The State v Joseph Ulakua (2002) N2240

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2002) N2240
• Date: 23 May 2002
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002

Full Title: The State v Joseph Ulakua (2002) N2240

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 23 May 2002

1 CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE—Sentencing—Murder—Husband killing wife for running way from him—Killing in circumstances close to willful murder—Fatal cuts to both of the deceased legs severing bone and veins—Death due to loss of blood—Guilty plea—No prior conviction—Sentence of 20 years imprisonment imposed—Criminal Code s300 and s19.

2 Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182, The State v Tau Ted Lahui [1992] PNGLR 325, Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105, Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653, The State v Ngetto Rex Rongo (2000) N2035, The State v Eddy Kava Laura (No 2) [1988–89] PNGLR 98 and Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: You pleaded guilty to killing your wife, Patricia Joseph ("deceased") on 18 October 2001, at Malba village, Maprik, East Sepik Province contrary to s300 of the Criminal Code. After reading the depositions, I was satisfied that the evidence supported your guilty plea. I therefore, accepted your guilty plea and convicted you of that offence.

Address on sentence

In your address before sentence, you stated that you did not intend to kill the deceased. You only went to Malba village to take your wife but the man whom she was staying with, fought with you and you got a bush knife and threw it at the deceased. Your lawyer then informed the Court of your personal and family backgrounds and argued for a determinate term of years and not the prescribed maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He drew my attention to the case of Kesino Apo v The State [1988] PNGLR 182 and The State v Tau Ted Lahui [1992] PNGLR 325. Having regard to the sentence in those cases, he argued that you be given a sentence between 12 and 14 years.

The State on the other hand argued for a sentence in the range of 20 to 30 years. In support of that argument the State points out that you committed a very serious offence which carries a maximum of life imprisonment for its penalty. There is no contest between yourself and the State that your case does not fall in the worse type of murder case, warranting an imposition of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. That is in line with a large number of authorities such as the Supreme Court judgments in Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR, 105 and Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

But whether the maximum prescribed sentence or something less than that should be given in anyone case is dependent on the particular facts of a case. So what are the facts in this case?

The Evidence and Facts

The facts emerge from the deposition, which were admitted into evidence with your consent. They are quite straightforward. According to a statement from, Census Ambabie, who is a village court magistrate in you village, your problems with the deceased started not long after you two were married. Your once good character changed to one of continuous wife beating. On one occasion Mr Ambabie mediated between the two of you. At that mediation, it became clear that you had bashed up your wife out of a suspicion that she was having affairs with two men in your own village but there was no evidence to confirm the suspicions. You were therefore warned against such conduct.

Sometime later, the same problem re–surfaced...