The State v Kaul Niruk & Kubak Nurvue (2012) N4821

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 03 October 2012
• Citation: (2012) N4821
• Docket Number: CR. NO. 801 of 2011
• Year: 2012

Full Title: CR. NO. 801 of 2011; The State v Kaul Niruk & Kubak Nurvue (2012) N4821

National Court: Lenalia, J.

Judgment Delivered: 3 October 2012

CRIMINAL LAW—Murder—Sentence after finding of guilty—Factors for consideration—Sentence—Criminal Code s300(1)(b)(ii).

CRIMINAL LAW—Murder—Sorcery related killing—Sentence—Sentencing principles—Not a worse type case—Sentence of 12 years appropriate.

Cases cited

Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653

Acting Public Prosecutor v Uname Auname [1980] PNGLR 510 Acting Public Prosecutor v Uname Aumane [1980] PNGLR 510

Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105; Kwayawako v The State [1990] PNGLR 6; Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38; The State v Boat Yokum (2002) N2337; Max Java v The State (2002) SC701; The State v Urari Siviri (2004) N2747; Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789

SENTENCE

1. LENALIA J: The two prisoners were found guilty of one count of murder pursuant to s300(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code. The offence was committed at Vunairoto village on the North Coast area of this Province on the afternoon of 29th June 2011. This offence is punishable by life imprisonment subject to s19 of the Code.

Addresses on Sentence

2. After the two accused were found guilty, (see judgment on verdict dated 25th September 2012) they were asked if they wanted to tell the court anything before their lawyer address the court on sentence. On the part of the first accused he said sorry to the court and the relatives of the victim. He said, they did not mean to kill the deceased but they assaulted him because, they suspected him of poisoning his brother.

3. The second accused said much the same thing. He said sorry to the relatives of the victim and to the court. This prisoner had got one conviction by the District Court in Rabaul for assault. He was sent to jail for 8 months. The defence did not dispute such conviction on the part of the second prisoner.

4. The evidence established a case of sorcery related killing. When counsels addressed the court on sentence, the defence counsel briefly stated the law in relation to the offence committed by the two accused. Ms. Ainui submitted that the Court should take into account the fact that, the two accused did not really mean to kill the victim as they were angered by the victim’s action that allegedly poisoned their brother late Retio who is now deceased. She asked the Court to consider the fact that, this was a sorcery killing involving an element of “provocation in the non legal sense”. Counsel submitted for a sentence lower than category 2 in Manu Kovi-v-The State (2005) SC789.

5. Mrs. Cherake submitted in reply that the court has to...