Dii v Ifi [2001] PGDC 20; DC279 (7 May 2001)

DC279

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 97 OF 2001

BETWEEN

Peter Dii, Yani Kulame, Sila Norifo,
Peter Boko and Kombu Ifu
Complainants

and

Mondu Ifi, Victoria Stanley
Defendants

Goroka: Manue F. Magistrate
2001: 24th, 30th April, 07th May

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Manue F. This is a defamation case whereby the Complainants (five male) sued the two female defendants for defamatory Statements made against them as individual members serving in the PNG Royal Constabulary based at Watabung Police Station.

The Complaint was denied and thus it took two days of trial. The particulars of defamatory Statement relied upon by the Complainants is per the Statement to the effect, "Yupela ol dispela polisman long Watabung raun raun lon biknait na kisim braiberi na rausim ol trabol man igo aut long cell".

The Statement in essence accused the Complainants of "bribery and corruption".

Before discussion is made on the law of defamation, I set out the facts that eventuated before these remarks were made.

I set out these facts for the purpose of ascertaining whether, the defendants had a defence, when the Complainants neglected their duties when called upon.

On the 18th November, 2000, four youths armed themselves with bush knives and threatened to injure another youth from the same village. In fear of the threats, a report was made to the Watabung Police Station, where the Complainants were stationed. The defendants and their elders, expected two Police to act on their Complaint.

Meantime, when Police did not attend to it, the four youths injured the victim, who had been threatened earlier.

The culprits were handed to the Police while the injured was admitted to Goroka General Hospital.

The following day, 19th November 2000, a brother relative of the four suspects, accompanied by the five (5) Policemen, now the Complainants drove into Goroka to check on the condition of the victim, as there was a false rumour that the injured victim had died.

On Monday, 20th November, the four (4) suspects were to be escorted to Goroka Police Station, due to the fact that ration was low in stock at Watabung Police Station.
In the process of escorting the suspects into the awaiting Police Van the suspects escaped.

The news over the incident of escape and the visit by the Complainants on the wounded victim got to the defendants and their village relatives. They mobilized, armed themselves and within less than 1 hour, on the morning of 20th November, 2000, they all confronted the Policemen, on duty and made the accusations. They all alleged that the Complainants were bribed by the relative of the suspects, assumably on the night of 19th November 2000 and consequently the suspects were released on the 20th November 2000 at 6:00am.

The defendants were among the whole crowd, who were clearly identified taking part in the accusations.

The Law

Defamation is define as "An imputation concerning a person or a member of his family whether living a dead by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured or likely to be injured in his Profession or trade or that other persons are likely to be induced to show, avoid reducible or despise him".

The means by which a person may be defamed are by spoken words or audible sound etc.

In the instant case, the defendants were among their clan folks and made the remarks to the effect that (in pidgin) "yupela ol dispela polisman long Watabung raun raun long biknait na kisim braiberi na rausim ol trabol man igo aut long cell".

In an ordinary meaning, the Policeman at Watabung were taking bribes and releasing offenders of minor and serious offences.

The wives of the Policemen (Complainants) were present and offended. They took sides with their husbands and argued with the defendants.

Having heard the evidence, of both parties I have come up with the following as facts.

1. The Complainants are all members of Royal Constabulary of Papua New Guinea stationed at Watabung, Police Station whether the complainants were all present or not are irrelevant.

The accusations were made in Public and addressed to Policemen in general, who were based at Watabung, who were based at Watabung Police Station, and thereby covering all members irrespective of their presence.

2. The accusations were false and without foundation. The fact that they accompanied the victims relative to Goroka Hospital to check on the victims condition and not necessary mean that, they (Complainants) were being bribed. Although, the trip was made at night, all the Complainants were with the victims relative. There was nothing sinister in their action. Furthermore, the relative is even from their very own village.

They did not bother to check on him of the reasons for his trip to Goroka.

3. I further find that the accusations were made unfairly. The defendants and their mob did not give an opportunity to the Complainants to explain their trip, nor did they call on the victims relative to explain his reasons in taking the Complainants with him to Goroka.

All they did was out of reasons known to themselves unlawfully and unfairly accused the complainants of bribery.

4. From the evidence, there is no dispute as to whether the defendants made the accusations.

Instead, they tried to shift the blame back to the Complainants for not attending to an earlier Complaint made to them officially.

In my view the issue of the Complainants neglect of duty is isolated from this defamatory action.

I say this as they involve different issues and elements.

Although, the characters of the Complainants were not disclosed in evidence, the fact remains that the complainants are all Policemen stationed at Watabung at the time of the accusations.

They have standing in the community in that many civil and criminal complainants come before them. People see up to them to resolve complaints and or refers the complaints to other law enforcing agencies.

If they were corrupt in their offices, they either would have faced the law or otherwise. Their offices speak for itself. I find that, in holding the office as members of the Constabulary, it commands respect and integrity.

That respect and integrity is easily lost or diminished when the community see them corrupt.

That was what the defendants and their mob did. The accusations discredited their standing and diminished their office.

In awarding damages I took into account, the good standing of the Complainants and should have deltering effects on the defendants and others that may repeat the same action. For the defendants benefits, I took into account that they were villages and were among the crowd who may have motivated what they said.

Although there were attempts of reconciliation of the parties, it never reached any height. The complainants did not accept the compensation offered as means of apology on their part of the defendants. Even if some apology were made that would have been a factor for consideration in assessing damages.

Judgement was entered against the defendants accordingly.

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant