Police v Lucas [2017] PGDC 44; DC3078 (14 July 2017)

DC3078
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

COM 25Of2017

BETWEEN

THE POLICE

Defendant

AND

ROSE LUCAS

Defendant

Goroka: Sani Lorna, Magistrate

2017 :July 14

CRIMINAL - The primary objective of the committal proceedings is to determine whether there is

sufficient evidence to warrant a person accused of an indictable offence is to be sent to trial in the National Court. The proceedings is conducted in accordance to the process outlined under sections 94C (1), 95 & 96 of the District Courts Act, Ch. 40.

In this instance, the case arose out from information laid by a Police Detective Senior Constable Joe Mangre who’s attached to the CID Section of the Goroka Police Headquarters, E.H.P. The Accused is ROSE LUCAS aged 45 years, from Tudaka Village, Magarima District in Hela Province. The deceased is the husband of the accused.

Cases Cited:
Nil

Reference:
Nil

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Informant, In Person

Lawyer for the Defendant, In Person
14^th July, 2017

RULING ON PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

L SANI, Magistrate:It is alleged that on Wednesday the 8^th of March, 2017 at Red-Soil Corner- Watabung District, E.H.P in Papua New Guinea, the Accused namely ROSE LUCAS did kill her husband namely LUCAS MOROPA by swinging a bilum (string bag) which had a kitchen knife in it to the deceased’s chestwhich penetrated into his chest and causing instant death. The accused after seeing that she had killed her husband from the knife that was in herbilum she immediately surrendered to Waterbung Police Station and admitted to the killing. She was then formally arrested, cautioned and charged for ‘Manslaughter’.

CHARGE:

Criminal Law - Section 302 - Manslaughter

A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute willful murder, murder or infanticide is guilty of manslaughter.

Penalty: Subject to section 19, imprisonment for life.

ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGE:

1. A person
2. Date, time
3. Place
4. Unlawfully
5. Did kill
6. In circumstances constituting willful murder
7. Deceased – Lucas Moropa
   

A person – being the accused namely Rose Lucas. She was identified by Birida Demos

Date, time –On the 8^th of March, 2017. Time: about 9:00 pm – witness BiridaDemos’s statement. Confirmed by the accused Rose Lucas in the R.O.I.

Place – At red soil – Watabungin Goroka, E.H.P – witness Birida’s statement. Confirmed in accused’s admission in the R.O.I.

Unlawfully– Birida Demos eye-witness in her statement - The accused namely Rose Lucas swung the bag which had a kitchen-knife in it to her husband/deceased’s chest which killed him instantly.

Did Kill -Birida Demos saw Rose Lucas swung the bag which had the kitchen knife to the deceased’s chest penetrating it, the deceased fell down and took a deep breath and died instantly. Birida’s statement is supported by the accused Rose’s admission in her Answer to Q15 in the R.O.I.

In circumstances constituting willful murder – Witness Birida Demos - In the cause of argument, it is obvious from the facts surrounding the offence that the accused Rose Lucas did use the string bag which had the kitchen knife inside and swung the bag straight at her husband/deceased’s chest causing his instant death. She retaliated quickly and took revenge after being hit with an empty bottle of beer on her eye-brow. Birida’s statement is supported by the Accused’s (Rose Lucas) answers for Q15, 16 & 17 in the Record of Interview.

Death – Witness Birida Demos’sstatement identified Lucas Moropa fell down and gave a deep breath and died instantly after he was stabbed by the accused wife Rose Lucas Moropa.

Assessment of Evidence: (Analysis)

Whether the Prosecution to the court’s opinion has made a “Prima-Facie” case against the accused to have her stand trial in the National Court?

The evidence shows manslaughterby accident.One eye-witness evidence is called namely Birida Demos. Her evidence is credible. It establishes all the elements of the charge.Other material evidence is the kitchen knife which was in the bag when the accused Rose swung it at the husband that cut the deceased in his chest. The Prosecution is relying on the accused’s admission in the R.O.I.Other material evidence such as– list of documents and exhibits,post-mortem report, photographs, other witness apart from only one eye-witness, etc., are not listed.The exhibits namely bilum with the kitchen knife tendered to court is sufficient to support the circumstances in which the killing took place. Although the exhibit is not known to Rose (accused) as stated in the R.O.I, it is the matter for the trial court.

COURT FINDINGS:

The evidence of only one (1) eye-witness namely Birida Demos, supported with other material evidence and her admission in the Record of Interview confirm and establish all the elements of the charge which establishes a “Prima-facie case” against the accused to answer in the trial court.

Record of Interview:

The Record of Interview conscientiously but need to be done with care in future.

Criminal Law and procedure:(Reminder to the Informant)

Be it remembered that when an accused surrenders him or herself to the law does not mean that their Access Rights to the full protection of the law is denied. They must be given equal protection as the one is arrested. Section 37 (3) (4) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) & (f) of the Constitution spells out these rights. In addition to that Sections 42 (2) (b) & (c) must be administered fully with care as these rights are mandatory.For future purposesit is important to mention here that other material evidence is a result of thorough investigation. It carries the weight to support the Elements of the Charge that makes out a“Prima-facie” case for the defendant to answer in the National Court.

CONCLUSION: (RULING)

Finally, the test is whether in the court’s opinion in good faith there is a “Sufficient Prima-Facie Case” against the defendant? R –v- McEachern (1967-1968) PNGLR 48.

Based on the foregoing Assessment and Analysis of the Prosecution Evidence, and in administering Section 95 & 96 of the District Court Act, Ch. No. 40, I have found in my opinion, that there is “SufficientEvidence” to establish a “Prima-Facie Case”against defendant to answer in the National Court.
Section 96: Accused to be asked whether he desires to give evidence. Court administered s. 96 of the District Court Act. Ch. 40 to the defendant in pidgin language.

Defendant – Rose Lucas says and I quote: “Mi gat sotplatoktok, mi nogatplantitoktoktasolbai mi mekim long National Court. Emtasol.”English version: “I have a short statement, I don’t have much to say but I will say it in the National Court”.

Court: Accused/defendant wishes to remain silent until she gets to the National Court.

COURT ORDERS:

1. Defendant has a case to answer in the National Court.
2. Defendant is committed to stand trial in the National Court.
3. The case is transferred to the National Court in Goroka.
4. Date and time to be set by the A/Registrar of the National Court for call-over.
5. Court Bail is not considered in the Committal Court.
6. Defendant to be remanded in CS Bihute.
7. Remand Warrant to be issued forthwith.