Piriruho v Komurake [2007] PGDC 65; DC599 (16 May 2007)

DC599

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

DCCr NO 475 OF 2006

BETWEEN

CONSTABLE GIBSON PIRIRUHO
Informant

AND

LOUIS KOMURAKE
Defendant

Buka: D Maliku
2007: 16 May

Matter for bail application, pursuant to s 6 of the Bail Act.

Cases Cited
Nil

Reference
Bail Act
Criminal Code (Sexual Offences and Crimes against Children) Act

Counsel
Senior Constable Ratavi for the Informant
Mr. Edward Latu, for the Defendant

REASON FOR REFUSAL OF BAIL APPLICATION

1. D Maliku: The defendant was charged for having committed rape on a female namely Phidelma Aruvi without her consent on the 15th September 2006. The charge was laid under s 347 (1) of Criminal Code (Sexual Offences and Crimes against Children) Act of 2002.

2. The substantive matter came before me today as well as the application for Bail by the applicant. The applicant was represented by Mr. Latu of Latu Lawyers here in Buka. I have adjourned the substantive matter for decision on the 30th of May 2007 and proceeded to hear this application, which I refused bail to be granted and said to give my reason in writing which I do so now.

3. The application was laid under s 6 of the Bail Act which I am very well familiar with. It says application of Bail may be heard at anytime, and there is also s 9 of Bail Act which says Bail not to be refused except on certain grounds, which I have also considered.

4. The applicant has divided his application into two (2) parts. Part one (1) being Particulars of applicant and part two (2) particulars of the charge.

5. I have no problem with part one (1) of the application but do have problems with part two (2). It appears that the applicant had confused himself with an offence under s 229 A and an offence committed under s 347 which he is charged with. Section 347 in my view is where sexual penetration is had without consent by the victim.

6. In part two (2) of the applicant’s application, the applicant says he is charged with one (1) count of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years under s 229 A of the Criminal Code (Sexual Offence and Crimes Against Children) Act 2002.

7. The information on the charge before the District Court however, is under s 347 (1) Criminal Code (Sexual Offences Crimes against Children) Act and not s 229 A of the same Act.

8. The applicant had obviously misled himself on the offence charged with and had made this application on that position.

9. Having satisfied myself that the applicant was arrested, charged for an offence under s 347 (1) of the Code and not s 229 A of the Code, the right piece of law which of paramount here is s 4 of the Bail Act which says: "Only National Court or Supreme Court may grant bail in certain cases."

10. I emphasis certain cases. In this regard the offence of rape is included in those certain cases as well as others listed in s 4 (b). Being that the law which governs Bail application for the offence of rape, this court therefore does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application hence, the jurisdiction lies with the National Court or Supreme Court.

Prosecutor
Latu Lawyers