![]() |
[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
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
CRIMNAL CASE No. OF 2007
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-v-
NORBERT
MALSOKLEY,
TIMOTHY MALSOKLEY
AND
MICHEL MALSOKLEY
Editor's note: case
number is unavailable.
Coram: Justice Hamlison
Bulu
Counsels: Leon Malantugun for the State
Jacob Kausiama for the
Defendants
Date of Hearing: 27 July 2007
Date of Judgment: 22 August
2007
SENTENCE
INTRODUCTION
This
is the sentence of the three Defendants namely Norbert Malsokley, Timothy
Malsokley and Michel Malsokley. They were charged with
the offence of
intentional homicide contrary to Section 106(b) of the Penal Code Act
[CAP.135].
All the Defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge and the
matter went to trial on Lakatoro, Malekula. On 29 June 2007, the Court
found
them guilty of the offence of intentional homicide.
Section 106(b) of the
Penal Code [CAP.135] provides as follows:-
"(1) No person shall by an unlawful act or omission intentionally cause the death of another person.
(b) If the homicide is premeditated, imprisonment for life.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), premeditation consists of a decision made before the act to make a homicidal attack on a particular person or on any person who may be found or encountered."
This is a very serious
offence on our statute book. It carries a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment.
This is a sad case in which a young man, in his prime, lost
his life in circumstances that could have been
avoided.
FACTS
There is a
history of dispute between the Malsokleys and the Maleres of Walla Rano, North
East Malekula over ownership of certain
land at Walla Rano.
On 6th August
2005 Norbert Malsokley returned to his village after spending the night on the
small island of Walla. On his way home
he noticed that some one had uprooted
some young banana trees that were planted in Timothy Malsokley’s garden, a
very close
uncle of his. He went directly to his uncles home and reported the
incident and wanted to know who is the person responsible. His
uncle told him
that Malere family is the one responsible for causing all the damages in the
garden. Norbert then went to the home
of Michel Malsokley and told him of the
incident.
On 9th August Michel went to see Norbert and they had a long
talk. On returning from his garden Timothy joined them and they talked
about the
damages caused to their garden by the members of Malere family. Norbert then
left for the garden.
On his way he saw the deceased in the cattle fence
near the property. He ran home and told Michel and Timothy about the deceased.
They all went back to where Norbert had seen the deceased. They approached him
with stealth and the deceased did not see them until
they were on him and began
to assault him. Norbert had come up behind the deceased and put his hands around
the deceased’s
body and pinned the deceased’s hands to his body so
that the deceased could not free them. Michel and Timothy assaulted him
by
punching and squeezing his neck. They then carried the deceased to a pig sty
nearby. By the time they arrived at the pig sty he
was already dead. Timothy
then used one end of the rope the deceased had to tie it around the
deceased’s neck and the other
end to one of the posts for the pigs sty.
The rope was pulled tight to an extent that the deceased’s head and the
upper part
of his body were raised off the ground to give an appearance that he
had hanged himself.
SENTENCING
The law is section 106 (b) of the Penal Code Act which I have
referred to earlier in this decision.
The following are elements of the
charge:-
(a) there was a death;
(b) the death was caused by the Defendants;
(c) the death was a result of an unlawful act;
(d) the act was a premeditated act in that before carrying out the act of killing the Defendants had decided to make a homicidal attack on the deceased.
The facts show that all three
Defendants approached the deceased with stealth and purpose. They caught him by
surprise. Norbert had
pinned the deceased’s hands to his body and could
not be used to defend himself. Michel and Timothy assaulted him. Timothy
held
his neck and squeezed it to prevent the deceased getting air in his lungs. When
they took him to a pigs sty nearby and put him
down, the deceased was already
dead.
The offence committed by the Defendants is a very serious offence
in this country attracting the maximum term of life imprisonment.
The value of a
human life cannot be measured. A life has been lost, a family is without one of
its members and it cannot be replaced.
The following cases were referred
to the Court:
PP v. Gideon Massing & Others – CRC 68/05
PP v. Kalopat - CRC 08/87
PP v. Iakis & Ors – CRC 42/94
The
seriousness of this case warrants an immediate custodial sentence for all the
Defendants.
It is their plan. They all carried out the plan. Each helped
the other one in ensuring that the objective, the taking of a life, is
achieved.
This is a brutal and barbaric act. I take into account what the Courts have said
in this area.
In sentencing each and all the Defendants I take into
account what the Defendants’ counsel says in respect of each one, in
particular,
the destruction of their homes, gardens and everything that they had
possessed in retaliation for the death. That however, does not
affect the
serious nature of the offence they have committed.
Timothy Malsokley is
54 years old. The oldest of the three Defendants. It is clear on the facts that
he is regarded as their "smol Dadi",
and clearly in the circumstances of this case, he commanded some authority over
his two other close family members. He should have
shown to the other two family
members a good example of how to resolve a dispute in a community without
recourse to taking away the
life of a young man in his prime. He squeezed the
deceased neck long enough to suffocate him and he passed away immediately
thereafter.
Timothy Malsokley, I sentence you to a term of 17 years
imprisonment. The period already spent in custody is deducted. That leaves
a
balance of 16 years 10 months.
Norbert Malsokley, I sentence you to a
term of 14 years imprisonment. The period already spent in custody is deducted.
That leaves
a balance of 13 years 10 months.
Michel Malsokley, I
sentence you to a term of 14 years imprisonment. The period already spent in
custody is deducted. That leaves
a balance of 13 years 10 months.
DATED at Port-Vila, this 22nd day of
August, 2007
BY THE COURT
Hamlison
BULU
Judge.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback|
Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2007/91.html