The State v Billy Turmur and Sou Mesak (2011) N4349

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 21 June 2011
• Citation: (2011) N4349
• Docket Number: CR. NO1032 OF 2005
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2011

Full Title: CR. NO1032 OF 2005; The State v Billy Turmur and Sou Mesak (2011) N4349

National Court: Maliku, AJ

Judgment Delivered: 21 June 2011

CRIMINAL LAW—Rape committed by more than one person—Victim sustained multiple injuries—brutal sexual assault—Change of Not guilty plea to Guilty plea after trial had commenced - Defendants re arraignment - Enter guilty plea—Matter proceeded as a guilty plea—appropriate sentence considered—18 years imprisonment in hard labour.

Cases cited:

John Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267; The State v Peter Kaudik [1987] PNGLR 201; Gimble v The State [1988–89] PNGLR 271; The State v Willie Paul Songul (1997) N1757; Thomas Waim v The State (1997) SC519; Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; The State v Sou Mesak (No. 3) (2009) N3907

21st June, 2011

1. MALIKU, AJ. The defendants (each and severally) were charged with one count of rape upon one “MK” on the 06th of February 2006 at Viviran village, Toma area, East New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea. The offence is alleged to contravene s347(1) of Criminal Code (Sexual Offences and Crime against Children) Act. The State also invoked s7 (Principal Offenders) and s8 (Offences committed in prosecution of common purpose) of the Criminal Code Act.

2. I will briefly for purpose of records state below how this matter had proceeded before me.

3. The defendants briefly appeared before me on the 02nd of June in which Counsel representing the defendants sought leave from the court for an adjournment in order to talk to defendant Sou Mesak about a change of instructions from him. Leave was granted and the matter was adjourned to the 03rd of June. The matter resumed on the 03rd of June, both counsels advised the court that they were ready to proceed.

4. Mr Miviri for the State told the court that the indictment against each defendant was presented on the 09th of November 2009 before his honour Lenalia J in which each defendant had entered plea of not guilty, however for purpose of records Mr Miviri invited the court to re arraign each defendant. The defendants were arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty.

5. Mr Miviri then informed the court that the State was ready to call evidence, however prior to the first witness called, the State sought leave to tender...