The State v Joseph Ulakua (2002) N2240

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kandakasi J
• Judgment Date: 23 May 2002
• Citation: (2002) N2240
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002
• Judgement Number: N2240

Full Title: The State v Joseph Ulakua (2002) N2240

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 23 May 2002

N2240

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 51 of 2001

THE STATE

-V-

JOSEPH ULAKUA

WEWAK: KANDAKASI, J.

2002: 20th and 23rd May

CRIMINAL LAW & PRACTICE – Sentencing – Murder – Husband killing wife for running way from him – Killing in circumstances close to willful murder - Fatal cuts to both of the deceased legs severing bone and veins - Death due to loss of blood - Guilty plea – No prior conviction – Sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed – Criminal Code ss 300 and 19.

Cases cited:

Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182.

The State v. Tau Ted Lahui & Ors [1992] PNGLR 325.

Ure Hane v. The State [1984] PNGLR 105.

Goli Golu vs. The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

The State v. Ngetto Rex Rongo (20/12/00) N2035.

The State v. Laura (No. 2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98.

Simbe v. The State [1994] PNGLR 38.

Counsel

Mr. M. Ruarri for the State

Mr. D. Kari for the Accused

DECISION ON SENTENCE

23rd May, 2002

KANDAKASI J: You pleaded guilty to killing your wife, Patricia Joseph (“deceased”) on 18th October 2001, at Malba village, Maprik, East Sepik Province contrary to s. 300 of the Criminal Code. After reading the depositions, I was satisfied that the evidence supported your guilty plea. I therefore, accepted your guilty plea and convicted you of that offence.

Address on sentence

In your address before sentence, you stated that you did not intend to kill the deceased. You only went to Malba village to take your wife but the man whom she was staying with, fought with you and you got a bush knife and threw it at the deceased. Your lawyer then informed the Court of your personal and family backgrounds and argued for a determinate term of years and not the prescribed maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He drew my attention to the case of Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182 and The State v. Tau Ted Lahui & Ors [1992] PNGLR 325. Having regard to the sentence in those cases, he argued that you be given a sentence between 12 and 14 years.

The State on the other hand argued for a sentence in the range of 20 to 30 years. In support of that argument the State points out that you committed a very serious offence which carries a maximum of life imprisonment for its penalty. There is no contest between yourself and the State that your case does not fall in the worse type of murder case, warranting an imposition of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. That is in line with a large number of authorities such as the Supreme Court judgements in Ure Hane v. The State [1984] PNGLR, 105 and Goli Golu vs. The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

But whether the maximum prescribed sentence or something less than that should be given in anyone case is dependent on the particular facts of a case. So what are the facts in this case?

The Evidence and Facts

The facts emerge from the deposition, which were admitted into evidence with your consent. They are quite straightforward. According to a statement from, Census Ambabie, who is a village court magistrate in you village, your problems with the deceased started not long after you two were married. Your once good character changed to one of continuous wife beating. On one occasion Mr. Ambabie mediated between the two of you. At that mediation, it became clear that you had bashed up your wife out of a suspicion that she was having affairs with two men in your own village but there was no evidence to confirm the suspicions. You were therefore warned against such conduct.

Sometime later, the same problem re-surfaced. This time the cause was the deceased supposedly having extra marital affairs with some other village men. The deceased appears to have admitted to having such an affair but it is not clear whom she admitted to and it is doubtful. That did not result in a proper resolution because both your own relatives and that of the deceased were at odds with each other and were trying to fight each other. Eventually this ended up in the deceased leaving you with the children and she returned to her parents and stayed in Malba. She stayed there for a long time so Mr. Ambabie decided to go to Malba purposely to take the deceased back to you. He was therefor at Malba on the 18th of October 2001 to locate the deceased. He located the deceased and spoke to her of his mission and she agreed to return to your village and of course you.

Meanwhile you went to Malba on and was also there on 18th October 2001. That was after staying with a Leo Waiwal for two weeks. You stayed with that man purposely to go and take the deceased and your child home. You went to the house where the deceased was between 8: 00 and 9:00 a.m. Statements from witnesses describe your appearance at that time as very fierce. The deceased and your child were outside that house while the woman whose family the deceased was living with, was inside cooking some food. You called out from the road to you wife saying “Yu kam hia long marit ah? Kam daun na mipela igo long Maprik” translated “You came here to get married ah? Come down and we go to Maprik”. You also used some insulting words “Yu pamuk meri”, translated “You prostitute woman”. Upon hearing you, the deceased ran back into the house and locked the door from inside. You ran after her and broke open the door and went inside the house.

You then pulled a bush knife hanging from your side and tried to cut the other women who was inside earlier. But she screamed and called out the deceased name aloud and that stopped you from cutting her. You then had a struggle with the deceased inside the house and the deceased ran out of the house with you pursuing her. A Kuluanji Mauligan who was on the veranda grabbed hold of you and you struggled with him until he was tired and he let you go. You then went after the deceased and cut her very badly from the backside on her legs and ran way leaving her to bleed to death and she died.

The medical post mortem report describe the injuries you inflicted upon the decease as a massive laceration to the back of right knee joint severing both the tibia and fibula and muscles forming the joint as well as the blood vessels. That part of the leg was held in place only by a skin tag. The right ankle joint was severely cut with the fibula bone separated from the joint. Her left foot was also cut midway with the calf muscles severed. The cause of her death was attributed to massive external bleeding.

The evidence in the deposition do not support your claim of people from Malba, with whom the deceased was staying, assaulted you which made you angry and you cut the deceased. Likewise, your claim of the deceased staying with a man in Malba is not supported by any evidence in the depositions. Instead on the evidence as outlined above, I find that you were obviously not happy with the deceased running away. It is also clear that you marriage to the deceased was not working well. Initially, you accused her of having affairs with some men in your own village and continued to bash her up for some time. Your village court magistrate conducted one mediation between you and the deceased at, which you could not establish that the deceased was in fact having affairs with two men in your village. You were therefore warned against such accusations. There is some reference in your village court magistrate’s statement that the deceased on a subsequent occasion admitted to authorities without specifying who in particular to, of her extra marital affairs. I do not accept that suggestion, as there is no properly admissible and credible evidence of such admissions. Your problem with her did not get resolved and she ran away from you.

On the day of the attack on the deceased, you appeared fierce and called out to the deceased using words that were in my view, not indicative of...