The State v Pricilla Piru (2010) N4221

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Gavara-Nanu, J
• Judgment Date: 21 April 2010
• Citation: (2010) N4221
• Docket Number: CR 43 OF 2010
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2010
• Judgement Number: N4221

Full Title: CR 43 OF 2010; The State v Pricilla Piru (2010) N4221

National Court: Gavara-Nanu, J

Judgment Delivered: 21 April 2010

N4221

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 43 OF 2010

THE STATE

-V-

PRICILLA PIRU

Popondetta: Gavara-Nanu, J

2010: 15 & 21 April

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Arson – Plea of guilty - Criminal Code Act, Chapter No. 262; s. 416 (3) – Maximum penalty – Deliberately setting fire to a large family house– House and all its contents destroyed and lost in fire – Valuable items lost in fire – Actions of the accused unprovoked – A deterrent custodial sentence appropriate – Appropriate sentencing principles discussed.

Case cited:

The State -v- Andrew Yeskulu (2003) N2410

The State -v- Enni Mathew (No.2) (2003) N2563

The State –v- Ipu Sammuel Yomp [1992] PNGLR 261

The State -v- Robin Warren (No.2)(2003) N2418.

The State -v- Prodie Akoi N2584

Counsel:

J. Done, for the State

F. Kirriwom, for the Accused

1. GAVARA-NANU, J: On 15 April, 2010, the accused pleaded guilty to wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a dwelling house belonging to one Mrs. Freda Gordon (“Mrs. Gordon”) on 2 October, 2009, at Puhemo Block, Oro Province, contrary to s. 416 (3) of the Criminal Code Act, Chapter No. 262. This offence carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

2. The circumstances in which this offence was committed are these; on the day of the offence, between 4.00pm and 5.00pm, the accused and Mrs. Gordon who is the accused’s mother in-law had an argument over some comments Mrs. Gordon made to the accused. The accused misunderstood Mrs. Gordon’s comments and she became angry and threatened to burn down Mrs. Gordon’s house. The accused and her family were also living in that house. After making threats, the accused went and got dry coconut leaves lit them then set fire to Mrs. Gordon’s house, resulting in the house and all its contents being burnt to ashes. The total value of the personal belongings for Mrs Gordon and her children that were lost in the fire was estimated at K4,462.00.

3. Mrs. Gordon’s deposition shows that on the day of the offence, she was minding the accused’s children at home when accused went to her garden. When the accused returned from the garden, Mrs. Gordon told her that, while she was happy to mind her grand children, she had also been fearful that the people who had an argument with her family sometime back might go and destroy their things. When the accused heard this, she thought Mrs. Gordon was complaining about looking after her children and she became angry and abusive towards Mrs. Gordon and called her names. This led to the argument between them. Before setting fire to the house, the accused told Mrs. Gordon that she was going to set fire to the house and kill her.

4. Mrs. Gordon managed to remove only a few of her personal belongings from the house, she then went and stood at a distance as she watched the accused set fire to the house.

5. The house had 4 bedrooms and had iron roofing. It had timber walls and flooring.

6. According to a Murray Gordon, one of Mrs. Gordon’s sons, the house had 9 posts, he himself used to live in the house with his family until they moved out sometime before this incident.

7. Mrs. Gordon is an old widow.

8. The accused is about 26 years old, she has 4 children. She is a first time offender, in her allocutus when expressing her remorse, she told the Court that one other reason why she was angry toward Mrs. Gordon was that Mrs Gordon also said to her that she and her children lived like animals and that she should work and support her children. The accused also said she was frustrated because her husband and all her inlaws were mistreating her. She said she was not happy when Mrs. Gordon only told her to work and not her son (accussed’s husband).

9. In her Record of Interview, the accused put the blame on Mrs. Gordon for burning the house down. She told the Court that Mrs. Gordon used to get cross to her and accused Mrs. Gordon of not controlling her children, including her (accused) husband. She said she was also frustrated because her husband did not support her which she said was one reason why she burnt down the house.

10. A quick survey of sentences given for arson cases shows that sentences generally range from a fully suspended term to about 6 years imprisonment in cases where offenders act alone and where only one house is destroyed.

11. But in cases of multiple offenders and where many houses are destroyed, such as in a tribal fight, sentences of up to 15 and 16 years have been imposed. See, The State -v- Robin Warrant (No.2)(2003) N2418. See also, The State -v- Enni Mathew (No.2) (2003) N2563 and The State -v- Prodie Akoi N2584. In Prodie Akoi’s case, head sentence of 10 years was imposed on two accused however, half of the sentence was suspended with conditions. Total value of the house and its contents was estimated at K64,000.00.

12. In The State -v- Andrew Yeskulu (2003) N2410, my brother Justice Ambeng Kandaksai expressed a view that the range of sentences imposed for arson cases does not adequately reflect the seriousness and the gravity of the offence. His Honour said, the legislature has recognized and acknowledged this by prescribing a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but the types of sentences imposed by the Courts do not adequately reflect the intention of the legislature. His Honour suggested that in serious cases, the starting point should be 10 years and in less serious cases the starting point should be 5 years. In that case, the accused burnt down an elementary school building which accommodated 3 class rooms. The accused was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, but the sentence was wholly suspended after his Honour satisfied himself from a means assessment report that accused had taken genuine steps towards building a new building to replace the one destroyed and that the accused had adequate means to build the new building.

13. The accused in that case had a dispute with the school, claiming that he owned the land on which the building was built.

14. The value of the building was about K810.00, with the value of its contents, the total loss was estimated at K1,100.00.

15. In that case, the Court cited the case of The State -v- Ipu Samuel Yomb [1992] PNGLR 261, in which the Court set out matters which the Court should take into account when deciding sentence in an arson case:-

i. Deliberate or reckless putting of lives at risk.

ii. Deliberate pouring of kerosene and setting fire to the roof, knowing full well that people were inside the house.

iii. Deliberate locking of doors to prevent people from escaping.

iv. Deliberate cold blooded planning of the offence.

v. Value of the house and its contents to the occupants of the house.

vi. Complete lack of provocation offered to the accused by the occupants of the house.

16. A couple of these matters related specifically to the facts of that case but the other matters were of general nature, thus they can also apply to this case, namely deliberately putting peoples’ lives at risk, cold bloodedness in setting fire to the house, the value of it’s contents to the owner and the total lack of provocation offered to the accused. These matters would aggravate the offence.

17. In the instant case, the house as described by Mrs. Gordon and her son Murray Gordon was obviously a large permanent building, thus it was a major family asset. The loss was therefore significant to Mrs. Gordon and her family.

18. In my opinion in a case such as this and indeed in any arson case for that matter, the accused should be ordered to build a new house for the victim as part of his sentence but such an order should only be made after a means assessment report is made available to the Court and upon the Court satisfying itself from such report and the evidence before it that the offender has not only the means to build a new house but that he is also physically able to build a new house and has taken genuine and tangible steps towards building a new house; or upon the Court satisfying itself that the offender can build a new house of equal value to the one destroyed. The rationale behind taking this approach is that, it would be pointless for the Court to order an offender to build a new house if the offender does not have the means to build a new house and or if he is not physically able to build a new house. Therefore, matters such as whether the offender has any financial means such as savings in a bank, the age of the offender, any physical disabilities of the offender, the gender of the offender and so on, should be taken into account when deciding sentence. It would for example be pointless for the Court to order a male offender who is old or an accused who is a woman to build a new house because such an accused would not be physically able to build a new house. Similarly, it would be pointless for the Court to order an accused who has no financial means to build a new house even if he was physically able to do so. I consider that ordering an accused to build a new house for the victim should be the preferred form of sentence over ordering compensation because...