Alex Manawa v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Manuhu J,Wawun-Kuvi J,Christensen J
• Judgment Date: 26 July 2026
• Neutral Citation: SC2868
• Docket Number: SCREV NO 65 OF 2024
• Date: 26 July 2026
• Counsel: E Misikali for the applicant,P Matana with J Wusik for the respondent,Counsel

SC2868

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

SCREV NO 65 OF 2024

Alex Manawa

Applicant

v.

The State

Respondent

LAE: Manuhu J, Wawun-Kuvi J, Christensen J

25, 26 July 2026

REVIEW — CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence review — murder — strike to head with iron rod causing death — sentence of 20 years imprisonment — less weight on mitigating factors — extenuating circumstances — uncontested facts — manifest excess — difficult balancing exercise in homicide sentencing

The applicant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for an offence of murder in which he killed an associate with an iron bar by striking him to the head. On review, the applicant contended that there were extenuating circumstances that surround, and mitigate, the offending. The applicant further contended that there was less weight given to the mitigating factors than the aggravating factors, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Held

1. It is well recognised that a sentencing judge has a wide discretion in how mitigating, and aggravating, factors are weighed in the exercise of the sentencing discretion.

2. The role of the sentencing judge in sentencing for an offence of homicide typically involves a difficult balancing exercise

3. A ground of review that contends that a sentencing judge erred by placing less weight on the mitigating factors available is incapable of success given the nature of the enquiry on a review.

4. A sentencing judge does not have a duty to engage in an exercise of fact finding when the factual basis for the sentence is not contested.

5. The contended extenuating circumstances in this matter were not relied upon at sentence such that the brief facts were the appropriate basis for sentence.

6. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, being well within the range of sentences imposed for the offending having regard to all relevant sentencing considerations.

Cases cited

Ake, Public Prosecutor v [1978] PNGLR 469

Jumbo and Awatan v The State [1997] PGSC 1, SC516

Kama v The State [2004] PGSC 32, SC740

Mangi v The State [2006] PGSC 30, SC880

Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34, SC789

Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605

State v Glaman [2022] PGNC 249, N9736

State v Karuka [2021] PGNC 504, N9281

State v Luke [2022] PGNC 611, N10355

The State v Alex Manapa, CR 1948 of 2023, 05.06.24, unreported

The State v Gala [2018] PNGC 307, N7402

The State v Kanjip [2021] PNGNC 368, N9181

The State v Ligat [2019] PGNC 178, N7888

Ume v The State [2006] PGSC 9

Umme v The State [2006] PGSC 9, SC836

Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890

Counsel

E Misikali for the applicant

P Matana with J Wusik for the respondent

Lawyer for the applicant: Public Solicitor

Lawyer for the respondent: Acting Public Prosecutor

1. BY THE COURT: By way of application for review filed 24 October 2024 the applicant seeks a review of his sentence for murder. Leave to review was granted on 7 March 2025.

2. On 21 June 2024, the applicant was sentenced to a term of 20 years imprisonment for an offence of murder contrary to s 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code that was committed on 19 March 2023. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge on 30 May 2024. It is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

3. The law applicable to be applied by this court in determining the review of sentence is well settled. That is, the applicant must demonstrate that the sentencing judge committed an error which has the effect of vitiating the sentencing discretion: Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605

Grounds of the review

4. The applicant sets out, in a revised application for review filed 4 March 2026, the following grounds:

(a) The sentencing judge erred in fact and in law by placing less weight on the mitigating factors available in the applicant's case.

(b) The sentencing judge erred in the exercise of the sentencing discretion by failing to take into account and/ or placing little to no weight on the circumstances of the offence in its entirety given the following reasons:

(i) The deceased was drunk and instigated the incident;

(ii) The applicant was at home, the deceased coming to the fight with the applicant without any good reasons;

(iii) The applicant had no intention to commit the crime, rather her acted in self-defence when the deceased attacked him with a sharp iron rod.

(c) The sentence of 20 years is excessive in the circumstances of the offence.

5. It is sought that the review be allowed, and that the sentence be set aside and substituted with a lower sentence.

The sentence proceeding

6. The sentence hearing occurred on 30 April 2024, 1 May 2024, and 16 May 2024.

7. The brief facts provided that between 6pm and 7pm at China Town, 13A Block, Lae, Morobe Province, the accused was drinking beer with the deceased and two other people. Once the applicant's wife and children returned home, the applicant left the group and went to his house. Minutes later, the wife of the applicant approached the group and told them that the accused had locked the door and had cut their daughter who was inside. The applicant's wife ran to the police station, and the deceased and one other male went to the house. The applicant came outside.

8. The deceased told the applicant that what he was doing was child abuse. When the applicant heard that he came to the deceased and fought with him. The other male tried to stop them.

9. The applicant ran out of the premises and ran back a few minutes later with an umbrella iron rod and tried to stab the other male with the rod. This male blocked it with a plastic bag. The applicant then used that same iron rod and hit the deceased on his head. The deceased fell onto the ground. The applicant then used the sharp part of the iron rod and stabbed the deceased on his head and ran away.

10. Relatives of the deceased rushed him to hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries and passed away the following day. The matter was reported to the police, and the applicant was apprehended, interviewed, arrested and charged.

11. At the sentence hearing, the antecedent report with no previous convictions, was tendered. In the allocutus, the applicant expressed his apologies to God, the deceased, his community, family, and the lawyers and asked for the court's mercy. A pre-sentence report was then ordered and subsequently formed part of the sentencing material.

12. On the applicant's behalf, it was submitted at sentence that the court would find that the offending was not the worst type of offence, and that it was offending that fell within category one and category two of Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34, SC789. The mitigating factors relied upon were that the attack was not premeditated, the applicant was a first time offender, and he pleaded guilty at an early stage. No submissions were made as to there being extenuating circumstances that were informative to the sentencing exercise.

13. Four comparative authorities were relied upon by the applicant's counsel, these being Mangi v The State [2006] PGSC 30, SC880; State v Luke [2022] PGNC 611, N10355; State v Glaman [2022] PGNC 249, N9736; and State v Karuka [2021] PGNC 504, N9281. Each of these authorities involved circumstances of an offence occurring during a fight where alcohol had been consumed and a weapon was used. A plea of guilty was entered in three of those matters. Sentences in the range of 12 years to 16 years imprisonment were imposed. A sentence in that range was submitted to be the appropriate sentence for the applicant.

14. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the aggravating factors of the offending were the use of a dangerous weapon, that the stabbing was to a vulnerable part of the body, and that it was the killing of a defenceless or harmless man. The State submitted that a strong intention to cause grievous bodily harm was established and there was an element of viciousness from the persistence in the offending. It was submitted that the offending fell within the upper end of category two and lower end of category three in Manu Kovi v The State.

15. The State relied on three additional comparative authorities: The State v Gala [2018] PNGC 307, N7402; The State v Ligat [2019] PGNC 178, N7888; and The State v Kanjip [2021] PNGNC 368, N9181. These authorities involved the use of an iron rod to kill the deceased in the course of a dispute. Sentences of 20 to 28 years imprisonment were imposed.

16. The State emphasised the need to reflect the sanctity of human life in the sentence to be imposed and submitted that a sentence in the range of 16 to 25 years was appropriate.

17. On 5 June 2024, the sentencing judge delivered his reasons and sentence: The State v Alex Manapa, CR 1948 of 2023, 05.06.24, unreported. His Honour relied on the facts of the offending in accordance with the brief facts. The antecedents of the applicant were acknowledged, including that he is married with two wives and six children. It was recognised that the applicant had no prior convictions and that he apologised in the allocutus. The conclusion of the pre-sentence report, being that no recommendation was made given the serious nature of the offending, was acknowledged.

18. The sentencing judge had regard to the comparative authorities relied upon by both parties and the submissions made. His Honour further had regard to what was said by the Supreme Court in Kama v The State [2004] PGSC 32, SC740 and observed that in accordance with that authority a sentence of 17 to 30 years imprisonment was warranted.

19. It was found that a particularly aggravating factor was the complete disregard for the sanctity of life. The sentencing judge observed that the deceased was unarmed and could not defend himself from a repeated attack. It was found that there was a strong intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

20. The sentencing judge emphasised the role of deterrence in the sentence, expressing that the prevalence of the offence warranted this. The sentence of 20...