PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Papua New Guinea District Court

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Papua New Guinea District Court >> 2007 >> [2007] PGDC 49

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

State v Tumbui [2007] PGDC 49; DC559 (26 March 2007)

DC559


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE SITTING
IN ITS GRADE FIVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]


GFCr 101 OF 2007


BETWEEN


STATE
Informant


AND


PATRICIA TUMBUI
Defendant


Wewak: D Susame
2007: 26 March


CRIMINAL LAW- Unlawful Assault s 6(3) Summary Offences Act.


Verdict: 1. The allegation of pulling of basket not proved.
The allegation of pulling of defendant by her shirt proved.
Charge is sustained.


Cases Cited
No case cited


References


Counsel
Police Prosecutor, Sergeant Willie Ramiaul, For The State
Defendant in Person


26 March 2007


DECISION


D Susame: The Defendant is charged for unlawfully assaulting Joyce Goina under s 6 (3) of the Summary Offence Act.


2. The alleged incident occurred on 2 February, 2007.


3. The police brief statement of facts alleges that the defendant pulled the complainant’s shirt and basket at the auxiliary police base in town.


4. The facts are that Joyce Goina was inside Tang Mow Groceries Shop shopping. The defendant saw her and questioned her of her money which Joyce had obtained on credit and which defendant claimed was outstanding.


5. An argument started in the shop and proceeded outside the shop to the Auxiliary base. It was during the argument Joyce alleges that defendant assault her.


6. The defendant had denied assaulting the complainant in the manner alleged, hence this trial.


7. Evidence was heard from witnesses Joyce Goina and Gima Baramun for the prosecution and two auxiliary Constables, Simon Naku and George Sale, both appeared as defence witnesses.


8. Defendant chose not to testify as was her right under the Constitution.


9. The complainant gave evidence that as they both descended the steps of the shop she felt defendant pulling her basket. Then again as they were at the police station counter, during their argument, the defendant held her by the arm of the shirt.


10. Witness Gima Baramun who was at the service counter also gave evidence of seeing defendant pulling Joyce’s shirt.


11. Defendant and witness Simon Naku disputed seeing Gima at the police station.


12. I have observed the demeanour of witness Gima Baramun. She gave a detail account of what she was doing when she walked over to the station. She mentions and identifies police personals that were at the station including witness Simon Naku. She gave evidence of what she did and confirms police woman Doreen had to intervene to stop both women arguing at the station. I have no reason to doubt her presence at the station. She gave evidence of what she witnessed at the police station.


13. Auxiliary Constable Simon Naku was the one who first attended to the complaint at the service counter. He gave evidence of both women arguing. He said there was no fight nor did he see defendant pulling Joyce’s shirt. He said because their argument was over a civil debt the police directed the defendant to take up a Court Summons and told the two women to leave.


14. Witness George Sale gave evidence that although he was present at the station when the two women were arguing up at the duty counter, he was not able to tell the Court if there was any pulling. He said he was down on the ground when the two women were arguing. He went up to the duty counter some time after.


15. The fundamental question now is whether on the prosecution’s evidence the defendant is guilty of assaulting the complainant.


16. The Court has considered the evidence prosecution has adduced.


17. I have observed the demeanour of Joyce Goina who gave evidence on Oath. She appeared convincing and sincere in her account of what occurred. To me she appeared to be truthful.


18. Her testimony was well corroborated by Gima, however I am not convinced that defendant had pulled the complainant’ basket as they were leaving the shop. Nonetheless, I have no doubt in my mind that defendant in the course of their argument had reached out and pulled the complainant’s shirt.


19. The Court therefore enters a verdict for the prosecution.


Police Sergeant, For the State, Sergeant Ramiaul
Defendant In Person


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2007/49.html