Nuke v Cameron [2008] PGDC 141; DC1018 (11 October 2008)

DC1018

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

DCCr. of 2008

BETWEEN

DAVID NUKE
(Police Informant)

AND

PETER CAMERON
(Defendant)

GOROKA: G. VETUNAWA

2008: August 20
September 03, 09, 10
October 09, 11

RULING ON NO-CASE TO ANSWER SUBMISSION.

Cases Cited
1. State –v- John Wanjil (1997) M 1516
2. Zanette –v- Mill (1962) CLR 458
3. Rosa Angitai –v- The State (1983) PNGLR 185

References

1. Section 17 (2) Motor Traffic Act
   

Counsel
Prosecutor: Henry Biape
Defendant: Roselyn Kot of Warner Shand Lawyers

JUDGEMENT

G Vetunawa (Coram): This is a Criminal Traffic case. The defendant was charged for driving without due care and attention under section 17 (2) Motor Traffic Act. The defendant pleaded not guilty and I proceeded to hear evidence from the Prosecution witnesses. There were five witnesses who testified. At the end of the prosecution case the defendant made a No-Case to Answer Submission. This is now my ruling on the No-Case to Answer Submission.

2. Issue:

In No-Case to Answer Submission the issue is as in the case of State –v- John Wanjil (1997) N 1516, where Acting Justice Lenalia applied that case of Zanette –v- Hill (1962) CLR 458, where Kitto J said;

“The questions whether there is a case to answer arising as it does at the end of the prosecution evidence inchief is simply a question of law, whether the defendant could lawfully be convicted on the evidence as it stands, whether there is to say, there is with respect to every element of the offence some evidence of which if accepted would either prove the elements directly or enable its existence to be inferred. That is a question to be carefully distinguished from the question of fact for ultimate decision, namely whether every element of the offence is established to the satisfaction of the tribunal of fact beyond reasonable doubt.”

3. In the Supreme Court Case of Rosa Angitai –v- The State (1983) PNGLR 186, Bredmeya J. said,

“In considering a No-Case to Answer Submission a Judge must consider all the evidence led by the State to final stage that is, all the evidence called to prove the elements of the offence and all the evidence which relates to any self-defence, intoxication, mistakes of facts etc. A Judge is not normally required to give reason on a No-Case to answer Submission.”

4. However, when the defendant is acquitted there is a need for the court to give reason for the acquittal and acceptance of No-Case to answer Submission. This is based on the decision of Bredmayer J in the same case cited above. Where his honour out lined the deferent situations of No-Case Submission as follows:

“Different situation in summary forms are as follows,

1. Reject a No-Case Submission – no reason
   
2. Accept a No-Case Submission and acquit the accused – give reasons.
   
3. Accept a No-Case Submission in relation to one charge but allow the trial to continue in relation to a second charge or a lesser charge open on the indictment – no reasons
   
4. On a joint trial accept the Submission in relation to one accused but reject it in relation to the other – acquit the accused without giving any reasons. Later at the end of the trial of the other accused give reasons for that acquittal.”
   

5. Now I consider my reasons for accepting the No-Case to answer Submission and subsequently acquitting the defendant. The evidence by prosecution witness is so inconsistent that it creates lots of doubt in my mind. The second prosecution witness Lona Philip has given an unreasonable and illogical story about the accident especially when she claimed to have witnessed what had happened when every passengers were thrown out and only she was not thrown out and was watching as the bus in which she was in rolled several times. Logically speaking, there is no time for one rolling with a vehicle to watch what was happening outside. All the human faculties are normally not normal at this moment of rolling with the vehicle.

6. As well as that this is my first traffic case where all the passengers who are alleged to have been in the bus have been attending court sessions. This action showed that they have interest in some kind of compensation from the defendant who is an expatriate businessman. The interest for compensation from such a big businessman could make people to fabricate stories accusing the defendant. Therefore, I am satisfied that the prosecution evidence as it stands does warrant that the defendant has No-Case to answer and thus he be dismissed and case be dismissed and the bail of K100.00 be refunded.

Counsels:

Prosecutor: Henry Biape
Defendant: Roselyn Kot from Warner Shand Lawyers