The State v Eddie John Naopa (2003) N2411

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2003) N2411
• Date: 24 April 2003
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2003

Full Title: The State v Eddie John Naopa (2003) N2411

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 24 April 2003

1 CRIMINAL LAW—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Appropriateness to hear from victim of offence before sentence—Appropriate practice to do justice from the view point of a victim—The victim's view can be obtained by hearing him or her in Court or through a pre–sentence report—Means assessment and pre–sentencing report required before any compensation order and community based sentence can be considered and imposed—Such reports at variance with victim's statement in Court—Court not bound to accept such a report's recommendations.

2 CRIMINAL LAW—Compensation—Compensation only relevant for mitigation purposes and does not excuse criminal liability or penalty—Means assessment necessary before making any orders for compensation—Means assessment report disclosing prisoner not personally having any means to pay but relatives capable of meeting any compensation order—Compensation ordered conditional upon prisoner repaying by provision of supervised free labour to relatives.

3 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Grievous bodily harm to a school girl—A gang attack on school girls returning from Scripture Union fellowship—Victim rendered 100% permanently disabled to right eye—Guilty plea—No prior convictions—Customary compensation paid—Prisoner making no personal contribution—Expression of remorse in Court—Victim stating in Court a wish that both compensation and term of imprisonment be imposed—Probation report recommending compensation only—Sentence of 5 years part suspended imposed—Criminal Code s19 and s319.

4 The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007, The State v Isaac Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271, The State v Philip Susuve Raipa [1994] PNGLR 458, The State v Apa Kuman [2000] PNGLR 313, 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 James Gurave Guba (2000) N2020, The State v Rex Lialu [1988–89] PNGLR 449, The State v Margaret John (No 2) [1996] PNGLR 298, The State v Dobi Ao (No 2) [2002] PNGLR 55, The State v Raphael Kimba Aki (No 2) (2001) N2082, The State v Kennedy Arus (2001) N2081 and Jack Lundu Yalao v MVIT (1995) N1386 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: You pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous bodily harm to a young school girl, namely Stella Junembary on 27 July 2001 at the Brandi High School here in Wewak, contrary to s319 of the Criminal Code. Upon reading the depositions which were admitted into evidence with your consent, I was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence supporting your guilty plea. I therefore accepted your guilty plea and convicted you on the charge presented.

Relevant Facts

The relevant facts are straightforward. Between 9.00 and 9.30 pm on 27 July 2001 in the company of 4 others, you were at Brandi High School. That was after you had gathered them from various places. You stayed for a little while under a rain tree not far from the girls' dormitory at Brandi High School. Whilst there, you saw a group of female students walking on the main road toward their dormitory. They were returning from a Scripture Union fellowship. Upon seeing that, you and your friends planned to get one of the girls.

You then decided to and did in fact execute your plan by grabbing hold of the victim. The victim was right behind her friends. She struggled to free herself and in the process, she had her left fingers cut with a knife held by the person who grabbed her. The victim says with the support of other witnesses that the knife was used to threaten her. The victim then fell into a drain. She managed to get up and tried to run away and you shot her with a stone through a slingshot you had with you. The stone reached the victim's right eye. You then fled the scene and were later arrested and charged by Police over the incident.

Meanwhile, the victim was admitted to the Wewak Hospital and received treatment for the injuries she sustained. Medical intervention did not help prevent the victim losing completely the use of her right eye. Although she recovered from the injuries, it was with a 100% loss of her right eye.

The Offence and Sentencing Trend

You have been charged under s319 of the Criminal Code. That section creates the offence of grievous bodily harm and directs that anyone who does such harm to another must be imprisoned to a term not exceeding 7 years. A number of judgments have already dealt with offences under this section before imposing a variety of sentences. This, I believe has been the case because as I said in The State v Abel Airi (2000) N2007, the exercising of the sentencing discretion in a sentencing judge is not a matter of mathematics. Instead, it requires an exercise of judicial discretion in such a way to do justice in the circumstances of a particular case by reason of which there might well be differences of sentences.

One such case is that of The State v Isaac Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271. That was...