The State v Jonathan Sokai (2002) N2334

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Injia J
• Judgment Date: 19 June 2002
• Citation: (2002) N2334
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002
• Judgement Number: N2334

Full Title: The State v Jonathan Sokai (2002) N2334

National Court: Injia J

Judgment Delivered: 19 June 2002

1 Criminal Law—Sentence—Murder—American University Lecturer killed by "houseboy" for no good reason—Worst case of its kind—Maximum punishment appropriate—Life Imprisonment.

2 Public Prosecutor v Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469 and John Elipa Kalabus v The State [1988] PNGLR 193 referred to

___________________________

N2334

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

CR NO. 278 OF 2000

THE STATE v. JONATHAN SOKAI

LAE : INJIA, J.

2002 : JUNE 19

Criminal Law – Sentence – Murder – American University Lecturer

killed by “houseboy” for no good reason – Worst case of its kind – Maximum punishment
appropriate – Life Imprisonment.

Cases cited in the judgment

Public Prosecutor v. Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469 at 472;

John Eliba Kalabus v. The State [1988] PNGLR 193.

N. Miviri for the State

M. Mwawesi for the accused

19 June 2002

INJIA, J.: On 15 May, 2002, I found the prisoner guilty of murdering Professor Wallace Ruff thereby contravening s.300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Professor Ruff was employed by the University of Technology at Lae (UNITECH) for over 15 years as a Professor in Architecture. He comes from Lake Oswego in the State of Oregon, USA. The prisoner is a mature man aged about 45 years old and comes from Bumon village, Madang. At the material time, he was working as a “haus boi” for the deceased. The total circumstance of the crime and my findings of relevant facts are set out in my written judgment, which I published on 17 May 2002.

The maximum punishment for the crime of murder is life imprisonment. By virtue of s.19 of the Criminal Code, the Court has discretion to impose a term of years in appropriate cases. The maximum punishment is reserved for the worst case of its kind. The question whether the circumstances of a particular case constitute the worst case of its kind is a question of fact. In considering the appropriate punishment in a particular case, the Court must have proper regard to the seriousness of the offence, the community interest intended to be protected by the offence, the purposes of sentencing to be emphasized, the personal circumstances of the offender and exenuating circumstances which mitigate punishment and the aggravating circumstances of the offence. Other related relevant factors include the effect of voluntary intoxication, prospect for rehabilitation of the offender and any likelihood that the offender will re-offend in the future and thereby pose a danger to the community: John Elipa Kalabus v. The State [1988] PNGLR 193. The Court must then balance all these relevant factors and impose a sentence which fits the crime.

Murder in all its form is a serious and heinous crime that is condemned by all civilized human societies. Societies place high value on the sanctity of human life to ensure that human life is protected and preserved. Severe punishment is prescribed by law for this crime and Courts impose strong punishment to deter this crime and to punish offenders. For instance, in a murder case, where the circumstances of the killing are “so bad” or so “serious”, then ordinary mitigating factors such as the offender’s guilty plea, first offender status, his expression of remorse, his good education, work, church and family background; or any chances of rehabilitation, or there is no likelihood that the offender will re-offend in future, may be rendered nugatory as deserving no credit: Public Prosecutor v. Tom Ake [1978] PNGLR 469 at 472; John Eliba Kalabus v. The State [1988] PNGLR 193.

On the evidence, I found that the prisoner stayed with the deceased at Unitech Campus where the deceased worked and resided. He had been with the deceased for some 15 years and the deceased looked after him like his son. On the night of 9/10/99, the prisoner attacked the deceased with a blunt object, possibly a coconut scraper and boots, causing head and facial injuries from which the deceased died. The reason for the attack was that he was unhappy with the deceased after he refused to pay him his fortnightly wages as a “house boy” which he could spend on beer at a party held at John Sari’s house which was situated next door to the deceased’s house.

As I have already stated, the accused is a mature man aged about 45 years old and he comes from Bumon village, Madang. He is married with three children all of who attend school. He is a member of the Catholic Church. He was educated up to Grade 7 at Tusbab High School, Madang, in 1975 and was employed by the Forestry Department at Bulolo in 1982 and in 1996. Also between 1986 – 1999, he worked as a “Garden Boi” for the deceased and was earning K100.00 a fortnight. This is his first offence, to which he expressed remorse in Court on allocatus after I found him guilty. I take all these factors into account in his favour when I consider sentence.

I also take into account in his favour the long years of dedicated service he rendered to the deceased and the special relationship he developed with the deceased. Foreigners from afar working in PNG for many years are persuaded by the warmth of the friendship extended to them by Papua New Guinean acquaintances and forge lasting friendships. The deceased saw something good in the prisoner’s conduct which attracted his attention he was able to express his gratitude by employing him and providing other maternal benefits to him generously. The deceased favoured him and treated him like his own son. The relationship in this case appears to be so close that the deceased was prepared to accommodate the prisoner and his family in his house, and even when the University banned him from the Campus after he abused the deceased, the...