The State v Yatime Korogula (No 2) (2009) N3742

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kirriwom J
• Judgment Date: 20 August 2009
• Citation: (2009) N3742
• Docket Number: CR 59 of 2007
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2009
• Judgement Number: N3742

Full Title: CR 59 of 2007; The State v Yatime Korogula (No 2) (2009) N3742

National Court: Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 20 August 2009

N3742

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 59 of 2007

THE STATE

V

YATIME KOROGULA

Goroka: Kirriwom. J

2009: 20 August

(No.2)

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – unlawfully doing grevious bodily harm – prisoner cut victim’s left thumb almost severing it – victim’s relatives retaliated and chopped prisoner with bush knife all over his body – both prisoner and victim recovered with residual scars and discomfort – compensation paid day after incident by prisoner’s relatives – dispute over land – fight started by victim’s brother – prisoner retaliated but used bush knife – Prisoner sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and suspended wholly on condition of good behaviour and compensation of K2028.00 already paid – Criminal Code, s.319

Cases Cited

The State v Peter Erne [1998] Unreported National Court Judgment N1939 (10/4/98)

The State v Larsen Talian [2003] Unreported National Court Judgment N2382 (23/4/03)

Counsel

K. Umpake, for the State

V. Agusave, for the Accused

SENTENCE

20 August 2009

1. KIRRIWOM. J: The prisoner Yatime Korogula was found guilty after a trial and convicted of unlawfully doing grevious bodily harm to a fellow villager Don Peter. They are from Donito village, Lufa District in the Eastern Highlands Province.

2. Under the Criminal Code this offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. I have heard submissions from both lawyers on sentence and I am grateful especially to Ms. Mauta who has put a lot of work in preparing a very balanced presentation in a very difficult case where the court had already taken a view of what it intended to do subject to appropriate assistance being given by the prisoner’s counsel and agencies responsible for providing relevant reports to the court on sentencing.

3. After all the evidence has been placed before the court, it had become quite plain to me that this is a case that the parties took the law into their own hands and dealt with their problem back in the village on the day it happened by resorting to eye for eye and tooth for a tooth method of justice. When I looked at the evidence before me on the injuries received by the victim and the injuries inflicted on the prisoner in retaliation, the prisoner copped the worst of the two according to the medical reports before me and also from what each displayed for the court to see during the trial.

4. Because the extent of the injuries in this kind of cases play significant role in sentencing I set out the nature and extent of injuries that both the victim and the prisoner received in this same incident:

Don Peter’s injuries Prisoner’s injuries

Single cut or wound on left palm Multiple wounds including:
almost severing the left thumb, kept § Forehead – deep bush knife
hanging by skin but has since wound, now healed with scar
reunited with 17 stitches and treated § Nasal septum – healed
with antibiotics and painkiller tablets laceration with slightly deformed
leaving him with permanent septum
disability of 90% loss of full § Left index finger –
function of left thumb, visible scar of laceration healed – markedly reduced
knife mark on hand. grip and grasp functions – restriction of
joint movements at interphalangeal
joints
§ Left elbow – healed stable
fracture of bone
§ Left ankle – healed
lacerations
§ Left knee – traumatized,
now still having pain and not walking
well due to pain
§ Back/spine – painful and
difficulty standing from sitting
position.

45% of permanent functional loss of
efficient and effective use of the
injured parts of the body

Report compiled by the District Report compiled by Dr. Max Manape –
Health Officer Mr Gabriel Wau of MOIC-A&E/AOPD
Lufa Health Centre dated 20/09/06. Goroka General Hospital dated 9/10/06

5. In a society where all things being equal, it would have been said that ‘fair is fair’ and there is no need to take this matter further. However, they will still need to find a lasting peace between them and that is what they all have work towards achieving it for true peace and tranquility to prevail between them despite the fact that the score was even.

6. We do not have the benefit of established informal dispute resolution mechanisms to process complaints in the community level before they reach the formal criminal justice system or process thus resulting now in the prisoner being the only one arrested and charged for causing injury to the victim, Don Peter whereas those who inflicted serious bodily harm upon the prisoner have been exempted from criminal prosecution. Unless those who assaulted the prisoner are also going to be arrested and charged for causing grievous bodily harm to the prisoner, current prosecution of the prisoner can amount to persecution than prosecution simply because he is said to have caused the injuries on the victim Don Peter without any provocation, an assertion I have already found to be false. This can even amount to a biased prosecution when all was settled back home where both sides suffered severe injuries and the victim’s side was compensated immediately which I will come to later in the judgment the following day.

7. When I look at the facts to understand why this trouble started that day I see the victim and his line are pointing their fingers at the prisoner, but the reality is the reverse. This problem could not have exploded into this unfortunate proportion, had only Joshua Peter controlled his temper and restrained himself from assaulting Aneane. Joshua Peter should have allowed the law to deal with his complaint rather than taking the law into his own hands. He provoked the whole chain of events. The prisoner only reacted when he saw his daughter in-law involved in this fracas with Joshua Peter. She was only a woman and not Joshua’s wife for him to physically assault her. The prisoner was therefore justified in intervening not only because she was a woman, but she was his daughter in-law and his son was not at home to defend his wife.

8. There is no question that there is an underlying issue to this dispute. We have seen evidence of the relevant authorities already being alerted of this issue between the parties before Joshua Peter decided to take the law into his own hands. The dispute has to do with land and the prisoner is in the middle of this controversy. We have heard evidence from Joshua Peter of his understanding of the land in question and we heard from the prisoner that the land was his which he gave to Joshua Peter’s mother whom he regarded as his sister through clan relation on his mother’s side.

9. This is the real sore point of this dispute which lives with the parties day and night. It is not going to go away until it is resolved amicably between them. What this court saw in this case is a spill-over of a much bigger issue at stake.

10. With this understanding of the case in the context as I have explained and given the circumstances unfolded leading to this court hearing and the ultimate conviction of the prisoner, is it going to help solve the crisis at home if the prisoner goes to jail? Would this not trigger a further escalation of the problem in the community where the prisoner’s line already think and so does...