Kavun v Kari [2003] PGDC 21; DC232 (28 February 2003)

DC232

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 77, 78 OF 2002

BETWEEN

Maggie Kavun
Complainant

V

Lynne Kari
First Defendant

Lorna Kari
Second Defendants

Magistrate: Andrew Baigry
2002, 2003: May 09, 23, July 17, August 15, September 12, 23, October 3, 22,
November 19, December 10, 19 2002 and February 13,28,2003.

28th February, 2003.

DECISION

Andrew Baigry - Magistrate under the Defamation Act.

This is a claim for damages

The Complainant claims that the Defendants on the 6th day of February, 2002 at Wewak did falsely and maliciously published in a form of a Complaint and Summons before the Wewak Urban Village Court Statements alleging that,

"Maggie KAVUN yu mas kam long Kot na expleinim long Kot yu bin tok or wokim toktok olsem yu bin lukim Lynne Kari i stap long HAUS bilong Dominic
SAWI tasol bihain long nait yu tok yu saspek tasol". Long dispela toktok tasol yu bagarapim nem bilong Lynne KARI.

Maggie Kavun you must come to Court and explain that you have said you saw Lynne KARI inside Dominic's house but later in the night you said you only suspected her. Because of that, you have spoilt her good name.

The Summons required her to appear at the Wewak Urban Village Court on the 6th February, 2002 but she wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Village Court of her inability to appear because she was taking part in a Guard of Honour that days.

On the 11th December 2002, she was served an Order to appear on the 13th February, 2002 which she complied. The case was called and evidence taken from both sides and the case was dismissed by the Magistrate Joachim Sause because there was no evidence. After that the Defendants told the Complainant that they would Summons her again in the District Court but they did not do so. (This would amount to double jeopardy).

The Complainant summonsed them for defaming her character by reporting her to the Ward Committee, than to the Police and finally to the Village Court and on each occasion failed to successfully make out case against her that it was not true that Lynne was having any relationship with Dominic SAWI.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act defines defamatory matter as, an imputation concerning a person, whether living or dead by which - or a member of his family

(a) the reputation of that person is likely to be Injured; or

(b) he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade; or

(c) other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridiculed or despise him.

In this Case the imputation made in the complaint was likely to injure her reputation as a Police Woman and also would have caused other persons to shun, avoid, ridiculed or despise her.

Section 3 defines defamation as a person who -

(a) by spoken words or audible sounds; or

(b) by words intended to be read by sight or touch; or

(c) by signs, signals, gestures or visible representations publishes a defamatory imputations concerning a person defames that person within the meaning of this Act.

The defendants did by words intended to be read published a defamatory imputation concerning the complainant by the complaint and the Summons raised against her. The same matter was also brought before their Ward Committee and the Police where the truth of the matter was never established by the publishers or Section 4 (c) (ii).

The publication of the matter was not made in good faith because on each of the three occasions the publishers were not able to successfully make out a case every time the Complainant appeared.

I am satisfied that the words written and published in the summons was a defamatory matter within the meaning of the Act and its publication was intended to be read or seen by other persons. The imputation would have caused other persons to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise her.

I therefore, find the Defendants Jointly liable of the claim and order accordingly.