The State v Peter Jai (2011) N4391

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2011) N4391
• Date: 15 September 2011
• Docket Number: CR No 1472 of 2009
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2011

Full Title: CR No 1472 of 2009; The State v Peter Jai (2011) N4391

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 15 September 2011

SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW—sentence—assault occasioning bodily harm—Criminal Code, s340(1)—guilty plea—offender assaulted neighbour with iron bar, breaking two teeth—neighbourhood dispute—sentence of 2 years.

A man pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm. The victim was a female neighbour with whom the offender had had a series of differences over neighbourhood issues.

Held:

(1) The maximum penalty is three years and a starting point of 18 months is appropriate.

(2) The aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, so a sentence above the starting point was warranted: a two-year sentence was imposed. The pre-sentence period in custody was deducted and the balance of the sentence was suspended.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890; The State v Abuc Batulik CR 284/2010, 26.05.10; The State v Carol Peter (2011) N4320; The State v Irene Soso CR 149/2009, 04.03.10; The State v Judah Lusan Piries CR 886/2007, 18.09.07; The State v Mark Mondo Bassop CR 75/2008, 25.03.10; The State v Mathew Sabuin, Gabriel Pinia & Philip Kit CR 921-922/2006, 25.08.06

SENTENCE

This was a judgment on sentence for assault occasioning bodily harm.

15 September, 2011

1. CANNINGS J: Peter Jai has pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm under s340(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence was committed at the Madang Timbers compound in Madang town, where both the offender and the victim, Dianne Boku, live in separate dwellings with their families, on the evening of Thursday 2 April 2009. The victim was in her house when the offender suddenly shouted at her from outside the house, charged into the house, smashed open the door with an iron bar, found her in a bedroom, grabbed her and struck her over the head with the iron bar, causing the loss of two front teeth. The offender had no lawful justification or excuse for striking the victim. It was an unlawful assault and the victim suffered bodily harm.

2. The peculiar feature of this case is that the offender’s wife was earlier this year convicted after a trial of the same offence committed on a different occasion (in January 2008) against the same victim at the same place, inflicting similar injuries (with an agricultural implement). The offender’s wife is now in prison serving a two-year sentence (The State v Carol Peter (2011) N4320).

ANTECEDENTS

3. The offender has no prior convictions.

ALLOCUTUS

4. The offender was given the opportunity to address the court. He said:

I apologise to the Court and to the victim for what I did. I have three children and my wife is in jail and my children will be adversely affected if I also go to jail. I would also lose my job. Please have mercy on me and give me a non-custodial sentence. I have tried hard to reconcile with the victim but she has not been cooperative. I have K800.00 available to compensate her.

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

5. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890). He cooperated with the police from the beginning and made admissions when interviewed. He said he got angry with the victim...