State v Wangai [2015] PGDC 14; DC3012 (20 May 2015)

DC3012

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the District Court of Justice sitting in its criminal (Committal) Jurisdiction]

Cr No 08-10 of 2015

BETWEEN

STATE

V

KEITH LAURIE WANGAI
MAREI WANGAI
HENRY BOSSIN
Defendants

BUKA: B.TASIKUL
20^th May, 2015

CRIMINAL LAW: Ruling on similar facts before a committal court-function of the committal Court. It is not necessary to established all element of the offence. It is the duty of the trial Court.

CASES CITED:
State V Paul Kundi Rape [1976] PNGLR96
Review Pursuant to Constitution s.155 (2) (b); Application by Herman Joseph Leahy (2000) SC855

REFERENCE:
Nil

Appearing for the defendants: Mrs. Joyce Maimai of Public Solicitors Office
Appearing for the Prosecution: Sergeant Florence Nohu

RULING ON COMMITTAL PROCEEDING

1. B: TASIKUL a/PM: The defendants each and severally are charged that on the 12^thJanuary,2013 at Bekut Village, Solos, Buka Island did willfully murdered David Gereo Sawa who is a Correction Service Officer. You all are charged under s.299 of the Criminal Code Act.
   
2. As you all were charged separately, the evidence tendered by the prosecution contains substantially and fundamentally the same facts. I will therefore make ruling jointly.
   
3. I have the benefit of reviewing the evidence that was tendered before me by the prosecution.
   
4. As a committal Court my function is to consider the evidence presented by the police and decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to commit all of you to stands trial in the National Court.(see State v Paul Kundi Rape [1976]PNGLR 96.
   
5. I now ask myself this question; whether or not the evidence now adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to commit all of you to stands trial at the National court of Justice.
   
6. According to the evidence presented by the State, police obtained statements from forty-four (44) witnesses, including a record of interviews, photographs and other documentary evidence such as medical reports.
   
7. I do not wish to go through all of the statements by the witnesses, in detail however; I will make reference as to where I think it is necessary.
   
8. It was alleged that on 12^th January, 2013 the deceased was on duty at the Bekut Correction Institution. After he knocks off at 2pm he went to his village. There he had some beer with his colleagues. At about 10pm the deceased left his colleagues and decided to visit his sick son at Pisoko hamlet. He was accompanied by his two colleagues
   
9. As they reached Bekut Primary school, the second defendant Marei Wangai and others left the deceased. The deceased continued walking towards Pisoko hamlet. As he was walking he text Juliet to wait for him on the road. He was drunk and it was about 2.am in the morning. Both Juliet and Angelica came and met the deceased on the main road.
   
10. The three of them were standing on the road when a torch light came towards their direction. They moved to the road side and after sometime Juliet and Angelica left the deceased and went back to their house.
    
11. As Angelica was walking back home she met the first defendant Henry Bossin holding a torch, an iron with cement edges and a can of beer. Thedefendant Bossin then pulls her to a small house and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her. After he satisfies himself the defendant Bossin told the witness to go and have sex with the deceased. The witness went and told the deceased that defendant Bossin was standing some meters away from them, but he wouldn’tbelieveher. The deceased then pull the witness to the same small house and wanted to have sex with her. As the deceased was about to sleep on top of the witness the first defendant Henry Bossin came from the back and swung the iron bar on the deceased nose, and then the second time hit him on the head resulted the deceased instantly died.
    
12. The defendant Henry Bossin then text his brothers the two other defendants who came and carried the deceased body to Barikua junction road. As they carried him they continued bashing him with the iron, timbers and their torches.
    
13. This is according to the three prime witnesses namely, Angelica Tahinen, Juliet Emmanuel Waisani and Sam Tunari Gereo who gave their statements.
    
14. I have consulted other documentary evidence before me in which they are consistent to the statements by the witnesses.
    
15. I noted that there is no medical report or death certificate filed by the police investigators; however, there are photographs of the deceased and the weapon used as consistent to the witnesses statements.
    
16. I now ask myself if this evidence is sufficient to commit you three to stands trial before the National Court.
    
17. From my own assessment of these statements, there is enough evidence to commit the three of you to stands trial, even though in the records of interview you three denied killing the deceased.
    
18. Having said that I must remind myself that it is not my role as committal court to decide whether to accept or challenge this evidence. My role is only to assess and conclude whether there is evidence to commit.
    
19. The supreme Court in the case of an Review Pursuant to Constitution Section 155(2) (b)Application by Herman Joseph Leahy (2006) SC855 unreported Judgment the bench adopted the view by his honor Mogish J held in the National Court as I quote;

That the role of committal magistrate is not to decide whether to dismiss or acquit an accused person charged with an indictable offence or to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The magistrate’s function under Part VI (proceedings in case of indictable offences) of the District Courts Act is to consider whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to put the accused on trial in the National Court.

20. I am therefore satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to commit the three of you defendants to stands trial before the National Court.