Every criminal offence has a maximum penalty. This 1979 appeal decided who gets it, and the answer has been quoted in almost every sentencing judgment since.
Goli Golu v The State [1979] PGSC 9; [1979] PNGLR 653; SC172
Supreme Court, Waigani — Raine DCJ, Kearney and Wilson JJ, 14 December 1979. Appeal against sentence.
What happened
A riot between two clans had led to court proceedings at Kwikila. Mr Golu, who had no previous convictions, went to the court house with other members of his clan. Despite a heavy police presence and precautions against weapons, knives were smuggled in. Near the court house Mr Golu ran down and stabbed to death a man he did not know except as a member of the enemy clan, who had come to attend the hearing.
He was convicted of wilful murder after a trial in which provocation and self-defence were rejected. Noting a series of attacks at or near court houses and police stations, the trial judge imposed life imprisonment as retribution and to deter others.
What was argued
Mr Golu argued that life imprisonment, the maximum, was out of proportion to a killing by a first offender in the heat of a clan confrontation, however serious the setting. The State supported the trial judge’s emphasis on deterrence and the sanctity of court precincts.
What the Court decided
1. In sentencing for wilful murder, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment should be reserved for the most serious instances of the offence.
2. The basic principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be strictly proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Veen v The Queen (1979) 53 ALJR 305 approved.
3. Life imprisonment was out of reasonable proportion to the circumstances of this crime, for which a long fixed term was appropriate.
4. Appeal allowed; an effective sentence of thirteen years imprisonment with hard labour substituted.
Wilson J considered separately the circumstances in which life imprisonment is justified, a discussion later developed in Ure Hane v The State [1984] PNGLR 105, where the Court held that the crime, not the offender, must warrant the maximum and attempted to categorise the worst types of wilful murder.
Did it make new law?
Goli Golu did not affirm a National Court decision; it overturned one. It adopted the High Court of Australia’s statement of proportionality in Veen and applied it to the discretion under section 19 of the Criminal Code, which allows a lesser sentence than the maximum. The principle it stated is general: it has since been applied to every offence carrying a maximum, from misappropriation to rape, and not only to homicide.
The decision was handed down a week after Norris v The State, by the same three judges. Read together, the two cases supply the framework for every appeal against sentence: Norris tells the Supreme Court when it may interfere, and Goli Golu tells the sentencing judge where the ceiling lies. Both were decided within five years of Independence and remain unqualified authority.
Why it matters
The first question at sentence is whether the case is a worst-type instance of the offence. If not, the maximum is not available, whatever the need for deterrence.
Deterrence cannot override proportionality. The trial judge’s wish to protect court precincts was legitimate, but it could not justify a penalty out of proportion to what this offender did.
The principle cuts both ways. In 2026 the Supreme Court held that an abuse of office involving K41.8 million of public money was a worst case, so the maximum of two years was not excessive.
What it does not decide
Goli Golu does not say what a worst case looks like; that task fell to Ure Hane and, for homicide generally, to the four-category tariff in Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789. Nor does it decide that life imprisonment is reserved for “dangerous” offenders: Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PNGLR 92 held that the law does not require that.
Recent cases applying it
- Muka v The State [2026] PGSC 65; SC2909 — the maximum for manslaughter is life, but in accordance with Goli Golu it is reserved for the worst cases; the Kovi categories then applied.
- Yafai v The State [2026] PGSC 56; SC2901 — “it is trite that the maximum sentence should be reserved for the worst cases”; the abuse of office in that case fell into that category.
- Kianga v The State [2025] PGSC 118; SC2815 — a heinous killing that was “not necessarily the worst of the worst”; Goli Golu applied alongside Kumbamong.
Sources
- Goli Golu v The State [1979] PGSC 9; [1979] PNGLR 653 (Raine DCJ, Kearney and Wilson JJ, 14 December 1979)
- Criminal Code (Chapter 262) — ss 19, 299
- Ure Hane v The State [1984] PGSC 4; [1984] PNGLR 105; Avia Aihi v The State (No 3) [1982] PGSC 9; [1982] PNGLR 92; Manu Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
- Muka v The State [2026] PGSC 65; SC2909; Yafai v The State [2026] PGSC 56; SC2901; Kianga v The State [2025] PGSC 118; SC2815
A case brief is a summary written by a person, not a substitute for the judgment. Read the judgment itself at the link given, check whether it has since been followed, distinguished or overruled, and get advice before relying on it. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.