William Dot Norman Parkop and James A Make v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Jalina J, Sevua J, Kirriwom J
• Judgment Date: 23 August 1999
• Citation: (1999) SC621
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1999
• Judgement Number: SC621

Supreme Court: Jalina J, Sevua J, Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 23 August 1999

SC621

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(In the Supreme Court of Justice)

SCRA No. 59 of 1998

Between:

WILLIAM DOT NORMAN PARKOP & JAMES A. MAKE

And:

THE STATE

MT HAGEN: JALINA, SEVUA & KIRRIWOM JJ

1999: 23 August

Case cited:

Jim Kas & Two Ors v The State — Unreported Supreme Court Decision of May or June 1999

Counsel:

N. Mivini for State/Respondent

Appellants in Person

23 August 1999

DECISION

BY THE COURT: The Appellants were convicted and sentenced by the National Court in Mt Hagen to a term of ten (10) years each. When they appeared in the National Court, they all pleaded guilty to a charge of murder under s. 300 (1) of the Criminal Code. They admitted to killing one of their own clan brothers over a piece of land. It was a customary land owned by the clan but subject to some dispute between them. The appellant James Agamp Make admitted to hitting the deceased on the head with a coffee stick and he fell to the ground.

The Appellants William Dot and Norman Parkop admitted to chopping the deceased with their bush knives on his left thigh and on the right side of his back as the deceased was lying on the ground. The deceased lost a lot of blood from which he died. It was a little over a year ago when they were dealt with by the National Court on 24 July 1998.

They appealed against that decision and these are their grounds of appeal:

1. Defence Lawyer did not present their evidence.

2. Judge did not hear our grounds.

3. Sentence too excessive.

Their appeal is against both their conviction and sentence. The appeal was filed well within time and the question of leave does not apply. Neither does the question of leave on appeal against sentence apply according to the recent Supreme Court decision of Jim Kas and Two Others v The State — Unreported Supreme Court decision of May or June 1999.

GROUND 1 — DEFENCE LAWYER DID NOT PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE

This ground is not merited in any sense because the appellants had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. There was therefore no need for the Court to hear any evidence either from them or from the prosecution.

If there was any evidence that the defence considered necessary to place before the Court on behalf of the appellants following their pleas of guilty, that could...