The State v Michael Nema Melpa (2003) N2450

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2003) N2450
• Date: 08 July 2003
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2003

Full Title: The State v Michael Nema Melpa (2003) N2450

National Court: Jalina J

Judgment Delivered: 8 July 2003

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Murder—self–defence

Decision on Verdict

___________________________

Jalina J: This accused was charged that he on 6 December 2000 at Kombakena village, in Papua New Guinea, murdered one Kimb Tamel, a national male. He pleaded guilty to the charge but upon application by his lawyer Mr Kumo for a plea of not guilty to be entered on the basis that the accused acted in self–defence and would raise such a defence in his trial, a plea of not guilty was so entered. This case then proceeded to trial with the State calling oral evidence from the deceased's wife Kenken Kimb and his daughter–in–law Dakan Robert who are eye witnesses to the crime. The State also called Constable Paulus Bubu the Investigating Officer for cross–examination by Defence Counsel Mr Kumo.

The evidence of the deceased's wife, Kenken Kimb was to the effect that on the day of the incident the accused arrived at their premises while she and her husband were in their house with their children and their daughter–in–law Dakan Robert. She met him at the gate and he told her that he wanted them to repay some K2,000.00 that he had lent them some time ago and that he was in need of K400.00 but she told him that they had no money at the time. She further said that she was raising some chicken which would be ready for sale in two weeks and that if she gets some money from the sale she could give him the K400.00 he needed.

While she was talking to the accused the deceased left their house and walked over to them. After greeting the accused, the deceased told him that when he had money he sent word for him to come but did not come but now that he (the deceased) had no money the accused had been sending messages through other people for his loan money which was embarrassing to him but since the accused had come he forgave him.

The deceased then referred to assistance he had given to the accused with such things as cassowary, pig and money during the accused's time of need and that it was better for the accused to issue summons and take him to court. The accused then slapped the deceased on one cheek and the deceased told him to slap the other cheek just as Jesus said in the Bible that people should do and the deceased told the accused that since he was a pastor he would not retaliate.

The accused then pulled the deceased by the collar of his shirt and she separated them by pushing the accused to the front and the deceased to her back and at the same time calling out for help. Her little daughter was pulling her skirt.

The accused then went and grabbed a stick and she observed as to how the accused would come with the stick. The deceased left her and put up his hands in front of the accused and the accused lifted the stick and hit the deceased on the head. The deceased fell on her and they both fell to the ground. She demonstrated this in court.

According to her evidence there was no fight between the accused and the deceased let alone the deceased being the instigator of the fight. She denied on...