SAWONG, J.: Introduction. The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, an offence contrary to s.300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act, as amended to date.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The accused and the deceased,

late Stanilaus Beate were both students at the Kabaleo Teachers College. They have been students at that College since 2005. It appears from the deposition that there had been an ongoing uneasy relationship between them, which culminated in the accused using a knife to stab the deceased fatally on the date of the incident.

Prisoner

3. The prisoner has no prior convictions.

4. I administered the allocutus and the prisoner was given an opportunity to say what matters the Court should take into account in deciding the appropriate sentence to impose upon him.

5. In your allocutus, you told me that this was your first time to appear

before any Court and that you had no intention to commit the offence. You told me that you stabbed the deceased because of his continuous insulting behavior towards you which affected you. You also apologized to the Court for what you had done. You also apologised to the deceased’s relatives for what you had done. Further, you apologised to the members of the public and your sponsors. You also asked the Court to make an Order to transfer you to serve your sentence at Buimo Jail in Lae as your mother is from Garaina. This is so that your relatives could visit you. You also asked the Court to impose a short sentence on you and asked if you could be placed on Probation.

6. Consequently, your lawyer applied for a Pre Sentence Report. That

Report has now been prepared and is now before me. Your lawyer has made submission on that report. I have also read and considered carefully the contents of that Report.

Pre-Sentence Report

7. I thank Mr. David Paul, the Senior Community Based Correction Officer

for preparing and submitting that Report. Whilst the Report is not comprehensive, nevertheless it does contain some useful information which I have taken note of.

8. It reveals that at the time of committing the offence, you were a second year trainee teacher at the Kabaleo Teachers College and the deceased was also a student at the same college.

9. You come from a mix parentage of Central and Morobe Provinces. You are 30 years old, single and a mature man. You come from a family of three children, of which you are the eldest.

10. You completed Grade 10 at Tapini High School in 2000. You didn’t continue your education and was living in the village, until your local priest selected you to attend Kabaleo Teachers College. It is obvious then that, your local priest thought highly of you and your future contribution to the future development of your people.

11. You expressed your desire to continue your education to be a teacher after you serve whatever sentence the Court imposes on you. To my mind this is an admirable quality on your part.

12. I have also taken note of the comments by your two former colleagues,

Henry Kenny and Alphonse Mark Hegan of what you did that day.

13. Finally, I have considered the recommendation of the Community Based Corrections Officer.

Submissions

14. Mr. Kaluwin highlighted the following mitigating factors on behalf of

the Prisoner:-

a) The case arose out of a built up of anger over a period of time, which was caused by the deceased towards the prisoner.

b) There was no planning, this was a spur of the moment attack.

c) There was no viciousness in the attack, in that it was a one fatal stab.

d) The prisoner has expressed genuine remorseness to both the deceased and his relatives and also the general public.

e) He was badly assaulted by the members of the public immediately after the stabbing.

f) He is a first offender.

g) He readily admitted guilt upon his apprehension, see the John Elipas Kalabus v The State, [1977] PNGLR, 87.

h) He has pleaded guilty before the Court, which is consistent with his earlier admission and was therefore a genuine plea.

15. Mr. Kaluwin submitted that this was not a worst type of murder case and therefore, it doesn’t warrant imposition of the maximum sentence.

16. He submitted that a sentence of between the sentencing ranges of the first category and the second category as set out in Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC 789.

17. He further submitted that whilst the Pre-Sentence Report contains a

recommendation for a suspended sentence, as murder case is a serious case, it would be inappropriate to suspend either all or any part of the sentence that may be imposed.

18. Mr. Kaluwin referred me to two cases, dealt with by my brother Judge

Kandakasi, J, in support of his submission that the sentence should be between 12 – 15 years imprisonment. These cases were: State v Jimmy Ketu (No.2) (2007) N 3394 and State v Kiri Kirihau Harisu (2006) N 3168.

19. He submitted that a head sentence of between 15 to 16 years would be appropriate. He submitted that the mitigating factors far out weigh the aggravating factors in the present case.

20. Mr. Miviri, submits that you used a knife, a dangerous weapon with deadly effect. Further, he submitted that during your struggle with the deceased and after you stabbed him, you persisted and attempted to stab other fellow students. This demonstrates that you are a violent person. He further submitted that the young man has died prematurely. A life has been lost forever, whilst you still have your life to live after you serve your sentence. He submitted further that you used a dangerous weapon to fatally attack an unarmed man.

21. The issue to be decided is what is the appropriate sentence that should be imposed upon you, given the facts and circumstances of your case.

The Crime and Sentencing Trend

22. I have given much thought to your case since I convicted you. In particular, I have considered carefully what you said and what Mr. Kaluwin submitted on your behalf. I have also considered carefully the submissions advanced by Mr. Miviri on behalf of the State. I have carefully weighed both the mitigating factors in your favour and those factors which are against you. I have tried to balance these competing interests in arriving at the appropriate sentence that should be imposed upon you.

23. The starting point to consider, in my opinion, is the sentence prescribed

by law. Section 300(1) of the Criminal Code prescribes the crime of murder and states that the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. However, this is subject to Section 19 of the Criminal Code Act. By operation of s.19, the Court can impose a lesser sentence, such as, for example;

· a shorter term of imprisonment could be imposed under

s.19(1)(a), or

· the prisoner could be given a suspended sentence under

s.19(1)(d), or

· the prisoner could be given a good behavior bond under S.19(1)(d).

24. In my view, the sentencing discretion given by Section 19 of the

Criminal Code, is consistent with well established and accepted sentencing principles, for instance, that each case must be determined on its own facts and circumstances. See Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38. The discretion is also consistent with another well accepted and established sentencing principle that the maximum sentence must be reserved for the worst type of a case for a particular offence. See Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653, Avia Aihi v The State (No.3) [1982] PNGLR 92, and Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105.

25. In State v Laura (No.2) [1988-89], PNGLR 98, the late Chief Justice Kidu, introduced the concept of range of sentencing tariffs for murder cases. From there onwards, the National Court Judges have imposed sentences on that basis. Some have of course imposed higher sentences than the suggested ranges.

26. More recently, the Supreme Court has reviewed the range of sentencing

tariffs for murder and other homicide cases and has suggested that the sentences be increased. In Simon Kama v The State (2004) SC 740, the Court after discussing other matters said:-

...