Ban v Popo [2009] PGDC 19; DC916 (27 March 2009)

DC916

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL (COMMITTAL) JURISDICTION

COM 295- 322 of 09
COM 217 of 08

BETWEEN

RAY BAN
Informant

AND

PETER ALLAN POPO
Defendant

Madang: J Kaumi
2009: 27th March

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: Hand-up brief – Defendant charged with a total of thirty charges, fourteen counts of kidnapping for ransom, section 354 (1)(a)(i)(ii) and section 7 of the criminal code of PNG, fourteen counts of Deprivation of liberty, section 355(a) and section 7 of the Criminal Code Act of PNG, one count of sexual penetration, section 347(1) (a) and section 7 of the Criminal Code Act of PNG, one count of Armed Robbery, section 386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) and 7 of the criminal Code Act of PNG-question whether evidence in the hand up brief sufficient to commit the defendant to trial for the charges he stands charged.

Cases cited:

State vs. John Beng [1976] PNGLR 471
State vs. Yakoto Imbuni [1997] N1558

References:

Hill E R Powles G; Magistrates Manual of Papua New Guinea, Lawbook Co. (2001). Sydney NSW 2009.

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act, Chapter 262
District Court Act, Chapter 40

Counsel:

Sergeant Nonao, for the Informant
Mrs. Meten, for the Defendant

1. Kaumi, M This is a ruling on a no case to answer submission by the defendant through counsel, pursuant to section 95 of the District Courts Act.

2. The defendant is charged with the following:-

1. 14x counts of kidnapping contravening section 354(1) (a)(i)(ii)i

2. 14 counts of Deprivation of liberty contravening s.355 (a)

3. 1x count of sexual penetration contravening s.347 (i) (a)

4. 1x count of armed robbery contravening s.386 (1) (2) (a) (b) + s.7 of CCA

Brief Facts

3. The charges arise from the robbery of BSP, Madang which took place from the 04th to the 05th July 2008.

4. The Police in the course of their investigation have compiled a long list of witnesses and exhibits.

5. The court adopts the brief facts of the Police Hand –up brief and therefore will not repeat them all in the summary that is alleged that from 04th to 05th July 2008, the defendant and accomplices associated themselves with William Kapis to hold up the BSP’s manager in Madang, Mr Mathias Manovo and other bank employees and their families at ransom and bank employees and their families at ransom and detaining them against their will, asexually penetrating one Jenifer Passingan in the process thus enabling them to successfully rob the said bank.

NO CASE TO ANSWER

6. The defence no case to answer submission is before the Court for ruling.

ISSUES

7. The court raises two issues:

A. Whether the evidence presented discloses sufficient evidence to put the Defendant on his trial for the offenses for which he is charged?

B. Whether there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the operation of section (Principal Offenders) under the criminal code.

8. This Court when perusing the Police Hand up brief bears in mind its role in committal proceedings [1] and the various Supreme Court authorizes on issue of identification, [2] the purpose of voir dire in the trial proper on the admissibility of Recorded Interviews and confessional statements [3] and the issue of the legality of the search.[4]

9. The court has considered the evidence of the victims immediately before and during and after the robbery.

10. Secondly the witnesses’ statements post robbery in Lae and lastly the defendants Confessional statements and record of interview.

Before robbery

11. Witnesses - Bridget Opu, Kingsford Num, Joseph Oaimu and Ruben Micah

During robbery

12. Witnesses - Mathias Manovo, Grace Manovo, Steven Wapik Kiwan, Cathy Kawage Passingan, and Lawrence Walep

After robbery

13. Witnesses - Stana Koi, Dominic Manua, Ian Wamo, Janet Kumai, Cathy Jeffery, Frank Vauta.

14. In relation to record of interview and confessional statement George Arali, Chris Miria, Jonathan Ansep, Ray Ban, Richard Sibolo, Leo Kakas, Jacob Peningi Okimbari.

15. On the basis of these all these evidence this court reaches the following finding:-

a. Sufficient evidence to on the 14 counts of kidnapping contravening section 354(1)(a)(i)(ii) and commits him as charged for trial at the National Court of Justice;

b. Sufficient evidence on the 14 counts of Deprivation of liberty contravening section 355(a) and commits him as charged for trial at the National Court of Justice;

c. Sufficient evidence on one count of Armed Robbery contravening section 386(1)(2)(a)(b) and 7 of the CCA;

d. Insufficient evidence on one count of sexual penetration contravening s.347 (1) (a) and strike out the charge against the defendant and discharge the defendant of the information.

16. I now administer Section 96 to the defendant.

______________________

Police Prosecution for the Informant
Public Solicitor for the Defendant

1. para 11.2.3 Hill E R Powles G; Magistrate’s Manual of Papua New Guinea, Lawbook Co (2001) Sydney NSW 2009
2. State vs. John Beng [1976] PNGLR 471, State vs. Yakoto Imbuni [1997] N1558
3. R vs. Amo and Anuma [1963] PNGLR 22, State vs. Leo Aiyak [1990] N799, State vs. Joseph Maino [1977] PNGLR 216, The State vs. August Toiamia [1978] N145.
4. The State vs. Popo [1987] PNGLR 286, The State vs. Benny Buen Iga [1990] PNGLR 146