A man was sentenced to death for shooting his adopted son. Five judges of the Supreme Court used his appeal to restate, in one place, what an appellant against conviction and sentence must prove.
Ambrose Lati v The State [2015] PGSC 3; SC1413
Supreme Court, Waigani — Sakora, Davani, Mogish, Cannings and Manuhu JJ, 27 February 2015. SCRA 18 of 2009.
What happened
Early one morning Mr Lati’s adopted son was shot dead. A key State witness, standing beside the deceased, did not see the shot fired but saw Mr Lati come out of the darkness from the spot where it came from. The trial judge accepted that evidence, found that Mr Lati shot the deceased intending to kill him, convicted him of wilful murder and sentenced him to death.
What was argued
Against conviction, Mr Lati said the State witnesses were inconsistent, there was no evidence he possessed a firearm, and the principles on circumstantial evidence had been misapplied. Against sentence, he said the judge had ignored the Supreme Court’s guidelines on when death is appropriate, had found premeditation without evidence, and had treated death as mandatory.
What the Court decided
1. To succeed on an appeal against conviction an appellant must, under section 23 of the Supreme Court Act, establish that the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, that the conviction entailed a wrong decision on a question of law, or that there was a material irregularity in the trial; and the Court must consider that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. John Beng v The State [1977] PNGLR 115 applied.
2. All three grounds failed. There were no material inconsistencies; there was some evidence of a firearm but even without it a conviction was available on circumstantial evidence; and the trial judge properly applied the Pawa principles in concluding that guilt was the only reasonable inference. No miscarriage of justice; appeal against conviction dismissed.
3. To succeed on an appeal against sentence the appellant must show an identifiable error in the exercise of the discretion or a sentence that is manifestly excessive. Norris v The State [1979] PNGLR 605 applied.
4. The judge had taken the sentencing guidelines into account and had not treated death as mandatory. But the finding that the killing was premeditated and planned rested on insufficient evidence; that ground was upheld.
5. A significant error of fact having been shown, and the death penalty being reserved for the worst cases of wilful murder, the Court quashed the death sentence and substituted 30 years’ imprisonment.
Did it make new law?
No National Court decision was affirmed; the trial judgment was upheld on conviction and corrected on sentence. The value of Lati is that a five-judge bench restated the tests from Beng, Pawa, Norris, Goli Golu and Kovi as a single connected framework, and applied the worst-case principle to the death penalty. Since the death penalty was repealed in 2022, its sentencing holding now informs the choice between life and a term of years.
Why it matters
Grounds against conviction should be framed under one of the three section 23 limbs, and the appellant must also address miscarriage of justice.
Circumstantial cases can support wilful murder convictions; the absence of a witness to the fatal act is not fatal to the prosecution.
Findings of fact at sentence must be supported by evidence. An unsupported finding of premeditation is an identifiable error under Norris.
What it does not decide
Lati does not alter the deference given to a trial judge’s assessment of credibility, which later cases continue to treat as a matter on which the trial judge is better placed. Nor does it set a tariff; the 30-year sentence reflected the facts once premeditation was excluded.
Recent cases applying it
- Enaso v The State [2024] PGSC 29; SC2560 — a murder conviction quashed as unsafe, applying Beng and Lati; the applicant was acquitted.
- Bomai v The State [2024] PGSC 30; SC2561 — the section 23 tests from Beng and Lati restated; 25 years for wilful murder affirmed.
- Guli v The State [2022] PGSC 77; SC2272 — once one of the section 23 matters is shown, the Court must then ask whether a miscarriage of justice actually occurred; Lati applying Beng.
- Niakra v The State [2020] PGSC 91; SC1987 — principles “clearly enunciated” from Beng through Lati applied to a circumstantial case; conviction affirmed.
Sources
- Lati v The State [2015] PGSC 3; SC1413 (Sakora, Davani, Mogish, Cannings and Manuhu JJ, 27 February 2015)
- Supreme Court Act (Chapter 37) — ss 23(1), 23(4), 27(4); Criminal Code (Chapter 262) — s 299
- Beng v The State [1977] PGSC 3; [1977] PNGLR 115; Pawa v The State [1981] PGSC 16; [1981] PNGLR 498; Norris v The State [1979] PGSC 18; [1979] PNGLR 605
- Enaso v The State [2024] PGSC 29; SC2560; Bomai v The State [2024] PGSC 30; SC2561; Guli v The State [2022] PGSC 77; SC2272; Niakra v The State [2020] PGSC 91; SC1987
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.