Independent State of Papua New Guinea (Papua New Guinea).

Oceania (Melanesia).

English, Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu.

8,000,000.

Abolitionist de facto.

The last execution was carried out in 1954.

1954.

Hanging.

Executions can be carried out by hanging.

Lethal Injection.

Executions can be carried out by lethal injection.

Shooting.

Executions can be carried out by shooting.

Other.

Executions can be carried out by asphyxiation and electrocution.

According to Amnesty International, there were 20 people on death row at the end of 2020.

(This question was last updated on December 1, 2021.).

No, there is no official moratorium on executions in Papua New Guinea.

The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life “except in execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of an offence for which the penalty of death is prescribed by law.” Additionally, the Constitution specifies that while capital punishment does not contravene the prohibition of inhuman treatment “the manner or the circumstances of the killing may contravene it.”

Murder.

Willful murder—defined as unlawfully killing a person intending to cause his or another person’s death—is punishable by death. The death penalty may only be imposed in the absence of sufficient mitigating or extenuating circumstances. In these cases, premeditation must be proved. Intentionally killing a person due to an accusation of that person practicing sorcery caries the death penalty as an act of willful murder.

Treason.

The punishment for treason is death.

Rape Not Resulting in Death.

Aggravated rape carries the death penalty. Rape is considered aggravated when the accused is armed with a weapon, when perpetrated by more than one person, if it causes grievous bodily harm, or if the victim is a child under 10 years of age.

Robbery Not Resulting in Death.

Robbery is punishable by death if the accused is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument; or is in company with one or more other persons; or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery harms any person.

Other Offenses Resulting in Death.

Piracy may be punished with the death penalty if acts of assault of any person on board or of belonging to the ship, with the intention to cause death, occur. The death penalty may also be applied where a person is wounded, or a perpetrator unlawfully commits any act that may endanger any person’s life. Further, attempted piracy with personal violence or with the intention to commit these acts may receive the death penalty.

Comments.

According to Ume v. State, the death penalty may be imposed as a matter of discretion and only after a judge has factually determined that an aggravated offence was committed, as well as in cases in which mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances do not result in leniency.

Under section 19 of the Criminal Code, a person may be sentenced to life imprisonment or any lesser term instead of the death penalty unless specifically prohibited by law. Further, none of the death-eligible offenses specifically prohibits courts from exercising that discretion. In its decision in Ume v. State in 2006, Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court outlined the history of the death penalty in Papua New Guinea and explained that the death penalty is the maximum penalty for any death-eligible offense, and may not be applied without full consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances of the offense.

Comments.

Under section 19 of the Criminal Code, courts have broad discretion to assign a penalty lesser than death, and none of the death-eligible offenses specifically prohibit a court’s exercise of that discretion. In Ume v. State, Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court outlined the legislative history behind the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty in Papua New Guinea.

Individuals Below Age 18 at Time of Crime.

We did not find a law that excludes individuals below the age of 18 at the time of committing an offense from execution. Nevertheless, the constitution of Papua New Guinea requires courts to consider an array of international instruments and customary law in determining whether a law comports with proper regard for the rights and dignity of individuals. Papua New Guinea has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on the Rights of the Child, which prohibit State parties from imposing death sentences on people under 18.

Pregnant Women.

If a woman sentenced to death is pregnant, she may apply for a stay of execution until after the pregnancy is over.

Mentally Ill.

A person “in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity” that he is unable to understand his actions or unable to control his actions is not criminally liable, and a person who commits an offense due to a delusion is held liable only insofar as the delusion would support criminal liability if it were true.

Intellectually Disabled.

A person “in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity” that he is unable to understand his actions or unable to control his actions is not criminally liable. It is possible that this definition could include intellectual disability. A Supreme Court opinion from 2006 further suggests that “sophistication” and mental capacity beyond mere sanity could be a consideration in sentencing.

Comments.

No one has been executed since 1954.

While it may be unlikely that Ume v. State, decided in 2006, represents a change in jurisprudence in Papua New Guinea, this case outlines a century of legislative and common law development and is the seminal case regarding judicial discretion in Papua New Guinea. In Ume, the Court reduced the death sentences of petitioners; these sentences had been pronounced by a trial court judge who had failed to make adequate factual determinations regarding aggravating factors and who had “completely shut his mind to the existence of any mitigating factors.” The court outlined the legislative history of the death penalty in Papua New Guinea, illustrating that the death penalty in Papua New Guinea is beyond question a discretionary penalty. Because the legislature had not outlined a framework for which cases warrant a death penalty, the Court considered other jurisdictions where a discretionary death penalty exists; the Court determined that the death penalty can apply only for seriously aggravated offenses where mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances are insufficient to suggest leniency is appropriate in light of the gravity of the offense.

In the 2013 case of Erebebe v. State, the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court of Justice found that a nine-year process that might result in a sentence of death—when petitioners were previously sentenced to life imprisonment—did not contravene the Constitutional guarantee of freedom from inhuman treatment. The Court considered the case of Pratt & Morgan v. The Attorney General for Jamaica, which created a presumption that carrying out an execution more than five years after sentencing would be inhuman or degrading punishment. The Court acknowledged, “it is undoubtedly true that the prisoners will have been suffering considerable anguish over the last nine years knowing that the Public Prosecutor seeks that they be sentenced to death.” Nevertheless, the Court distinguished this case from Pratt saying: 1) that the prisoners were not under sentence of death during the nine years, but that a death sentence “has only been a likelihood” for nine years and 2) that petitioners’ mental anguish was not comparable to jurisdictions were executions were taking place.

The Constitution specifies that courts determining whether a law may be applied “in a democratic society that has a proper regard for the rights and dignity of mankind” may look to a number of specific international instruments as well as foreign and international courts, customary law, and other international influences. Essentially, a court determining whether a law is arbitrary or inhuman must consider relevant conventions, jurisprudence and jurisdictions worldwide.

Papua New Guinea acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on July 21, 2008, but it has not yet submitted its first state report, due since 2009.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions visited Papua New Guinea in March 2014. Papua New Guinea had not acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Second Optional Protocol, and its lack of support for the General Assembly resolution on establishing a moratorium on the death penalty was noted. The Special Rapporteur praised the separation of men and women in correctional institutions, that juveniles were generally separated from adults but could interact with them during the day, and that persons under sentence of death at the Bomama prison were housed with other inmates. The Special Rapporteur recommended that the death penalty be abolished and that the government ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.

In 2016, Papua New Guinea underwent its second Universal Periodic Review under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review adopted a report that included concerns over the government’s intent to start imposing the death penalty as a result of high levels of in-country violence, though the de facto moratorium on the death penalty was noted. Several countries recommended that Papua New Guinea ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, maintain the de facto moratorium, confirm that executions would not be resumed, and take steps to implement a de jure moratorium and repeal the death penalty. Papua New Guinea noted, rather than accepted, all recommendations related to the death penalty.

(This question was last updated on April 10, 2019.).

Indigent individuals facing charges punishable by over two years’ imprisonment are provided attorneys by the Public Solicitor’s Office (the Public Defender).

The Constitution mandates that indigent individuals are provided attorneys by the Public Solicitor’s Office (the Public Defender) for appeals regarding an offense punishable by over two years’ imprisonment.

We found no comments on the quality of legal representation.

Capital offenses are tried before the National Court, as it has original jurisdiction over indictable offences. Appeals are from the National Court to the Supreme Court on questions of law, mixed law and fact, and with the Supreme Court’s leave, fact. In criminal cases, appeals are allowed against conviction on a question of law or mixed law and fact. Appeals against a criminal conviction are further allowed on a question of fact or on any ground that the Supreme Court deems sufficient, but only with the Supreme Court’s permission, or with the National Court’s certificate that the case is fit for appeal. A person can also appeal a criminal sentence, unless the sentence is fixed by law. The Supreme Court may set aside a conviction if it is “unsafe or unsatisfactory,” was decided with a wrong determination on a question of law, or if the trial had “material irregularities.” On an appeal against a sentence, the Supreme Court can substitute a more or less severe sentence, or dismiss the appeal. The Public Prosecutor can appeal to the Supreme Court against a trial or appeal sentencing decision of the National Court, and the Supreme Court may vary the sentence from the lower court.

A person must initiate an appeal within 40 days after the date of conviction. For a conviction involving the death penalty, the sentence shall not be carried out until after 40 days after conviction if an appeal is not filed, until after the appeal is determined, or where the application for leave to appeal is refused. An acquittal is not appealable by the prosecutor, who may only appeal to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on a point of law. The Supreme Court may, in special cases, impose a new sentence if it thinks proper and warranted.

Consideration of clemency begins after conviction. The Advisory Committee on the Power of Mercy consists of a lawyer, a medical practitioner with psychiatric experience, a member of Parliament, a religious minister, and a person with experience in community work. At least one of the Committee must be a woman. The Committee investigates a sentencing decision and provides majority and dissenting reports to the National Executive Council, which makes recommendations to the Head of State. The Head of State must exercise the power of mercy in accordance with the advice of the Council.

Papua New Guinea does not have juries. Judges conduct trials.

Police officers reportedly beat detainees and engage in other abusive behavior, which occurs during arrests, interrogation, and pre-trail detention, especially against young detainees. Police have also reportedly raped and sexually abused detained women.

Pre-trial detention reportedly lasts for years, due to slow police investigations, corruption, and interference, as well as shortages of judges and travel funds for court sittings in circuit courts.

There are reports that death row prisoners are housed in Kerevat prison in East New Britain or at Bomana Prison in Port Moresby.

(This question was last updated on April 8, 2019.).

We were unable to ascertain whether death row prisoners are separated from the general prison population. General prison conditions in Papua New Guinea are substandard. Sanitation levels are insufficient, and food rations are scarce. Food shortages caused prison officers at Boram Prison in East Sepik to release 25 prisoners to forage for food in 2018. Problems with ventilation and lighting were also reported in multiple prisons. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been involved in distributing hygiene kits, blankets, and recreational items to police lock ups and prisons. Conditions in Bomana, Papua New Guinea’s largest prison, have reportedly improved under new management since 2017, and there have been reportedly no incidents between prisoners and guards, sanitation is better, and rehabilitation programs have been put in place.

In 2018, prisons faced overcrowding due to lack of court sessions, slow-paced investigations, and restrictions on bail for some crimes. This also may be due to prison closure, such as in Wabag, Enga Province, which was a result of a local land dispute. In January 2019, the prison population, including those in pre-trial detention and on remand, was 5,087. Thirty-five percent of prisoners were pre-trial detainees and remand prisoners, 4.9% were women, and 3.7% were minors, while 0.4% were foreigners. The official prison system capacity was set at 4,366, and prisoners were about 116.5% overcrowded.

Pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners were held in the same prisons but kept in separated cells. Escape attempts by pre-trial detainees were common, in part due to delays in trial processing. For example, during five prison breaks in 2017–2018, 120 prisoners escaped, and nine escapees were fatally shot, though officers apparently did not face disciplinary procedures. In 2017, corrections service officers shot and killed 17 men who attempted to breakout from Buimo jail, in Lae, while in 2016, 12 were killed as approximately 90 men raided Buimo.

Juveniles are kept in separate accommodations and four facilities are dedicated to juveniles. The Roman Catholic Church operates three juvenile reception centers for minors awaiting arraignment before they posted bail, though authorities apparently hold juveniles with adults in police detention centers and sometimes refused detainees access to juvenile court officers. Males and female inmates were reportedly held separately, though facilities for separation are sometimes lacking in rural areas.

Papua New Guinea permits human rights monitors and journalists to visit its prisons: in 2018, it allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit its prisons. It also mandates its own Ombudsman Commission to visit prisons, but it has been reported that Commission does not have adequate resources to carry out its monitoring mandate.

We did not find any reports of foreign nationals on death row. In January 2019, approximately 0.4% of the prison population, around 20 inmates, were foreign nationals.

We did not find reports of foreign nationals held under sentence of death in Papua New Guinea.

In January 2019, approximately 4.9% of the prison population, totaling 5,087, were women. We were unable to confirm if there are women under sentence of death.

We did not find any reports of individuals currently under sentence of death who may have been under the age of 18 at the time the crime. In January 2019, approximately 3.7% of the prison population, totaling 5,087, were under 18.

We did not find any reports regarding ethnic disparities on death row, although there is some potential for cultural disparity. Papua New Guinea is an ethnically and linguistically diverse country, with approximately 850 known spoken languages. While tribal/group conflict-based killing is outlawed, courts consider the reality of this situation in sentencing decisions involving group violence.

Papua New Guinea has instituted changes to the legal framework governing the application of the death penalty, specifically expanding execution methods and offenses that are death-eligible. Even though there has not been an execution since 1954, in 2013, Papua New Guinea amended its Criminal Code Act to include additional methods of execution. In addition to hanging, methods of execution include lethal injection, the administration of anesthetic and deprivation of oxygen, death by firing squad, or electrocution. Papua New Guinea has also instituted legislative changes to the offenses that carry the death penalty. In 2013, the government reinstated laws on the death penalty and included sorcery-related murder, aggravated rape, and robbery with violence in its list of crimes that could incur the death penalty. In February 2015, the Cabinet announced that it had introduced new guidelines for implementation.

These changes were made in the aftermath of several high-profile crimes. In 2013, an American academic—who was in Papua New Guinea conducting research on birds—was gang-raped by nine men armed with rifles and knives while walking with her husband and a guide on Kakar Island and, in the same year, an Australian man was killed and a Filipino woman was gang-raped after their home in the highlands was broken into. The extension of the death penalty received attention and condemnation from the United Nations and Amnesty International.

Papua New Guinea maintains its attachment to the death penalty on the international level, consistently voting against or abstaining from the U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

(This question was last updated on September 10, 2019).

None.

None.

Judgments of the National Court, decisions on appeal before the Supreme Court, and the decisions of other courts can be accessed at http://www.paclii.org/countries/pg.html.

Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Papua New Guinea, https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/country-information-report-papua-new-guinea.pdf, Feb. 10, 2017.

Human Rights Watch, Papua New Guinea Events of 2018, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/papua-new-guinea, 2019.

Mange Matui, Trial Practice and Criminal Procedure in Papua New Guinea, UPNG Press and Bookshop, 2017.