The State v Vincent Naiwa (2004) N2710

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2004) N2710
• Date: 22 June 2004
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2004

Full Title: The State v Vincent Naiwa (2004) N2710

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2004

1 CRIMINAL LAW—Compensation—No independent verification of means to pay—Relatives prepared to assist—No proposal by accused to repay contribution from relatives—Inappropriate to order compensation.

2 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Grievous bodily harm to sister–in–law—Use of bush knife—No good reason for attack—Left hand of victim rendered useless—Guilty plea—First time offender—Prevalence of offence—No compensation paid and having no means to pay—Pre–sentence report not balanced—Custodial sentence appropriate—5 years sentence imposed—Criminal Code s319.

3 The State v Isaac Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271, The State v Philip Susuve Raipa [1994] PNGLR 458, The State v Apa Kuman (2000) N2047, The State v Nickson Pari (No 2) (2001) N2033, The State v Darius Taulo (2001) N2034, The State v Kenny Reuben Irowen [2002] PNGLR 190, The State v Henry Idab (2001) N2172, The State v Eddie John Naopa (2003) N2411, The State v Marety Ame Gaidi (No 2) (2002) N2279, The State v Louise Paraka (2002) N2317 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: You pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous bodily harm to another person, Jelpina Winduo at Walemba, Kubalia area, here in the East Sepik Province on 22 December 2003 contrary to s319 of the Criminal Code.

Following your guilty plea, the State admitted into evidence, with your consent, the District Court depositions. I read the witness statements and your record of interview, which were in the depositions and notice that, you raised the possible defence of acting in self–defence. I raised that with your counsel and your counsel informed the Court that, you were not raising that defence. I was thus satisfied that, there was sufficient evidence supporting the charge and your eventual guilty plea. I therefore, accepted your guilty plea and had you convicted on the charge of grievous bodily harm as presented.

Before address on your sentence, your lawyer applied for a pre–sentence report. I granted that application and directed that the report should be furnished by 17 June 2004. The Probation Services here in Wewak furnished a report on the date required. I perused that report and noted that, it had no input from the victim and her relatives. Similarly, I noted that, there was no input from the police and any impartial leader in the community indicating their position in relation to the kind of sentence they would want to see you receive. This is important because the Court needs to know, whether they would welcome a non–custodial sentence and if so, what part they would play in a fulfillment of any terms or conditions, the Court might impose as an alternative to of the prison system.

I adjourned your case to the next day, 18 June to see if the situation could improve. The Court then adjourned to yesterday for the administration of your allocatus and receipt of the parties' submissions and see if the position in relation to your pre–sentence report could improve. The situation improved only a little in terms of an affidavit from a leader here in Wewak away from the village where the incident took place and where you are ordinary...