Secretary for Law v Witrasep Binengim

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [1975] PNGLR 172
• Date: 04 September 1975
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1975

Full Court: Prentice SPJ, Raine J, Saldanha J

Judgment Delivered: 4 September 1975

1 Criminal law—murder, wilful; Sentence—inadequate; Sentence—principles

2 Sentence increased to 9 years 6 months for principal offender wife who plotted husband's killing; parity of sentences for co–offenders; original sentence of 2 years 6 months manifestly inadequate; judge not required to remark on sentence; matters not mentioned not necessarily not considered

3 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentences—Inadequacy of—Wilful murder as principal offender under s7 of Criminal Code—Sentencing of co–offenders—Co–offenders sentenced to fifteen years' and twelve years' imprisonment—Sentence of 9 years 6 months' imprisonment substituted for sentence of 2 years 6 months' imprisonment.

The respondent was charged with the wilful murder of her husband (a Pastor in the Baptist Church), as a principal offender under s7(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code (Queensland adopted) the respondent taking no part in the actual killing which was performed by two men called Thomas and Tari. The respondent a young woman aged about 30 years with two children had been having an affair with Thomas and gave her consent to a proposal put forward by Thomas that he would murder her husband so that they could be free to marry; the respondent was not "primitive" and was fully aware that she had the power in village custom and in fact, to veto the killing and that the killing would not have proceeded without her consent. The co–offenders were sentenced to fifteen years' and twelve years' imprisonment and the respondent to two years and six months imprisonment, the trial judge taking into account 7 months in custody awaiting trial. On appeal against inadequacy of sentence,

Held:

that the sentence was manifestly inadequate to the circumstances of the crime seen in the light of the respondent's background and a sentence of nine years and six months imprisonment should be substituted.

Discussion of the arguments for parity of sentencing where co–offenders involved.

Appeal.

This was an appeal by the Secretary for Law pursuant to s29 of the Supreme Court (Full Court) Act 1968 on the ground of inadequacy of sentence.

___________________________

Prentice SPJ:

Mr Secretary appeals herein under s29, Supreme Court (Full Court) Act 1968, on the ground of the inadequacy of a sentence imposed on the respondent following a conviction for wilful murder of her husband. His Honour the trial judge had found that the respondent by giving her consent to the proposed murder of her husband by one Thomas, was guilty as a principal offender...