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

State v Kos [2013] PGNC 221; N5365 (17 September 2013)

N5365

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CR No.472 of 2013

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

AND:

ELVIS KOS
Prisoner

Minj & Mt. Hagen: David, J
2013: 18 July, 5 & 17 September

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – grievous bodily harm – prisoner is husband of victim – victim assaulted with axe – prisoner suspecting victim of engaging in extra-marital affairs in his absence - multiple amputation of digits on victim's left hand - fourth digit amputated at the level of the proximal and middle phalangeal joint - fifth digit amputated at the level of the proximal phalange and metacarpal joint – each finger chopped off separately when left hand placed on wooden bed – prisoner locked the victim in room despite her injuries – prevalence of offence – prisoner an educated person - guilty plea – prisoner sole attacker – first offender - de facto provocation – offence committed in domestic setting – prisoner's good background prior to incident - mitigating and aggravating factors equal – aggravating factors however outweigh mitigating factors - sentence of 4 years in hard labour – pre-trial confinement period deducted – 3 years of remaining term suspended on terms – Criminal Code, Sections 19 and 319.

Cases cited:

Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92
Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412
The Public Prosecutor v Vangu'u Ame [1983] PNGLR 424
Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91
The State v Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Ivoro Kaumin Lupu v The State, SCRA No.2 of 1997, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment dated 13 June 1997
Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564
Edmund Gima and Siune Arnold v The State (2003) SC730
The State v Darius Taulo (2001) N2034
The State v Vincent Naiwa (2004) N2710
The State v Julie Taupe Kuri, CR No.6 of 2006, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment delivered in Kundiawa in March 2006
The State v Bob Ananias, CR.1413 of 2003 & CR.1414 of 2003, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of Cannings, J delivered on 20th April 2006
Richard Liri v The State (2007) SC883
The State v Nicodemus Badui (2007) N5055
The State v John Komep, CR.300 of 2006, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of David, J delivered on 13 November 2007 at Mendi
The State v Sam Piapin (2009) N3585
The State v Lucy Kar (2011) N4719
The State v Bill Simai, CR.No. 125 of 2007, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of David, J delivered on 18 June 2009 at Kundiawa
The State v Wan Minimbi, CR No.599 of 2012, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment delivered by David, J on 19 June 2013 in Mt. Hagen

Treatise cited:

Chalmers, Weisbrot, Injia, Andrew & Nicol, Criminal Law and Practice in Papua New Guinea, 3rd edition, Lawbook Co

Counsel:
David Kuvi & Vasiti Mauta, for the State
Philip Kapi & Maryanne Job, for the prisoner

SENTENCE

1. DAVID, J: On Thursday, 18th July 2013, the prisoner, appearing before me from custody, was charged with one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code, the State alleging that on 31st December 2011 at Waghi Valley Block, Banz, Jiwaka Province in Papua New Guinea, he unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to his wife, Dorris Geku (the victim). He pleaded guilty to the charge which I accepted because the evidence contained in the depositions supported the charge. I convicted him accordingly.
   
2. The prisoner was arraigned with these short facts. The prisoner was working with a security firm in Tabubil, Western Province when he heard rumours about the victim having an extra-marital affair back home in Banz. He returned back to his home at Waghi Valley Block, Banz on 31st December 2011 at around 7.00pm in the evening and then questioned the victim regarding the rumours. Incensed, he assaulted the victim with an axe. The prisoner ordered the victim to place her left hand on a wooden bed and proceeded to chop off the fourth and fifth fingers with the axe. The prisoner then locked the victim in the room in the house, but she managed to escape and sought medical attention at the Kudjip Nazarene Hospital. The prisoner caused grievous bodily harm to the victim without any lawful justification or excuse.
   
3. The Medical Report provided by Dr. John McKup Jnr of the Mt. Hagen General Hospital dated 5th October 2012 reports that the victim's fourth and fifth fingers on her left hand were amputated by a sharp object such as an axe applied with force. The fourth finger was amputated at the level of the proximal and middle phalangeal joint whilst the fifth finger was amputated at the level of the proximal phalange and metacarpal joint. The report further reports that the victim has full functional loss of those fingers. The report also reports that the victim was initially treated at the Kudjip Nazarene Hospital.
   
4. The prisoner has no prior convictions.
   
5. On his allocutus, the prisoner recounted events leading up to the commission of the offence. He left home on 7th March 2011 to work in Tabubil. Whilst in Tabubil, he heard about the victim having extra-marital affairs. When he returned home to Waghi Valley Block in Banz on 29th December 2011, he found in the victim's possession flex cards worth over K300.00, condoms and about 42 phone numbers registered on her mobile phone. The victim fled to Sigmil where she stayed with relatives for a couple of days. On 30th December 2011, he went to Sigmil and spent the night with the victim. On 31st December 2011, they both returned to their home at Waghi Valley Block. At about 7:30 pm, he began questioning the victim about the flex cards, condoms and the numbers on her mobile phone. The victim admitted having an affair with an elementary school teacher, but he did not get angry preferring to take the matter to court for a resolution. Whilst they continued talking, 3 calls were received on the victim's mobile phone. On each occasion, she pretended not to know the male caller. When asked by the third caller who she was with at the time, the victim told the caller that she was with an uncle denying his presence. He then heard the caller saying that her uncle was there to "dress her sore". He asked the victim a number of times about what the phrase "dress her sore" meant, but getting nowhere, he was infuriated and fought with her. That occurred around 9:30 pm. The victim was bigger than him and as they struggled and fought each other they both fell on a bed. When he stood up, he saw an axe nearby so when the victim tried to grab him and get on top of him, he grabbed the axe and cut her two fingers off. The victim was taken to the hospital for medical treatment by her sisters.
   
6. On his allocutus, he also said that; he had been married to the victim for 14 years and until committing the offence, it was a happy marriage; he remitted money to the victim every fortnight for his family's sustenance; and he had a 12 year old child from the marriage who was doing Grade 6 at the Sigmil Primary School. He was concerned about the welfare and education of his child as the victim had abandoned him with no means of support, left home and remarried. He asked for mercy and requested to be placed on probation so that he could look after his child and arrange for compensation to be paid to the victim.
   
7. Mr. Kapi for the prisoner applied for a pre-sentence report to be compiled and filed by the Probation Service, Mt. Hagen Branch which I granted and submissions on sentence were deferred pending the filing of the report. As the compilation and filing of the report was likely to be affected by the lack of time before the close of the circuit, I fixed the matter to return before me for mention and or submissions on sentence on Friday, 26th July 2013 at 9:30 am. The report was not ready as anticipated when the matter returned before me as scheduled on Friday, 26th July 2013 at 9:30 am so I adjourned the matter to the November 2013 circuit in Minj, subject to the compilation and filing of the report by the Probation Service in the meantime and the Court finding time to hear submissions on sentence in Mt. Hagen and the possibility of passing sentence before the commencement of the November 2013 circuit.
   
8. The pre-sentence report was duly compiled and filed by the Probation Service and I am grateful to Ms. Lilly Songoa, Probation Officer for her assistance. The report however does not have any input from the victim or her relatives basically because they failed to attend the Probation Service, Mt. Hagen for interviews when invited on a number of occasions. The Probation Service could not conduct interviews at the homes of the victim and her relatives because of transportation problems. I have considered the report basically because the victim and her relatives were given the opportunity to express their views on the most suitable method of dealing with the prisoner. The report essentially reports that the prisoner is a suitable candidate for probation supervision and therefore recommends that a non-custodial sentence under probation supervision may be appropriate. The reasons given to support the recommendation, amongst other things, are; firstly, the prisoner is a first time offender and has vowed not to re-offend; secondly, the prisoner was so concerned about the welfare and education of his young son given the victim had abandoned him and remarried and living the child with no means of support; thirdly, the prisoner admitted committing the offence, but he was not entirely at fault given the victim's extra-marital conduct had provoked him to commit the offence; and fourthly, the prisoner was prepared to meet a compensation order comprising an amount not exceeding K4,000.00 and 2 pigs which could be settled within 2 weeks of sentence with the assistance of immediate relatives and members of his community.
   
9. I heard submissions on sentence on Thursday, 5th September 2013 at 9:30 am and reserved to pass sentence on the prisoner this morning. This is the sentence of the Court.
   
10. The maximum penalty prescribed for this offence is, subject to Section 19 of the Code, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
    
11. The maximum penalty is usually reserved for the worst sort of cases of unlawful doing grievous bodily harm: see Goli Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653 and Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92.
    

12. It is also settled law that each case must be decided on its own facts: see Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38.

13. The prisoner is from Waghi Valley Block, Banz in the Jiwaka Province and is aged 42 years. He has 2 bush material houses at the Block. His parents reside at Sigmil, Minj and are subsistence farmers. There are 7 siblings in his family consisting of 4 males and 3 females and he is the fifth born. He attained Grade 10 formal education from the Minj Secondary School. After living school, he was employed by Global Constructions as a casual from 1997 to 2002. Until committing this offence, he was employed by Tawep Kamen Investment, a security firm in Tabubil as a security guard. He is a baptized member of the Evangelical Brotherhood Church. The prisoner has been in custody since his arrest on Monday, 24th September 2012. He has been in custody for 11 months, 3 weeks and 3 days. He was committed to stand trial in the National Court on 18th April 2013.

14. In mitigation, Ms. Job of counsel for the prisoner submitted that:

1. the prisoner was a first offender;
2. the prisoner expressed genuine remorse;
3. the prisoner admitted committing the offence in the Record of Interview and during his allocutus;
4. the prisoner was willing to pay compensation comprising K4,000.00 cash and 2 pigs; and
5. there was provocation.
   

15. Ms. Job referred me to two cases by way of comparison namely, The State v Darius Taulo (2001) N2034 and The State v Lucy Kar (2011) N4719.

16. In Darius Taulo, the prisoner had a history of beating up his wife who was the victim over a number of years prior to being charged. Those beatings were very serious and near death experiences. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, the prisoner was sentenced to three years imprisonment in hard labour. However, the whole of the sentence was suspended with strict conditions applying including the prisoner; entering into a recognizance with a surety of Five Hundred Kina to be of good behaviour for the suspended period; abstaining from alcohol consumption; abstaining from assaulting his wife in any way and rendering free community service to a designated public institution. The Court considered that a non custodial sentence was appropriate because the prisoner pleaded guilty; he was a first time offender; he expressed genuine remorse and had already paid compensation; he was willing to pay further compensation in accordance with his wife's custom; it was in the best interest of the children of the marriage; the victim preferred compensation supported by a pre-sentence report; the prisoner was not a danger to society and the society would help to rehabilitate him.

17. In Lucy Kar, the prisoner's husband was involved in a fight with his first wife. The prisoner who was the second wife joined the fight and attacked the first wife from the back. As the victim turned around to see who was attacking her, the prisoner bit her by the nose resulting in the nose being bitten off. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, I imposed a sentence of 3 years in hard labour less the custodial period of 6 weeks. I suspended the remaining term in its entirety on terms.

18. Ms. Job suggested that a sentence of 3 years less the custodial period was appropriate and the remaining term be suspended in its entirety on terms.

19. Ms. Mauta of counsel for the State submitted that the aggravating factors present in this case are:

1. 2 fingers on the victim's left hand were permanently amputated;
2. an axe, being a an offensive weapon was used;
3. the prisoner locked the victim in the room after injuring her; and
4. the offence was prevalent in this region.
   

20. Ms. Mauta referred me to two cases by way of comparison namely, The State v Vincent Naiwa (2004) N2710 and The State v Julie Taupe Kuri, CR No.6 of 2006, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment delivered in Kundiawa in March 2006.

21. In Vincent Naiwa, the prisoner attacked his sister-in-law with a bush knife for no reason at all. She had told her sister, the prisoner's wife, upon her enquiring about the damaged door to the house, that the prisoner had damaged the door to the house in the early hours of the morning to enter the house. The prisoner got angry and attacked the victim. He swung the bush knife at the victim on the left side of her head and when she lifted her left hand to protect herself from being cut on the head, the pointer on the left hand was amputated and the tall man and ring fingers were also lacerated. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, a custodial sentence of 5 years was imposed.

22. In Julie Taupe Kuri, on a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, the prisoner pleaded guilty to having attacked the victim, her husband with a bush knife causing serious wounds to his body after suspecting him of having an affair with another woman. A sentence of 7 years in hard labour was imposed.

23. Ms. Mauta suggested that a head sentence of 5 years was appropriate. She submitted that if any part of the sentence were to be suspended, the Court could do so in the exercise of its sentencing discretion.

24. The factors which mitigate the offence are:

1. the prisoner pleaded guilty;
2. the prisoner was the sole attacker;
3. the prisoner had no prior convictions and was a first offender;
4. there was presence of de-facto provocation as opposed to provocation because the incident arose from the prisoner's longstanding suspicion that the victim was involved in extra-marital affairs in his absence;
5. the offence was committed within a domestic setting; and
6. until the offence, the prisoner was of good character.
   

25. On the question of provocation being raised as a mitigating factor, I make these brief observations. Provocation operates as a defence to offences involving assault as an element of the offence charged. The offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm is one such offence. In Chalmers, Weisbrot, Injia, Andrew & Nicol, Criminal Law and Practice in Papua New Guinea, 3rd edition, Lawbook Co, the learned authors relevantly make this commentary about the defence at pp 278-279:

"The overwhelming view in our jurisdiction has been that s.267, had the effect that provocation, as defined in s.266, was, subject to the condition stated in s.267, a defence to a charge of manslaughter, unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, where the death, grievous bodily harm or wounding has been caused by an assault committed by the accused. The Code, in defining those crimes, does not use the word "assault", and does not make an assault a necessary component part of the offence, but the defence of provocation was nevertheless held applicable where the assault was alleged to have in fact an element of the offence charged."

26. In the District Court depositions particularly the Record of Interview conducted in Tok Pisin on 31st October 2012 between the investigator, Detective Constable Robin Bunia and the prisoner and corroborated by Senior Constable John Mangi, the prisoner denied committing the offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm for which he was arrested and charged. In his answers to questions about the incident throughout the interview he merely responded with "bai mi toktok long kot" ("I will tell the Court" in English) or words to that effect. Provocation as a possible defence was not raised. On allocutus, the circumstances described by the prisoner as to why and how he cut the victim's fingers off with an axe could not be viewed as raising provocation as a possible defence. I therefore saw no basis as to why I should, in the exercise of my discretion, reject the guilty plea for equivocality even at the stage of counsel addressing the court on an appropriate sentence for the prisoner. For these reasons, I have rejected provocation raised by the defence as a mitigating factor and instead found that there was de facto provocation. It is a misconception to raise provocation as a mitigating factor when it is actually a defence.

27. The prisoner did not express remorse nor did he cooperate with police investigations. Contrary to the prisoner's submission, the prisoner did not make any admission in the Record of Interview. These are neutral factors.

28. The offer to pay compensation after conviction is not a mitigating factor.

29. I have considered the welfare of the prisoner's son, but I have treated it with caution in the light of the principles in The Public Prosecutor v Vangu'u Ame [1983] PNGLR 424 and Ivoro Kaumin Lupu v The State, SCRA No.2 of 1997, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment dated 13 June 1997. In Vangu'u Ame, the Supreme Court said that the effect a custodial sentence might have on the welfare of children should not be allowed to outweigh the seriousness of the offence. In Ivoro Kaumin Lupu, the Supreme Court said that whilst the welfare of loved ones such as wives, children and parents is an important mitigating factor, it was becoming a lame excuse and should be treated with caution because an offender should think about the consequences of his or her conduct before setting out to commit a serious offence.

30. The factors which aggravate the offence are:

1. two fingers of the victim's left hand were permanently amputated;
2. an axe, being an offensive weapon was used;
3. each finger was cut off separately;
4. the prisoner locked the victim in the room despite her injuries;
5. the offence was prevalent; and

6. the prisoner is an educated adult male to tell what is right from wrong.

31. As can be seen above, the number of factors in mitigation are equal to those in aggravation. However, I think by comparison, the factors in aggravation actually outweigh those in mitigation.

32. I am satisfied however that the present case does not fall within the worst category of unlawful doing grievous bodily harm cases.

33. In considering an appropriate sentence for the prisoner, I have also considered the following cases.

34. In The State v Bob Ananias, CR.1413 of 2003 & CR.1414 of 2003, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of Cannings, J delivered on 20th April 2006, the prisoner believed that two people were sorcerers and made his mother sick. He held them captive then assaulted them. He injured one of them badly by slashing him with a bush knife, injuring his leg and cutting off one finger. The victim was also stabbed in the abdomen and suffered permanent injury. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, a sentence of 3 years was imposed.

35. In The State v Nicodemus Badui (2007) N5055, the prisoner got drunk and went to a house armed with a grass knife. He was angry with someone he suspected of having an affair with his wife. He had an altercation with the occupants of the house during the course of which he severed two of the victim's fingers. The victim also received a cut to a third finger. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, a custodial sentence of 4 years was imposed.

36. In The State v John Komep, CR.300 of 2006, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of David, J delivered on 13 November 2007 at Mendi, the prisoner and the victim were paternal cousins whose fathers were brothers. There was a dispute over a piece of family land over which both claimed an interest. The dispute went for mediation and both of them attended the hearing. The decision was against the prisoner. Aggrieved by the decision, the prisoner pulled out a bush knife and attacked the victim causing injury to his left hand in which the little, ring and middle fingers were amputated. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, I sentenced the prisoner to 5 years imprisonment in hard labour less time spent in pre-trial custody of 3 months and 3 weeks leaving a balance of 4 years, 8 months and 1 week to be served. I suspended 4 years of the remaining term on terms.

37. In The State v Sam Piapin (2009) N3585, the prisoner and the victim were close neighbours. Early one morning, a dispute arose between them over the land along the boundary they shared. At the time, the prisoner had a spade and swung it at the victim. In order to protect herself, the victim put her arms up, but because the spade was swung with so much force, it hit the victim's left arm in particular the ring finger which got severed. On a guilty plea to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm, I sentenced the prisoner to 3 years imprisonment less time spent in custody. Two years of the term was suspended on terms including doing free community work during the period of suspension.

38. In The State v Bill Simai, CR.No. 125 of 2007, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment of David, J delivered on 18 June 2009 at Kundiawa, the prisoner who was the brother of the female victim attacked her with a bush knife over the payment of a debt due and owing to him. In an attempt to fend the bush knife off, all 5 fingers of the victim's left hand were severed. On a guilty plea to a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, I sentenced the prisoner to 5 years imprisonment in hard labour less 2 days he spent in custody leaving 4 years, 11 months and 26 days to be served. I suspended 4 years of the remaining term on terms.

39. In The State v Wan Minimbi, CR No.599 of 2012, Unreported & Unnumbered Judgment delivered by David, J in Mt. Hagen on 19 June 2013, the prisoner was convicted upon pleading guilty to unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to her husband. She was a forty six year old first wife of the victim husband in a polygamous relationship. Early one morning, the prisoner was at the Bank South Pacific, Mt. Hagen ATM when the victim accompanied by his second wife went to withdraw cash. Whilst there, she saw her husband give her bank card to his second wife to withdraw cash. Angered by what she saw, she took out a bush knife from her bag and attacked her husband. The first swing struck the victim on his left leg severing the Achilles tendon. The second swing which was aimed at the victim's head struck the victim on the head, but the force of the swing was reduced when the victim caught the blade with his hands amputating the victim's fourth digit of his right hand as well as causing deep lacerations to both his right and left palms and other fingers. Further attacks by the prisoner were stopped when a police unit parked nearby came to the victim's rescue. I sentenced the prisoner to 4 years imprisonment in hard labour less pre-trial confinement period. I suspended the remaining term on terms including payment of a fine of K1,000.00 and performance of free community service.

40. What is the appropriate sentence for the prisoner? Taking into account all the circumstances of the present case and guided by the aforementioned comparable sentences, I think the appropriate sentence for the prisoner is 4 years imprisonment in hard labour.

41. I will deduct from the head sentence 11 months, 3 weeks and 3 days for pre-trial confinement period leaving the prisoner 3 years and 4 days (the remaining term) to serve.

42. The prisoner will serve the remaining term at the Baisu Correctional Institution.

43. Should I suspend the whole or any part of the remaining term? The power to suspend a sentence conferred by Section 19(1)(d) of the Code is discretionary and should be exercised upon some proper basis: Public Prosecutor v Thomas Vola [1981] PNGLR 412. Some of these principles are set out in Public Prosecutor v William Bruce Tardrew [1986] PNGLR 91 and The State v Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320 which I have considered.

44. In William Bruce Tardrew, the Supreme Court held that suspension of part of a sentence may be appropriate in three broad categories which are not exhaustive and these are:

1. where suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the offender;
2. where suspension will promote the repayment or restitution of stolen money or goods;
3. where imprisonment would cause an excessive degree of suffering to the particular offender, for example, because of bad physical or mental health.
   

45. In Frank Kagai, the court held that persons charged with serious offences may be dealt with by way of suspended sentence by reason of good character and where the court is of the view that there will be no re-offending and/or that the particular individual will be positively damaged by incarceration.

46. The Supreme Court has also held that there can be no suspension of sentence without the support of a pre-sentence report: Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; Edmund Gima and Siune Arnold v The State (2003) SC730; Richard Liri v The State (2007) SC883. In Edmund Gima and Siune Arnold, the Supreme Court also observed that a sentence cannot be suspended without imposing any condition because a suspension of either the whole or any part of it is not an exercise of discretion in leniency, but is a form of punishment. Hence, conditions must be imposed to demonstrate that it is an alternative to punishment within our criminal justice system in appropriate cases.

47. I have mentioned already that the pre-sentence report speaks favourably of the prisoner. The report recommends a non-custodial sentence under probation supervision which I accept. In the exercise of my sentencing discretion under Section 19 of the Code, I will suspend 3 years of the remaining term on terms which I will impose shortly. I consider that suspension will promote the personal deterrence, reformation or rehabilitation of the prisoner.

48. The following conditions shall apply:

1. The prisoner shall be released from custody after serving 4 days of the remaining term.
   
2. The prisoner shall contact the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer after his release from custody by or before 3:00 o'clock on Tuesday, 24th September 2013.
   
3. The prisoner shall report to the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer as and when required by him or her to do so.
   
4. The prisoner shall enter into his own recognizance without surety to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the period of suspension.
   
5. The prisoner shall not change his residential address at Waghi Block, Banz in the Jiwaka Province unless he has given the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer reasonable notice of his intention to do so and the reason for the proposed change.
   
6. Except for reporting to the Probation Service, Mt. Hagen as and when required, the prisoner shall not leave the Jiwaka Province without the permission of the Court during the period of suspension.
   
7. The prisoner shall, for the purpose of the Probation Act, allow a Probation Officer to enter his home during reasonable hours.
   
8. During the period of suspension, the prisoner shall provide free community service of 4 hours per day every government fortnight Friday at the Banz Police Station or at such other institution of the State or the Jiwaka Provincial Government located within the Jiwaka Province requiring the services of the prisoner to be determined and supervised by the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer. The prisoner must obey all instructions from the heads of the institutions where his services will be provided in consultation with the Mt. Hagen Provincial Probation Officer.
   
9. The prisoner shall pay compensation to the victim comprising K4,000.00 cash and a pig valued at not more than K1,000.00 by or before Friday, 18th October 2013.
   
10. The prisoner will be at liberty to apply for a review of any of these terms including the lifting of any of them provided that there is substantial compliance.
    

49. In the event that any one of the above conditions is not complied with, then the prisoner's probation will be breached and he will be arrested and sent to gaol at the Baisu Correctional Institution to serve 3 years of the remaining term which I have suspended.

50. A warrant of commitment shall issue in the above terms forthwith.

Sentenced accordingly.

______________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Prisoner