![]() |
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
[Report an error]
[F.A.Q.]
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]
IN
THE SUPREME COURT
OF
THE REPUBLIC OF
VANUATU
Held at
Isangel,
Tanna
(Criminal
Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL CASE No. 03 of 2004
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-v-
JOHNNY KAWIA
Charge:
Intentional Assault resulting in
death,
contrary to
Section 107(d) of the Penal Code Act [CAP.
135]
Coram: Chief Justice
Lunabek
Counsel: Ms Kayleen Tavoa
for the Public Prosecutor
Mr. Jacob
Kausiama for the defendant
Clerk:
Jona Mesau
Date of Plea: 26 May
2004
Sentence: 26 May
2004
SENTENCE
This is the sentence of
the accused, Johnny Kawia. The accused is charged and pleaded guilty to the
offence of Intentional Assault
resulting in death of his wife, Nasuaiu Johnny,
contrary to Section 107(d) of the Penal Code Act [CAP.
135].
The accused is from Imnawe
Village, Tanna. On 18 May 2004, he assaulted Nasuai by kicking her with his
right leg on Nasuai’s
left side abdomen. Nasuai’s body sustained
injury which resulted in her sudden death on the same
date.
On 19 May 2004, Lava Kunar,
the deceased’s father filed a criminal complaint to the police. He did not
witness the fatal incident
causing the death of his daughter. He stated he
wanted that the defendant must be dealt with by the Courts of law and he also
claimed
compensation for the death of his
daughter.
Sena Isaiah is one of
the persons who witnessed directly the fatal incident of 18 May 2004. She filed
a statement to the police on
19 May 2004. The content of Sena’s statement
is not disputed by the defendant. Sena Isaiah is from Imnawei village, Tanna.
She made the statement to confirm what she witnessed which resulted in the death
of the deceased Nasuaiu on 18 May 2004. On 18 May
2004, she stated that at about
17.30 hours, she was with Nasuaiu in the kitchen as they both used to do because
they married the
two (2) brothers (the defendant and his
brother).
At that time of the
afternoon, the ladies were busy preparing the food (nafunu) for the man to take
to the nakamal. At that time,
the defendant, Johnny Kawia was fixing the fence
of his father’s
pigs.
Nasuaiu prepared food in the
saucepan and added coconut milk into the saucepan. She then took the residue of
the mixed coconut to
feed the pigs. It was at that time that her little son
cried. She then returned and attended to her
son.
She took her son and sat with
Sena in the kitchen. Shortly after, Johnny Kawia arrived in the kitchen and
said: “Yu no stap
mekem pikinini i crae.” And at the same time she
said she saw that Johnny kicked Nasuaiu just once on Nausuai’s left
side
while she was sitting and serving food
(nafunu).
After the assault, she
saw Nasuaiu serving food in a plate and the words Nasuaiu said was:
“Mifala i stap karem hemia, be hemi
still stap
crae.”
The defendant’s
mother also was with Sena and Nasuaiu in the kitchen during the assault
incident.
The defendant’s
mother gave to Nasuaiu her other child who is crying. Sena stated that it was at
that time that Nasuaiu felt
on the ground. Sena attempted to massage
Nasuaiu’s body to resuscitate her. She tried but in vain. She died
instantly. Sena
called for help and informed people at nearby nakamal that
Nasuaiu was dead.
Chief Kaolek
Iorau made a statement to the effect that the defendant assaulted his deceased
wife on regular basis. A medical report
from Dr. Fockler of Isangel Hospital,
Tanna, dated 19/05/2004, was
produced.
The defendant, Johnny
Kawia made an admission statement on 24 May 2004, after he surrendered himself
to the police at Isangel, Tanna
for his own security as he feared the relatives
of his deceased wife. He was there on 18 May 2004. He fixed the fence for his
father’s
pigs. He heard his son cried. He got cross. He entered the
kitchen and kicked Nasuaiu on her left side. She died and left behind
her two
sons. One of the sons Nasuaiu had with another man before she married the
defendant in 2002.
Apart form a
little difference as to which side of the deceased’s abdomen was kicked by
the defendant, as he said he kicked
the left side of the deceased’s
abdomen and the medical report seemed to indicate a trauma was on the
deceased’s right
side, the defendant agrees that he assaulted the deceased
on her abdomen on 18 May 2004 and she died almost after the
assault.
The deceased was examined
by the doctor. The conclusions drawn from the examination indicate that Nasuaiu
John died on unnatural premature
death as a result of a blunt trauma to the
right upper area of the abdomen. The trauma caused massive internal hemorrhage
in both
the abdominal cavity and right lung cavity as indicated by positive taps
of these two areas. The findings of the examination are
consistent with trauma
resulting from a kick as described by the witness Sena
Isaiah.
The relevant Sections of
the Penal Code Act [CAP. 135] are set out
below:-
Section 107(d) and 109 are
the relevant provisions of the Penal Code
Act.
Section 107(d)
provides:
“107. No person shall commit intentional assault on the body of another person.
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) if the damage caused results in death, although the offender did not intend to cause such death, imprisonment for 10 years.”
Causing
death is defined under Section 109 as follows:
“109. A person shall be deemed to have caused the death of another person although his act is not the immediate or sole cause of death in any of the following cases-
(a) if he inflicts bodily injury on another person in consequence of which that other person undergoes surgical or medical treatment which causes death. In this case it is immaterial whether the treatment was proper or mistaken, if it was employed in good faith and with common knowledge and skill; but the person inflicting the injury is not deemed to have caused the death if the treatment which was its immediate cause was not employed or was so employed without common knowledge or skill;
(b) if he inflicts bodily injury on another which would not have caused death if the injured person had submitted to proper surgical or medical treatment or had observed proper precautions as to his mode of living;
(c) if by actual or threatened violence he causes such other person to perform an act which causes the death of such person, such act being a means of avoiding such violence which in the circumstances would appear natural to the person whose death is so caused;
(d) if by any act or omission he hastened the death of a person suffering under any disease or injury which apart from such act or omission would have caused death;
(e) if his act or omission would not have caused death unless it had been accompanied by an act or omission of the person killed or of other persons.”
The
facts as admitted show that the accused, Johnny Kawia intentionally assaulted
the deceased wife Nasuaiu Johnny at Imnawe village,
Tanna, on 18 May 2004 by
kicking Nasuaiu on her abdomen while she was sitting and serving
food.
The assault caused
damage/injury to Nasuaiu’s body leading up to massive internal hemorrhage
in her abdominal cavity and right
lung cavity. The damage or injury caused to
Nasuaiu’s body resulted in her death on 18 May 2004. The facts are not in
dispute.
They are admitted by the
defendant.
The defendant is a
first time offender. He is about 25-26 years old. He married with the deceased
sometime in 2002 in a custom marriage
ceremony. The defendant and the deceased
had 1 son and the deceased had a son in a previous relationship. In 2002, after
the marriage
until the fatal incident of 18 May 2004, the defendant and late
Nasuaiu have two (2) children.
In
sentencing the defendant, the Court took all these mitigating factors into
account. However, kicking the belly or abdomen of a
sitting woman is an
aggravating feature. In the present case, there was no provocation whatsoever.
This is not the first time that
the Court deals with a man fatally kicking a
woman on her abdomen. On 19 December 1999, this Court found the accused,
Sheddrack Joseph,
guilty of assaulting his wife by kicking her on her abdomen,
contrary to Section 107(d) of the Penal code Act [CAP. 135]. The Court
convicted
and sentenced the accused to 5 years imprisonment for such an offence. When
sentencing the accused, Johnny Kawia, in the
present case, the Court reminded
him of the statement made in
PP v. Sheddrack
Joseph, Criminal Case No. 4 of
1999.
The
accused, Johnny Kawia, you must now understand that Nasuaiu Johnny, is a woman
and a human being like you. A human being, whether
a woman or a man, is not an
object or an animal to be assaulted as you did on your wife. She deserves your
love, care and protection.
This
type of offence is becoming common now in Vanuatu society and in particular, in
Tanna. This will not be
tolerated.
In sentencing you, I
must bear in mind that it is in the community’s interests that I make sure
that the sentence I impose on
you will have a deterrent effect on you, so that
you will not re-offend.
I also
bear in mind that the kind of sentence to be imposed will serve as a deterrent
to others in the community who might be tempted
to act violently against woman
as you did.
It is my humble
opinion, the offence of intentional assault resulting in death, warrants an
immediate custodial sentence. The maximum
penalty set by Parliament is 10 years
imprisonment.
The appropriate
sentencing guideline is as set out in
PP v. Sheddrack
Joseph and
PP v. Joseph
Malesu and applied by the Court of Appeal
in Richard Ierogen v.
Public Prosecutor in Civil Appeal Case No. 7 of
2002. It is in the following
terms:-
“The sentence to be imposed by the Court, under Section 107(d) of the Penal Code Act, in disputed cases, depends on the particular circumstances and situations of each case.
In situations where the defendant had a weapon (such as a gun, a knife or other dangerous objects) and used it to cause bodily harm to the body of another person and as a result of which the victim died, the sentence to be imposed in a disputed case ranges from 8 to 10 years.
In situations where the defendant uses his fist and legs to cause serious injuries to the body of another person and causes the victim’s death as the result of the injury, the sentence to be imposed is around four (4) to seven (7) years.”
I
have taken into account the mitigating and aggravating features. On balance, it
is my opinion that kicking a woman on her abdomen,
in particular, kicking a
sitted woman who served food for her husband and children and without any
provocation whatsoever, cannot
be out weighted by the mitigating factors placed
before me.
The appropriate
sentence is 4 years
imprisonment.
One third of that
term of sentence of imprisonment be deducted for your guilty
plea.
You have spent a week in
police custody before you appeared for your pleas. That period will be deducted
in your favour.
You are now
convicted of the offence of Intentional Assault, contrary to Section 107(d) of
the Penal Code Act [CAP. 135], and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 22
months.
This sentence is to be
served with immediate effect.
14
days to appeal.
Any claim for
civil compensation, if there is any, has to be properly lodged and pleaded
before the Civil
Court.
Dated at
Isangel, Tanna this
26th
day of May 2004
BY THE COURT
Vincent
LUNABEK
Chief
Justice
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback|
Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2004/72.html