Eliab v Tadak [2010] PGDC 6; DC966 (10 March 2010)

DC966

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

Ccr No 07, 08, 09 of 2010

BETWEEN:

GIRI ELIAB
Informant

AND:

PENIAS TADAK
EMMANUEL TANLE
PHILEMON TOIZIK
Defendants

LIHIR: B. TASIKUL
2010: MARCH, 05, 10.

CRIMINAL LAW: Practice-Committal proceeding- Obstructing of a mine- Consideration of the evidences- Discloser of evidences.

CASES CITED:

NIL

REFRENCES:

Criminal Code Act, 1974 s. 447(b)
Districts Court Act, s.96 (1)

RULING

1. B: TASIKUL, SM. This is a committal ruling whereby the three accused appeared before me on charges that each and severally did obstruct the working of a mine, being the Lihir Gold Mine by obstructing machinery, appliances, and apparatus used and essential to the operation of the Lihir Gold Mine and its contractors by trespassing and placing traditional gorgor on the mine and gas field.
   
2. Each and severally are charged pursuant to s. 447(b) of the Criminal Code Act.
   
3. The three accused were charged on three separate information by the police, however, on persuade of the files I found that the evidence on each files were from the same witnesses and also the offence was committed on the same day and time. Therefore, I have decided to make this ruling jointly.
   
4. I am satisfied that the defendants each were served with copies of the investigation files by the police in whom copies were tendered to this court for its consideration.
   
5. According to the files tendered, police obtained statements from six witnesses, including the record of interview from the two investigation officers. The witnesses are Jolam Bart, who is the LGL Security Officer, Dennis Cowen a Manager of LGL Occupational Health Services and Security Department, Sam Gela an LGL Security Officer and Garry Oliver who is the Security Coordinator of LGL.
   
6. The evidence by these witnesses clearly identified the three defendants as traditional leaders who lead trucks full of people, mostly youths from the village and forcefully entered the mine field.
   
7. Upon entering the mine site they placed traditional plant called gorgor in and within the mine and gas field, and as the result all operation within the mine came to a halt. They even went to the extent of assaulting some of the security officers who came to stop them.
   
8. The issue now before me is, whether or not there is any prima facie case against the three accused to stands trial in the National Court.
   

Let me say in this juncture, that the committal court is not a trial court. The committal court is empowered under the District Court Act basically, to diligently enquired into the evidence before it and to satisfied itself whether the evidence adduced by the state against the accused of the offence they are charged with.

9. Section 447 (b) of the Criminal Code Act states:
   

ATTEMPT TO INJURE MINES.

A person who, with intent to injure a mine or to obstruct the working of a mine–

(a) Unlawfully, and otherwise than by an act done underground in the course of working an adjoining mine–

(i) causes water to run into the mine or into a subterranean passage communicating with the mine; o

(ii) obstructs any shaft or passage of the mine; or

(b) unlawfully obstructs the working of any machine, appliance or apparatus appertaining to or used with the mine, whether or not it is completed; or

(c) unlawfully, and with intent to make it useless, injures or unfastens a rope, chain or tackle that is used in the mine or on any way or work appertaining to or used with the mine,

is guilty of a crime.

10. As I have mention above the three of you were amongst a group of landowners who entered the mine site and placed gorgor in and around the mine site.
    
11. As a result of your action, the operation of the Lihir Gold Mine came to a stop. Your action from my view violated the law under s. 447 (b) of the CCA. Your planting of the gorgor have directly interfere with the working of the mine. You did have the intention to close down the mine as your action speaks for itself.
    
12. The question I have to ask myself is whether the evidence before me is sufficient enough to commit each of you to stands trial in the National Court.
    
13. I am of the view that, due to the complexity and the nature of the evidence before me I must therefore order that there is sufficient evidence to commit each one of you to stands trial in the National Court fix for hearing on the 5th of April 2010 at Lihir.
    
14. I must now warn you under s.96 (1) of the District Court Act.