The State v Yake Ate (2008) N3862
| Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
| Judge | Kandakasi, J |
| Judgment Date | 19 September 2008 |
| Citation | (2008) N3862 |
| Docket Number | CR NO. 868 of 2008 |
| Court | National Court |
| Year | 2008 |
| Judgement Number | N3862 |
Full Title: CR NO. 868 of 2008; The State v Yake Ate (2008) N3862
National Court: Kandakasi, J
Judgment Delivered: 19 September 2008
N3862
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
CR NO. 868 of 2008
THE STATE
-V-
YAKE ATE
Tabubil: Kandakasi, J.
2008: 02nd And 19th September
DECISION ON SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Particular offence - Grievous bodily harm – Use of bow and arrows and bush knife – Offender retaliating over attack of brother after threat had ended – Penetrating injuries to the abdomen area with wounds inflicted at 4 locations on small intestine - Injuries life threatening – Guilty plea – First time offender – Prevalence of offence - No compensation paid- Custodial sentence of 6 years imposed – Criminal Code s. 319.
Cases cited:
The State v Vincent Naiwa (22/06/04) N2710.
The State v. Isaac Wapuri [1994] PNGLR 271.
The State v. Philip Susuve Raepa [1994] PNGLR 459.
The State v. Nickson Pari (N0.2) (2000) N2033.
The State v. Rueben Irowen (2002) N2239.
The State v Henry Idab (2001) N2172.
The State v. Eddie John Naopa (2003) N2411.
The State v. Tamumei Lawrence, Koloata James and Tobia Thomas (2007) N3117.
The State v. Ambe Tu (2008) N3306.
Acting Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale (1998) SC 564.
Edmund Gima v. The State & Siune Arnold v. The State (03/10/03) SC730.
The State v. Marety Ame Gaidi (2002) N2279.
Counsel:
D. Mark, for the State.
M. Norum, for the Accused.
19th September, 2008
1. KANDAKASI J: Yake Ate, you pleaded guilty to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to one Luvis Gengom on 5th April 2008 at Hiorenkia Village, Nigerum, Western Province.
Relevant Facts
2. The facts giving rise to the charge and your guilty plea and subsequent conviction are these. On 5th April 2008, Luvis Gengom, who is your nephew, fought with Rex Ate, your younger brother, who started the fight. The fight was over, Luvis’ mother authorizing another woman to collect gold dust from your land. Luvis’ mother is your sister. In that fight, Luvis kicked your brother to the ground from where he got up and ran into a nearby house and took refuge there. On the community’s intervention, Luvis stopped his fight with your brother.
3. Meanwhile, however, you got word of the fight between your brother and your nephew. Given some pre-existing difficulties you had with your sister’s family and not being happy with your sister permitting another person to collect gold dust from your area, you armed yourself with a bush knife and a bow and arrows and went to fight your nephew. On seeing what you were trying to do, the members of the community tried to stop you. Despite that, you initially attempted unsuccessfully to shoot your nephew with arrows from the bow you had. After those failed attempts, you eventually managed to get your target. You shot your nephew on his stomach area which penetrated into the internal parts of the stomach, seriously affecting his intestine. Attempts to pull the arrow out failed as it got stuck inside.
4. The members of the community then assisted your nephew onto a vehicle and had him transported to the Tabubil Hospital. The hospital appropriately treated him. The medical doctor found and established that the arrow penetrated the abdomen and wounded the small intestine at four different locations. The arrow had also penetrated the right iliac crest. There was of course bleeding and the leakages of faecal contents due to the wounds to the small intestine. The treatments Luvis received consisted of a surgery to remove the arrow, cleansing of the faecal matter, bleeding and other debris or foreign matter introduced by the penetrating arrow.
5. The hospital discharged Luvis on 11th April and had his stitches removed three days later. Doctor Inina of the Tabubil Hospital provided a report. In his report, the doctor stated that Luvis sustained life threatening injuries but the good news was that, he recovered well and did not die.
Offence and Sentencing Trend
6. As this Court said earlier this month in the case of The State v. Rex Waida and Waida Gima CR 1271 and 1272 of 2007, a decision handed down here in Tabubil, s 319 of the Criminal Code creates and prescribes the penalty for the offence of grievous bodily harm. The maximum prescribed sentence there is 7 years. The National Court has dealt with a lot of cases under this provision and has imposed a variety of sentences from a few months to the maximum of 7 years. Your lawyer ably referred to most of these cases, some of which this Court discusses below as it did in the earlier case.
7. This Court noted in a number of cases as in The State v. Vincent Naiwa,
[1994] PNGLR 459.
8. Noting the prevalence of the offence and forming the view that past sentences appear not to be deterring other persons from committing this offence, this court imposed a sentence of 4 years, part suspended on terms in The State v. Nickson Pari (No.2).
(2000) N2033.
4 That was in a case of a young first time offender pleading guilty. He shot at and injured the victim on his left arm in the course of and in furtherance of an armed robbery.
9. A more serious case of grievous bodily harm this Court dealt with was the case of The State v. Rueben Irowen
(2002) N2239.
5. In that case, the prisoner forced his two wives to strip down naked and effected serious bodily harm to them. That included the use of a bush knife to inflict serious cuts to their bodies, resulting in loss of a lot of blood rendering both of them unconscious. They had to run out of the house naked for help. If it were not for their running out and the help of third parties, they could have died. The Court imposed the maximum sentence of 7 years each for the harm he had occasioned to the victims for him to serve cumulatively.
10. Another serious case this Court dealt with was the case of The State v Henry Idab.
Opt. Cit note 2.
6 In that case, a group of men attacked another group mistakenly taken to be the ones responsible for verbally abusing one of the attacking group member’s mother. In the process, a village court magistrate sustained serious bush knife injuries to both of his hands, resulting in an estimated 85% loss of efficient use of his hands and restricted to only light work. The Court imposed a sentence of 5 years, and suspended part of it on strict terms including community work. The Court also allowed at the discretion of the village court magistrate, room for the prisoner to render services free of charge to his victim appreciating that the victim was prevented from using one of his hands.
11. In another case, namely, The State v. Eddie John Naopa,
7 this Court imposed a sentence of 5 years part suspended because of a guilty plea and an order for compensation. The victim in that case lost one of her eyes completely from a slingshot.
12. In the other case of The State v. Vincent Naiwa,
8 this Court imposed a custodial sentence of 5 years. That was for grievous bodily harm caused to his sister–in–law by the prisoner. He used a bush knife to do that. There was no good reason for the attack. The attack on the victim left her left hand useless. That was on a guilty plea by a first time offender, who had not paid any customary compensation and did not have any means to pay any compensation if the Court were to make such an order.
13. Other judges have imposed higher penalties in cases similar or closer to your case. An example of that is the decision of Lay J., in The State v. Tamumei Lawrence, Koloata James and Tobia Thomas.
9 There, the victim had been gardening and the offenders and their friends attacked him without provocation. The victim suffered serious knife wounds. His left upper arm was cut through to the bone, the back of the left shoulder involving the shoulder joint was cut, there were cuts to the posterior upper right chest and the right forearm involving the elbow. There was a prompt compensation payment.
14. In a number of this Court’s previous decisions on grievous bodily harm cases, this Court noted that, the offence was prevalent for no good reasons or for silly reasons or clearly avoidable situations. In most cases, offenders were carelessly using dangerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial