Jonathon Benjamin v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Manuhu J,Wawun-Kuvi J,Christensen J
• Judgment Date: 26 July 2026
• Neutral Citation: SC2867
• Docket Number: SCREV NO 62 OF 2024
• Date: 26 July 2026
• Counsel: E Misikali for the applicant,J Wusik for the respondent,Counsel

SC2867

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCREV NO 62 OF 2024

Jonathon Benjamin

Applicant

v.

The State

Respondent

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

25, 26 July 2026

REVIEW — CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence review — murder — domestic violence — killing of spouse — use of saw and beating with fists — weight on mitigating factors — extenuating circumstances — facts not contested — manifest excess — inappropriateness of victim-blaming submission — lenient sentence

The applicant was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for an offence of murder in which he killed his wife using a saw and then by beating her. 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 absence of pre-planning is not a mitigating factor. It is an absence of an aggravating factor. Where pre-planning is not established, it is a neutral factor on sentence.

3. There is a particular viciousness and moral culpability in inflicting harm on a spouse with bare hands as it evidences a willingness to inflict physical harm without any degree of separation or detachment.

4. There was no error by the sentencing judge in not placing weight on circumstances not pressed or relied upon in substance, and no error by the sentencing judge in acting on the uncontested brief facts.

5. A submission that an offender did not wholly contribute to a victim's demise because the deceased should have stayed home as a married woman has no place in modern Papua New Guinea.

6. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and if anything was lenient.

Cases cited

Ake, Public Prosecutor v [1978] PNGLR 469

Bellie v The State [2022] PGSC 130, SC2325

Isaiah v The State [2022] PGSC 68, SC2264

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

Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605

State v Henry (No 4) [2019] PGNC 136, N7864

State v Kanjip (No 2) [2021] PGNC 368, N9181

State v Koki [2007] PGNC 264, N5049

State v Mareva [2012] PGNC 222, N4805

State v Tup [2006] PGNC 190, N4489

State v Ulakua [2002] PGNC 98, N2240

Tanabo v The State [2016] PGSC 61, SC1543

The State v Jonathon Benjamin, CR 1947 of 2023, 05.06.24, unreported

Ume v The State [2006] PGSC 9 at [40]

Counsel

E Misikali for the applicant

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 05 June 2024, the applicant was sentenced to a term of 25 years imprisonment for an offence of murder contrary to s 300(1)(a) of the Criminal Code that was committed on 26 February 2023. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge on 30 April 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 little to no weight on the mitigating factors available in the applicant's case.

(b) All the circumstances of the offence were not taken into account, especially the applicants story:

(i) The applicant's wife had gone out the whole night without his knowledge, upon her return in the morning, the applicant slapped her, she wanted to jump however got trapped. She fell on her neck and died.

(c) The sentence of 25 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 and 16 May 2024.

7. The brief facts provided that the deceased was the wife of the applicant. On 26 February 2023 between 12am and 2am the applicant and his wife were at Markham Bridge, Morobe Province. The applicant was “under the influence” and he came into their house. He was shouting at the deceased and trying to assault her. The deceased was afraid, so she ran into the room of the house where other family members usually sleep.

8. The applicant ran after her with a saw on his hand and held the deceased. He started assaulting her and then swung the saw on her cutting her. The applicant did not stop, continuing to stop the deceased in the room to the living room and then on to the verandah of the house.

9. The deceased, trying to escape, then jumped off the verandah and landed on the ground. The applicant followed her and jumped from the verandah. He landed on the deceased and punched her while she was on the ground. He continued punching the deceased until she died “on the spot”.

10. The applicant saw that the deceased was not moving anymore and he ran and woke her cousin sister. The cousin sister saw that the deceased had died. The applicant tried to escape but the boys in the community managed to grab him. The matter was reported to police, and the applicant was apprehended, interviewed, arrested, and charged.

11. At the sentence hearing, the applicant entered a plea of guilty on the basis of these brief facts. This was confirmed to be consistent with instructions. The depositions were tendered and it was observed that the plea entered was consistent with the record of interview, and the conviction was formally entered.

12. The antecedent report, with no previous convictions, was tendered.

13. In the allocutus, the applicant expressed that he was sorry, and he asked for mercy as he was a first time offender with two children to support.

14. A pre-sentence report was then ordered and subsequently formed part of the sentencing material.

15. On the applicant's behalf, it was submitted that the mitigating factors are that the offender was a first time offender, that the attack was not premeditated and that there was an early plea of guilty. It was submitted that the case was not within the category of worst case and that it fell within category one and category two of Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34, SC789.

16. Three authorities said to be comparative were relied upon: State v Koki [2007] PGNC 264, N5049; Tanabo v The State [2016] PGSC 61, SC1543; State v Ulakua [2002] PGNC 98, N2240. Sentences from 20 years to 28 years imprisonment were imposed. It was acknowledged that were not “really similar” to the subject offending, although that they all involved a domestic setting where the husband killed the wife. It was submitted that a sentence between 18 to 25 years imprisonment was the appropriate sentence for the applicant.

17. The State submitted that the aggravating factors involved the use of a dangerous weapon, and that the deceased was cut multiple times on vulnerable parts to her body, being her scalp, back, and face. These injuries were confirmed in the autopsy report which described cuts and fractures to bones. The State submitted that there was a strong intention to cause grievous bodily harm and that there was a killing of a defenceless or harmless person who was the applicant's wife. The State emphasised that it was a viscous attack that involved loss of life in circumstances of a prevalent offence.

18. As to authorities said to be comparative, the State relied on: Bellie v The State [2022] PGSC 130, SC2325; State v Tup [2006] PGNC 190, N4489; State v Mareva [2012] PGNC 222, N4805; State v Henry (No 4) [2019] PGNC 136, N7864; and State v Kanjip (No 2) [2021] PGNC 368, N9181. Those involved offending in a domestic setting in which sentences between 20 to 28 years imprisonment were imposed.

19. The State relied on a number of authorities that speak to the seriousness of harm caused to a domestic spouse and the degradation to human dignity and respect by such offending. The State did acknowledge that the maximum penalty was not warranted and submitted that a sentence in the range of 20 to 30 years imprisonment be imposed. It was submitted that the case fell within the upper end of category two and in category three in accordance with Manu Kovi v The State.

20. On 5 June 2024, the sentencing judge delivered his reasons and sentence: The State v Jonathon Benjamin, CR 1947 of 2023, 05.06.24, unreported decision. His Honour had regard to the brief facts, summarising that the facts involved the applicant repeatedly assaulting his wife with his fists and a saw until she died, while he was under the influence of alcohol. The antecedents of the applicant were acknowledged, including that he was a first offender, and was believed to be 37 years of age and married with two children. He had no previous convictions.

21. The remorse expressed by the applicant in the allocutus was acknowledged, as was the finding in the pre-sentence report that the applicant was not a threat to anyone.

22. The sentencing judge considered the submissions of counsel as to the appropriate sentence, and their submissions as to the applicable categories per Manu Kovi v The State and the appropriate sentence per comparative authorities. His Honour was found that the circumstances of the offending were such that it fell within the third category of Manu Kovi v The State, being that there was a strong desire to do grievous bodily harm, there were repeated assaults with the fist, and a saw as a weapon.

23. With respect to the submissions made on behalf of...