Griffin v Secretary, NJSS [2004] PGDC 23; DC190 (17 November 2004)

DC190

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NJSS APPEAL TRIBUNAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

BETWEEN

Eunice Griffin
Appellant

V

Secretary, NJSS
Respondent

Waigani: P P Poloh
8th And 17th November 2004

Counsel
Appellant in person
B. Koae for the Respondent

POLOH: The Appellant has appealed against the decision of the Secretary of National Judicial and Staff Services dated 6th August 2003.

The penalty was imposed after she was charged for disgraceful or improper conduct contrary to Section 14 (1) of the NJSS Act 1987 as amended reads:

"That you are charged with two counts of forgery to a Bail Certificate and Certificate of Guarantor on the 7111 day of October 2002. You did forge Justice Mogish's signature when you issued Bail Certificate and Certificate of Guarantor".

The Appellant's Notice of Appeal is based on the excessive severity of the punishment.

In support of her appeal, she made her submissions to the Tribunal. Some of her submissions were:

1. The cause of action in these proceedings has been extinguished because Justice Mogish who initiated the charge had pardoned her after she had apologized to him.
   
2. If the NJSS Appeal Tribunal is the proceed with the matter a conflict of interest occurs as to how the Secretary, NJSS obtained its power to charge or pursue the matter unless its disciplinary process especially after Justice Mogish had pardoned her.
   
3. The Judicial Council nor Justice Mogish had specifically instructed Secretary NJSS to pursue the matter through its disciplinary process, after the pardon and resolution of the matter.
   
4. She cannot be punished for the same offence and subjected to the different disciplinary processes. The first one through Justice Mogish and Judicial Council and a second one through the NJSS formal disciplinary process.
   

The other matters, which she urged, the Tribunal to consider were:

1. Admission of the offence and showing remorse.
   
2. Pardon and recommendation letter by Honorable Justice Mogish to the Judicial Council to reconsider the penalties to be excessive.
   
3. Eighteen (18) years of service to the Judiciary and only a breadwinner with two (2) dependants.
   
4. First time offender.
   
5. Medical history of heart problem and continued medication without employment.
   
6. Penalty of dismissed is serve and excessive as the incident was minor, which has been resolved.
   

On the appeal I am satisfied that the Appellant was allowed every opportunity to reply to the charges, which she did. In her reply and explanation she has admitted committing the said offences (2 counts of forgery). The reason why she committed the offence was to stop or prevent her de facto husband from misbehaving. It was intended to control the behavior of the husband.

I have considered the submissions and other consideration by the Appellant. However, I am of the view of the offence (2 counts of forgery) committed by the Appellant are serious.

Forgery is an offence (crime) under Section 462 under the Criminal Code Act. It is a serious offence and an offence against the State. I cannot accept the contention by the Appellant that the incident is a minor one.

In this case the Appellant had forged the signature of the Judge of the National Court (Honourable Justice Mogish) for her own benefit. This is part of her reply to the charge.

"I used the counterfeit documents to threaten him (husband) as a way to demonstrate to him that his behavior had reached the attention of lawful authorities.

I categorically state here that at no stage during this process did I contemplate that my actions would seriously affect or defraud anybody apart from simply frightening Kevin into submitting to and believing that the documents were for real and meant what they were. I purposely did this to subdue his habitual drunkenness and discourteous attitude and behavior".

The Appellant has deliberately done what she did. Her action in my view cannot be excused.

Section 16 (5) of the NJSS Act sets out the penalties that may be imposed by the Secretary in relation to serious disciplinary offences. The Secretary had decided the appropriate penalty for the offence committed by the Appellant was to refer her to the Judicial Council for dismissal. The Secretary has not provided the reason as to how he arrived at the decision. However, on the face of the record the offence is serious.

In the light of what I have said, I find no fault in the Secretary's decision in arriving at the penalty imposed. Accordingly, I will not disturb it. The Appeal is dismissed
.
In Preson: Applicant
B Koae: Respondant