The State v Luap Suimeleng (No.2)

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2015) N6055
• Date: 20 August 2015
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2015

Full : CR.NOS.171, 172 & 173 OF 2011; The State v Luap Suimeleng, Suilogo Passingan & Marang Tienpules (No.2) (2015) N6055

National Court: Lenalia, J

Judgment Delivered: 20 August 2015

2015: 18th & 20th August

CRIMINAL LAW—Arson—Sentence after a finding of guilty—Criminal Code, s346, Ch. No. 262

CRIMINAL LAW—Arson cases—Sentencing principles—Sentences of 6 and 2 years imposed on each accused be served concurrently

Cases cited

Acting Public Prosecutor v Konis Haha [1981] PNGLR 205

The State-v-Akena Pawa [1998] PNGLR 387

The State v Andrew Yeskulu [2003] PNGLR 27

The State-v-Bernard Bambai (2006) N3019

State-v-David Kondave (2006) Cr. No. 1450 of 2006

Emil Kongian-v-The State (2007) SC928

The State-v-Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261

State-v-Karu Bisok & Gahu Kuru (2006) CR Nos. 42 & 43 of 2007

The State-v-Keith Kwelik (2011) N4335

The State-v-Mapi Mack (2010) N4100

Mase v The State [1991] PNGLR 88

The State-v-Prodie Akoi & Steven Akoi (2002) N2584

20th August, 2015

1. LENALIA, J: The three accused were found guilty on 18th this month for one count of arson an offence contrary to s436 of the Criminal Code. The evidence upon which they were found guilty came from two eye witnesses John Tatas, and Huluris Darius. These two witnesses were on the scene at Magam village around about 10 am on 7th day of February 2010.

2. That day was a Sunday morning and the two witnesses were staying around in their houses resting. They were surprised when a group of men came around to their village and surrounded the two houses that were burnt. The owner of the houses Tunais Ngausep Liman was away attending the church service at Ranmelek United Church. While still in the church campus, he was informed that his houses had been totally burnt down with all personal effects.

3. Whilst resting in their houses, they saw the three accused amongst the group standing around the two houses, a dwelling house and a kitchen and one of the men set fire to both houses. Both houses were totally burnt down with all personal effects being destroyed and burned into ashes. In cross-examination, the two witnesses confirmed that they recognized the two accused on the scene and it was not a case of identification but recognition. The group stood around and watched the fire destroyed both houses. You three were together with two other persons and you three were caught by s.7 of the Criminal Code as principal offenders.

Addresses on Allocutus

4. When allocutus was administered to the three prisoners, all of them said, they would not say anything and would live it up to their lawyer address the court on sentence on their behalf.

Counsels Addresses on Sentence

5. The defence counsel Mr...