Simp v State [2002] PGDC 25; DC370 (8 May 2002)

DC370

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 41 OF 2001

BETWEEN

Eva Simp
Complainant

V

The Independent State of Papua New Guinea
Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2001: 29th August,
2002: 8th May

Judgment

This is a claim against the state following an unlawful action of certain Banz based Policemen. It was claimed that on the 18th of February, 1998 two Policemen David Benz and Philip Simp drove into the Complainant’s premises without any search warrant, entered the house with some Banz Rugby League Players and took out Complainant’s TV Screen and Video Deck cassette player valued at K1, 125.00.

The reason given for their action was that, a Philip Simp, brother of the complainant may have used or lost some money belonging to Banz Rugby League Club (about K345.00) so those Policemen were used to confiscate Complainant’s properties to make up for the lost money but without any Court Orders or search warrant. There was no justification to start with.

It is evidence that the properties illegally confiscated illegally were sold out by Police and the complainant never got anything back so she instituted this proceeding.

Since the start of the proceeding and service of the process on the defendant in April, 2000, there were no appearances by or for the defendant. Notice of intention to defend was filed but no defence was filed nor any further action taken, so case proceeded ex parte for defendants.

There were eight affidavits filed by the complainant and the evidence was corroborative in that the Policemen were wrong in taking away the Complainant’s mentioned properties. On the basis of the complainant’s case, I am satisfied that liability was established.

On the issue of quantum, complainant claims K1,200.00 being values of the TV Screen and Video Deck, K1,000.00 in damage for trespass and K1,000.00 for exemplary damage following the recent decision in the case of Mumukrui and Others –vs- J. Wakon and the State by his Honor Hinchliffe J. on 12th March, 2001.

In my view, the claims appeared reasonable under the given circumstance so I have no reason to do otherwise.

I enter judgment for the complainant for a sum of K3,200.00 plus 8% interest on the judgment sum and cost of the proceeding. The 8% interest is to run from date of summons to date of settlement. The judgment debt to be settled by the State.

Tamutai Lawyers: Complainant
Solicitor General: Defendant