The State v Ngetto Rex Rongo (2000) N2035

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2000) N2035
• Date: 20 December 2000
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2000

Full Title: The State v Ngetto Rex Rongo (2000) N2035

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 20 December 2000

1 Criminal Law—Particular offence—Murder—Domestic argument ending in death—Guilty plea—Good mitigating factors—Sentence.

2 Criminal Law—Practice and procedure—Need to request presentencing report—Presentence report not removing Court's sentencing power—Court not obliged to accept presentencing report.

3 Criminal Law—Customary Compensation only a factor in mitigation—Inappropriate to order compensation.

4 Lawrence Simbe v The State (1994] PNGLR 38, The State v Laura (No 2) (1988–89] PNGLR 98, The State v Gari Bonu Garitau and Rossana Bonu (1996] PNGLR 48, The State v Horou Posu Kave (1986] PNGLR 305, The State v Polin Pochalon Lopai (1988–89] PNGLR 48 and The State v Sabarina Yakal (1988–89] PNGLR 129 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: This is a case of murder contrary to s300(1) of the Criminal Code Act (Ch262) (hereinafter "the Code"). The State presented the relevant indictment charging the Defendant with murder, on 5 December 2000. On arraignment, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. Upon reading the depositions, I was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty plea and proceed to convict the Defendant. I then adjourned the proceedings to 12 December 2000 to allow for a presentencing report from the Probation Services. The report was not ready by that date. Thus, on the request of that service, the matter was further adjourned to today. This time the report is before the Court and I am grateful to the Probation Service for having produced it in such a short time and within their limited resources. The parties were given the opportunity to make submission on the report if they wished but they declined to make any submissions.

Facts

On 17 April 2000 between 8.00am and 9.00am the Defendant at Lomon village, Yalumet area in the Kabwum District of the Morobe Province, the Defendant had an argument with his wife, Topo Moren ("deceased"). The argument was over a coffee strainer, 2 lamps and a wire used for cooking which were given to the deceased parents but retrieved that morning at the direction of the Defendant. In the course of the argument the deceased got very angry and was about to go out of the family house where the argument was taking place. As she was leaving, the Defendant took a piece of wood and threw it at the deceased. The piece of wood landed on the deceased back close to the neck and the deceased fell down on the floor. Not long after, she died.

The defendant then tried to leave the scene of the crime with his 2 and half year old son. He was however, stopped by a man from the village. Then through the help of community leaders and village court officials the Defendant was brought to Lae and he was arrested and charged.

The medical evidence confirming the death is dated 19 April 2000 from a Robin Peter of the Kabwum Health Centre. He carried out an examination of the deceased's body. The report in pertinent parts reads:

Head: Slightly swollen lump with soft on back of the head.

Neck: Swollen and black strap around the back of the neck, when moving neck back toward the face blood zoomed out of both nose hole with bright red colour.

Legs: Good—Right leg has sore on the foot due to husband burn her with fire.

Diagnosis: Brain damaged (damage to neck and nervous system). Through my investigation she was killed by her husband using hard metal stick or iron to kill his wife died instantly.

Apart from the obvious English or grammatical deficiencies, the report clearly speaks of the deceased dying of brain damage. That was caused by use of a hard and heavy metal object causing instant death. There was evidence of the deceased being burnt on her right leg.

Allocutus

In his allocutus, the Defendant said, he did not mean to kill his wife, the deceased. He was sorry for what he had done in the eyes of God and this Court. He then asked the Court to consider his background. Both his parents are still alive but very old. He has a small son. If he is imprisoned, there will be no...