Police v Wilson [2009] PGDC 66; DC924 (21 August 2009)

DC924

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

COM 77 of 09

BETWEEN

Police
Informant

AND

DIGGER WILSON
Defendant

Madang: J Kaumi
2009: 21 August

CRIMINAL: Hand – up brief – defendant charged with willful murder contrary to section 299 and section 7 of Criminal Code Act. Defence no case to answer submission, pursuant to section 95(2) of the District Court’s Act under consideration as to answer: whether evidence in the Hand up brief sufficient to commit the defendant to trial for the charge he stands charged.

Cases cited:

The State vs. Tom Morris [1981] PNGLR 493
Liri vs. State N3110

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

INTRODUCTION

1. Kaumi, M This court has considered in the Police Hand up Brief, in particular, Hennie Kami, Richard Pidik, Mark Eris, Richard Galilo, Bertha Kumai, Julie Kurai, Rhonda Galilo and Alvenia Pius.

2. The court considered the evidence that this defendant was constantly being in the company of the deceased on the night of Friday 27th February 2009 right up until the break of dawn at around 6:00 am.

3. From the evidence she was the last person seen with the deceased, Rudolf Pius when he was last seen alive before discovery of his dead body.

4. From the evidence she was with deceased just before he died and later she was seen hiding from her co-accused, Wilson Kanai Mari, her husband.

5. Her actions raise a number of questions in particular,

- what were the reasons for her evasive action after she was last seen with the deceased when he was last seen alive, and secondly and more importantly,

- what happened between the time the deceased, Rudolf Pius was last seen alive with her and the time she was seen evading detection by her husband.

6. Now these are questions that go to the weight, and credibility of witnesses. Indeed questions which can deliberated upon and, adjudicated on in the appropriate forum, the National Court of Justice as this Committal Court is not required to weigh the evidence for its credibility, as it does not have the jurisdiction to determine the guilt of the defendant in the circumstances and can only form its mind as to whether a prima facie case from the evidence does exist – s 95 Distr. Ct Act. [1]

7. The evidence this has referred to is circumstantial in nature but where it is accepted a trial court can convict the defendant.

8. The relevant law on circumstantial evidence is highlighted in the case of State vs. Tom Morris [2].

9. The constitutional rights of the defendant will be protected in the trial proper and corollary to this she will have every opportunity to explain her whereabouts at the material time. [3]

10. The Court therefore finds that there is a prima facie case against the defendant and it commits her for trial for the charge of willful murder of Rudolf Pius on the 28th /02/09 in Madang.

_______________________________

Police Prosecution for the Informant
Public Solicitors for the defendant

1. para 11.2.3 Hill E R Powles G; Magistrates Manual of Papua New Guinea, Lawbook Co. (2001). Sydney NSW 2009.
2. [1981] PNGLR 493
3. Liri vs. State [2006] N3110