The State v Kenny Reuben Irowen (2002) N2239

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kandakasi J
• Judgment Date: 24 May 2002
• Citation: [2002] PNGLR 190
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2002
• Judgement Number: N2239

Full Title: The State v Kenny Reuben Irowen (2002) N2239

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 23 May 2002

N2239

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 481 of 2002

THE STATE

-V-

KENNY REUBEN IROWEN

WEWAK: KANDAKASI, J.

2002: 21st and 23rd May

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Worse case of grievous bodily harm – Guilty plea – No prior convictions - Prisoner forcing two of his wives to strip down naked then picked up an argument with them before attacking them with a bush knife – One sustained a deep cut to her left shoulder with muscles and bone of the top of the joint completely severed resulting in an estimated 25% permanent disability – The other sustained an almost severed right big toe requiring steel wiring and a deep wedged chopped wound dividing muscles, bones and arteries on that side as well as a complete chop off of her left little and ring fingers – Prior medical history of severe attacks on one of the women requiring hospitalization – No evidence of compensation or the prisoner having completely changed his habit of severely attacking his wives – No expression of remorse in Court – Aggravating factors outweighing factors in mitigation – Maximum prescribed sentence of 7 years imposed to be served cumulatively – Criminal Code ss 319 and 19.

Cases cited:

The State v. Abel Airi (28/11/00) N2007.

The State v. Isaac Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271.

The State v. Philip Susuve Raepa [1994] PNGLR 459.

The State v. Apa Kuman (20/12/00) N2047.

The State v. Nickson Pari (N0.2) (10/01/00) N2033

The State v. Darius Taulo (15/12/00) N2034.

The State v. Rex Rongo (20/12/00) N2035.

Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR, 105.

Goli Golu –vs- The State [1979] PNGLR 653.

The State v. Kenneth Penias [1994] PNGLR 48.

Seo Ross v. The State (30/04/99) SC605.

Acting Publice Prosecutor v. Haha [1981] PNGLR 205.

Public Prosecutor v. Kerua & Ors [1985] PNGLR 85.

The State v. James Gurave Guba (19/12/00) N2020.

Counsels;

Mr. M. Rarri for the State

Mr. D. Kari for the Prisoner

24th May 2002

KANDAKASI J: You pleaded guilty to two charges of causing grievous bodily harm to two of you wives, namely Lamokis and Roselyn after forcing them to strip naked on 22nd December 2001, which was contrary to s. 340 of the Criminal Code. Upon reading the depositions, which were admitted into evidence with your consent, I was satisfied that the evidence in them supported your guilty plea. I therefore accepted your guilty plea and convicted you on the charge presented.

Relevant facts

The relevant facts are straightforward. About 8:00 p.m. on 22nd December 2001, your two wives Lamokis, who is your first wife and Roselyn your second wife, and your children were sitting outside your house in your village at Imbras, Maprik East Sepik Province. You called the two of them out from where they were sitting into the house where you were. So they came into the house and you took them into the bedroom of yourself and Roselyn. Once inside that bedroom, you asked them to call their boyfriends’ names but they gave you no names. So you forced them to remove all of their cloths and stand before you naked. You then went outside the bedroom and got Lamokis’ bush knife and returned to the room and asked the two of them to reveal the names of their boyfriends and that you will do nothing to them. Immediately after that however, you swung the bush knife at Lamokis’ back three times and you hit her on her forehead with your fists twice. She felt pain and she grabbed you and the two of you fought. As you were fighting with her, you bit her right ring finger. In pain she called Roselyn to help by asking her to grab hold of both of your testicles and squeeze them and she obliged. That caused you to say it is enough and that you will not assault them again.

After you promised not to assault your two wives, they thought you were telling them the truth, so Roselyn let your testicles go. Then you all come out of the beroom and you pulled Lamokis’ bush knife again and you swung it at Roselyn and nearly chopped of her left hand from the shoulder. That severed completely, the muscles, and the bone over the top of that part of her shoulder joint. She then ran out of the house naked in pain into one of her uncle’s coffee garden. You then turned to Lamokis, grabbed hold of her hand and swung the bush knife at her, cutting both of her legs and her left ring and little fingers into their joints. Thereafter, you left Lamokis and ran after Roselyn. That is when Lamokis ran away toward a small village but did not go into the village, as she was naked and also because of the injuries to both of her legs. She could not withstand it any longer and she fell down and collapsed unconscious at a coffee garden. Help eventually came to her when Pastor Bill Moses’ sister brought a skirt to her, followed by the pastor carrying her to the prayer house. She did not know what happened next until she woke up at the Brukam Health Center, when she realized that she was under a drip and was later taken to the Boram Hospital the same day.

As for Roselyn, once she got to her uncle’s coffee garden she saw you with a bush knife looking for her. She got scared of further attacks and she ran, still naked to a small village. Before she could reach the village, she saw a Benny and his wife Henni and Pastor Bill carrying Lamokis and they caught up with her. The Pastor got his towel and gave it to her and she covered herself with it. Then the Pastor’s sister gave her a skirt, which she changed into and removed the towel and put the towel underneath her cut arm and had it held up. That prevented further bleeding and she was taken to the Brukam Health Center together with Lamokis. She was also taken to the Boram Hospital for further medical treatment.

They were appropriately treated at the Boram Hospital and they appear to have recovered but with some residual disabilities. Lamokis was left with a 25% permanent loss of function to her left shoulder. Roselyn’s disabilities if any were not ascertained at the time of the medical report on 26th December 2001, as that could not be ascertained until the healing process was completed. The doctor did not write off any disability.

The medical report describes the attacks on your wives as “savage” and “severe”. It also mentions Lamokis been previously admitted to the hospital in 1999 after you had slashed her. That resulted in a deformed foot. Your attacks on her in 2001 included injuries to the already deformed foot which could have resulted in serious disability had it not been for the blood vessels remaining intact.

The offence and sentencing trend

You have been charged under s. 319 of the Criminal Code. That section creates the offence of grievous bodily harm and stipulates that anyone who does such harm to another must be imprisoned to a term no exceeding 7 years. A number of judgements 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 (28/11/00) 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 be differences of sentences.

Your lawyer drew my attention to the case of The State v. Isaac Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271. That was a case in which the prisoner hit the victim, who was his sister-in-law with a vehicle hand brake cable on one of her eyes resulting in a 90% residual disability. He did that after the victim failed to get the prisoner to have sexual intercourse with him and she scattered all of his clothes all over the place in what he though was retaliation for his refusal. He was given 18 months in hard labour with 5 months deducted on account of time spent in custody. The balance of the sentence was suspended on condition of good behaviour bond and compensation of K500 cash and pigs to the value of K800.

In an other case, The State v. Philip Susuve Raepa [1994] PNGLR 459, the victim was rendered brain damaged out of a drunken brawl and after a skull operation to remove internal bleeding. The Court order K5,000 compensation and placed the prisoner on good behaviour bond on his own recognizance with a surety of K300.00 with judgement being deferred to future sittings of the court and for the prisoner to abstain from alcoholic drinks for 12 months until further orders.

In The State v. Apa Kuman...