The State v Akena Pawa [1998] PNGLR 387

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [1998] PNGLR 387
• Date: 17 April 1998
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1998

Full Title: The State v Akena Pawa [1998] PNGLR 387

National Court: Lenalia AJ

Judgment Delivered: 17 April 1998

1 Criminal Law—Arson—Plea—Sentence—Criminal Code (Ch262) s436

2 Criminal Law—Arson—Sentence in offence of arson—Matters for consideration—Burning of a modern permanent building—Value of structure—complete destruction of a modern permanent building—Value relevant consideration

3 The State v Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261, Acting Public Prosecutor v Joe Kovea Mailai [1981] PNGLR 258, R v Raich [1954] PNGLR 86, Paulus Mandatititip v The State [1978] PNGLR 128 and Thomas Waim v The State (1997) SC519 referred to

The accused pleaded guilty to one act of arson by wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a modern permanent dwelling house owned by one Timothy Kerene (the victim) in reprisal of unpaid compensation to the accused for a dead pig and an alleged unpaid entitlements for working as a crew on the victim's Public Motor Vehicle.

Held: (1) Despite strong plea in mitigation, a custodial sentence should be commensurate to the offence committed.

(2) The value of the building and its contents, the likelihood of any occupants in the building and the time of the commission of the offence of arson are factors to be taken into consideration on Sentence: The State v Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261 adopted and applied.

(3) Accused being a young offender cannot expect leniency from the Court as the offence was premeditated. Being a youth does not exonerate the accused from criminal culpability and unless exceptional circumstances are shown to exist, a custodial sentence ought to be imposed: Acting Public Prosecutor v Joe Kovea Mailai [1981] PNGLR 258 applied.

___________________________

Lenalia AJ: The accused upon arraignment entered a guilty plea to one count of arson charging that on September 29, 1997 at Panadaka Village in Enga Province he wilfully and unlawfully set fire to a dwelling house whose owner is Timothy Kerene thereby contravening s436 of the Criminal Code.

The agreed facts are that on the relevant date at about 4 pm the accused proceeded to the house of the victim and wilfully set fire to it. The facts are well covered by statements of all the witness and the record of interview conducted with the prisoner. The State's version is that you approached Ms Julie Pusboi who was minding a store nearby and bought two bottles of kerosene from her. You took these bottles of kerosene to the victim's house then poured kerosene on the walls and the facts are not clear whether the pouring of kerosene was done from outside or inside. The defence version is that the fire was lit from inside. This could have meant you poured kerosene inside then...