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

State v Kua [2000] PGNC 20; N1976 (13 June 2000)

N1976

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR No. 481 of 2000

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

SUWAIRE MARY KUA

Prisoner

KUNDIAWA: KIRRIWOM, J
2000: 13th June

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Concealment of Birth - Exceptional circumstances - Sentenced to rising of the Court - Criminal Code, s.313.

Quaere: Whether 'a person' referred to in the section 313 means and includes the mother of the dead child?

Cases cited:
The State v Meli Heti [1977] PNGLR 173
The State v Margaret Gara Torovel [1988] PNGLR 242

Counsel:
Mr F. Kuvi for the State
Mr M. Apie’e for the Prisoner

13th June 2000

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

KIRRIWOM, J: This prisoner appeared before me on Tuesday 13 June 2000 and pleaded guilty to concealing the birth of her child that died at delivery contrary to section 313 of the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. She had spent roughly five months in custody prior to her appearance in court. After address in mitigation I sentenced her promptly to the Rising of the Court as, given the extenuating circumstances I addressed hereinafter, I considered that the period of five months she already spent in custody was sufficient punishment and reserved to give my detailed reasons today.

This prisoner is a young woman and a widow in her mid-late 30s. She is originally from Kurumugl village, Gembogl but at the material time of this trouble in January 2000 she was residing in Bumagl village, also in Gembogl, her late husband’s village and where she was raising her three children aged 9, 4 and 3 years respectively. She had no intention of leaving her husband’s village. She had a duty to raise her children there.

In expressing her remorse for breaking the law as she put it, she gave a long story as to how the alleged offence was committed. Her story goes to explain her state of mind, her perception of life and about people around her and as to how insecure she felt herself to be and finally as to why she considered inappropriate to tell anyone about her own misfortune and the freak accident happening during premature delivery. The deceased child, the subject of this charge was fathered by a relative of the prisoner’s late husband to whom she was forced into a subsequent second marriage against her wishes. The man also had a wife who was not happy to share her husband with the prisoner and fought her. As the result the prisoner refused to cohabit with the man and forced him away to his own wife and children. But she was already pregnant with his child, an event she vehemently detested. Women gossiped about her for showing no respect to her late husband by becoming pregnant in such a short time after the husband’s death. This gossipping worried her and she found it hard to cope with the embarrassment she forced upon herself due to pressure from one group of her in-laws. Of course she had every reason to be concerned and ashamed because such custom or belief is the norm in many parts of Papua New Guinea. It is a sign of respect to a loved one recently buried that until a certain period lapses and mourning is said to end, a widow or widower sees no other man or woman. But the prisoner’s concern was that it was the pressure from her late husband’s family that she had to marry one of his brothers and she did so just to appease them. In reality she said her mind and her heart was not with the marriage.

On 11th January 2000 the prisoner experienced severe labour pains when she was only seven months pregnant. She went into the bush without telling anyone and finding support against a tree and holding onto a tree branch she delivered the baby who she said 'fell down and hit its head against the tree stump below'. She said she was weak and unable to prevent the child from falling and hurting itself.

When she discovered that the child was dead she proceeded to the cemetery where she dug a grave alone and buried the child herself unassisted. She saw no need to inform anyone or enlist assistance because they would be demanding compensation for the help given their attitude towards her. The doctor who exhumed the body some eleven days later and examined it on site found that one side of the child's head was fractured and was consistent with trauma involving a solid object.

The prisoner is a first offender, she pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. She is a simple villager who believes and abides by the village norms as to what is expected of her. This is why she felt obligated to response to her in-laws demands only to find that it made her own life miserable. I have no doubt that she will never want to re-offend again.

Prior to handing down my reasons for sentence, I raised a query with both counsel regarding the appropriateness of this charge under section 313 of the Code which it seems to me from reported cases that no one had ever raised it before. The way the section is drafted, it implies involvement of a second person besides the mother to be the offender envisaged therein under this section. This is so because section 313 reads:

'A person who, when a woman is delivered of a child, endeavours, by any secret disposition of the dead body of the child, to conceal the birth, is guilty of a misdemeanour whether the child died before, at or after its birth.

Mr. Kuvi for the State, and supported by Mr. Apie'e for the accused, both submitted that the word 'person' included the mother. There are only two reported cases cited in Andrew and Weisbrot on this section but they do not raise this issue. They are The State v Meli Heti [1977] PNGLR 173 and the State v Margaret Gara Torovel [1988] PNGLR 242. I note that both cases involved the mother concealing the birth of her dead child after delivery. This question was never raised and the case proceeded undeterred. I also noted that section 312 - Killing unborn child - is similarly worded and even the Queensland Criminal Code equivalent to s.313 which is section 314 is likewise similarly worded. It seems therefore that I must accept the definition of a 'person' as including the mother as submitted by both counsels. In accepting the construction as adopted by the lawyers, I am mindful of the need to apply a more liberal and non-restrictive interpretation to the law. But I believe that the section could be better phrased to avoid that ambiguous construction on literal reading of it.
____________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Prisoner: Public Solicitor