Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Mek [1997] PGNC 32; N1575 (21 March 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1575

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1623 OF 1996
THE STATE v JACK MEK

Wabag

Injia J
21 March 1997

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Sentence - Mitigating factor - Killing of a close relative - Accused killed step-father because of differences within the family - Observations on weight to be given to - Criminal Code (Ch. No. 262), S. 300 (1) (a).

Cases cited:

State v Laura (No. 2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98

Counsel:

P Kumo for the State

B Aipe for the Accused

21 March 1997

INJIA J: I found the accused guilty of murdering his own step-father contrary to S.300(1)(a) of the Code. He applied several axe blows on the deceased’s head and killed him because he took sides in an argument between the deceased and the accused’s mother over one of their daughte160; I found that the accused’s mother incited him toim to kill the deceased as he had indicated to her previously.

The accused is a young man. Heingle and I estimate hise his age to be in his early 20’s. He is uneducated. He is a memf the Apostolictolic Church at Laiagam. He is a normal young mathen the village.

His mother married the deceaster hther died. He was a small child whenfhis father died. His real father and and tand the deceased are brothers.

Theing of one’s very cloy close relative is not a common form of killing. For one to axe his own parent, it must be the upshot of real differences in their heir family relationship. In this case, ithe differefferences between the two parents over one of thaughters, or the accused’s sister. The full stol story is not in evidence. All that is befores that that the parentued over this daughter who who spent some time in Mount Hagen. Such intefamily problems mems may not become apparent to outsidnlessers of the familyamily choose to disclose it to the outsidetsiders. little has been said by t by the accused of the cause of tfferences between the parenparents.

In the accused’s favour, I take into account his broken family upbringing. Tha the ce of his real faal faal father to bring him up. The step-fathedoubt did hiid his best but it would certainly not be the ss his real father would have. He wased in a difficult silt situation between two pare parents who had differences in their relahip because of the way one one of their daughters was being looked after. Living in such household iith internal conflict is something the accused, as young as he was, found it difficult to contain.

The accused is a young man. He has a long futurad wi aout a father to help him make it through young life,life, marriage and other aspect of life. s own doing, he has los stos step-father. I am sure he will finvery very difficult to make it through in l in life to become a&#an. The loss olose relative ii a mitigating factor. I take tacs factor into acto account in the accused’s favour.

The accused has no convns. a man of prior good characharacter andr and a member of the Christian church.&#1h. He is unedu and village mage man who ill under the influences of village way of life and traditional values and customs. Al0; All these fa, I take take into account s favour.

I also bear in mind the need to impose a se a sentence on this young man which will not have a crushing effect on hi>

Taking into account the seriousness and determination tion with which the multiple axe blows were executed in the night, I consider that a deterrent and punitive sentence is appropriate.

As for compensation, I am told by the accused’s Counsel that because the death occurred within the family, compensation is not required to be paid by local custom. Therefore, it not arise fose for consideration under the Criminal Law Compensation Act 1991.

Bearing in mind the range of sentences forer set out in State v Laura (No. 2) [1988-89] PNGLR 98, and other sentences imposed by the the National Court in subsequent cases, and bearing in mind the maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, I consider that a sentence of 8 years imprisonment is appropriate and I impose the same. From this sentence, I dethct the period of about 10 months in pre-trial custody. He wilve the balance of 7 of 7 years and 2 months.

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor

Lawyer for the State: P Prosecutor