Police v Peningi [2009] PGDC 50; DC923 (12 June 2009)

DC923

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

COM 453-455 of 08
COM of 09

BETWEEN

Police
Informant

AND

JACOB OKIMBARI PENINGI
Defendant

Madang: J Kaumi
2009: 12th June

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: Hand-up brief – Defendant charged with a total of sixteen charges, fourteen counts of kidnapping for ransom, section 354 (1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Criminal Code of PNG, one count of sexual penetration, section 347(1) (a) of the Criminal Code Act of PNG, one count of Armed Robbery, section 386(1)(2)(a)(b)(c) 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:

R vs. Amo and Anuma [1963] PNGLR 22.
Regina vs. McEachern [1967-68] PNGLR 48
Buckley Yarume vs. Sylvester Euga [1976] Unrept N1476
State vs. Joseph Maino [1977] PNGLR 216
The State vs. Popo [1987] PNGLR 286
The State vs. August Toiamia [1978] N145.
The State vs. Benny Buen Iga [1990] PNGLR 146
State vs. Leo Aiyak [1990] N799,
Liri vs. State [2006] N3110
Bukoya vs. State [2007] SC887 (12/10/07)

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:

First Constable Bill Mohe, for the Informant
Mrs. Meten, for the Defendant

RULING ON DEFENCE NO CASE TO ANSWER SUBMISSION

1. Kaumi, M The defense no case to answer submission is before the Court for ruling.

2. The defendant is charged with the following:-

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

2. 1x count of sexual penetration contravening s.347 (i) (a)

3. 1x count of armed robbery contravening s.386 (1) (2) (a) (b) of CCA

3. The defense 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 7 (Principal Offenders) under the Criminal Code?

4. This court when perusing the Police Hand Up brief bears in mind its role in quasi judicial proceedings such as these committal proceedings

5. It also bears in mind the various National Court authorities on the function, [1] standard of proof to be applied, [2] the purpose of voir dire in the trial proper on the admissibility of Record of Interview and Confessional Statement [3] and the issue of legality of search. [4]

6. This Court is also aware that the Constitutional rights of the defendant will be protected in the trial proper.

7. This Court has considered the evidence of the victims, immediately before, during and after the robbery,

8. Secondly the witness’s statements post robbery in Lae.

9. Lastly the defendant’s confessional statements and record of interview; of particular significance is the Defendant’s Confessional statement; this court is of the opinion that this document is fully compliant with section.94 of the District Court.

10. This court is also aware of that the constitutional rights of the defendant will be protected in the trial proper. [5].

11. This court has considered the evidence of the victims immediately before, during and after the robbery, and the witnesses statements

12. It is on the basis of this document that this court finds there is sufficient evidence on the essential elements of all charges except one.

13. Consequently this court reaches the following findings:-

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

b. Sufficient evidence on one count of Armed Robbery contravening s.386 (1) (2) (a) (b) and commit him as charged for trial at the National Court of Justice.

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

14. The Police have not charged the defendant in tandem with section 7 of the Criminal code hence this Court felt no obligation to address this issue.

15. I now administer Section 96 to the defendant.

___________________

Police Prosecution for the Informant
Public Solicitor for the defendant

1. Hill E R Powles G; Magistrates Manual of Papua New Guinea, Lawbook Co. (2001). Sydney NSW 2009, Liri vs. State [2006] N3110 [17/11/06] Bukoya vs. State [2007] SC887 [12/10/07], Buckley Yarume vs. Sylvester Euga [1976] Unrept N1476
2. Regina vs. McEachern [1967-68] PNGLR 48
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
5. Liri vs. State [2006] N3110