Police v Ulur [2020] PGDC 18; DC4074 (12 November 2020)

DC 4074

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION]

WTC No 738 of 2020
BETWEEN

THE POLICE
Informant

AND

SAM ULUR
Defendant

Waigani: S Tanei

2020: 12th of November
      

TRAFFIC OFFENCE – Reckless or Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Injury – s 39(2)(a) – Road Traffic Act 2014

TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Trial – Plea of Not Guilty – Whether the District Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the offence – Reckless or Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Injury is an Indictable Offence – Matter Transferred to Committal Court.

Cases Cited

Kamit v Aus-PNG Research & Resources Impex Ltd [2007] PGNC 4; N3112

References

Legislation

Road Traffic Act 2014
District Courts Act
Interpretation Act

Counsel

Sergeant Emmanuel Bigam, for the Informant

The Defendant in Person

RULING

12^th November 2020

S Tanei: The Defendant, Sam Ulur pleaded not guilty to one count of Reckless or Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Injury on 8^th September 2020.

2. The matter went for trial and trial was concluded on 12^th October 2020.

FACTS:

3. The Defendant, Sam Ulur was charged with one count of Reckless or Dangerous Drivig Causing Bodily Injury under section 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 2014.

4. Police allege that on 5^th August 2020 at around 7.30 am and 8.30 am, Sam Ulur, drove a Motor Vehicle namely a Hino Truck, white in colour, bearing registration number BEN 693 at Bambu Road, Erima, National Capital District. He was driving from 9 Mile towards Erima Settlement when he hit a girl namely Dasi John who was standing on the footpath.

5. Police allege that the Defendant the Defendant drove in a reckless and dangerous manner and as such caused bodily injury to another person.

6. The matter went for trial. Both the Police and the Defendant completed their case and made submissions on liability.

7. During submissions on liability, the Court noted that the Defendant was charged under section 39(2) of the Road Traffic Act 2014. The offence under this provision is an indictable offence.

LEGAL ISSUES

8. The Court is faced with the issue of whether it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

THE LAW

9. Section 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 2014 provides that;

“(2) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street in a reckless or dangerous manner that causes bodily injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K50, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or both.”[emphasis mine]

10. The above provision is clear that the offence under section 39 (2) is an indictable offence.

11. Section 21 of the Interpretation Act provides that;

”An offence–

(a) declared to be treason, crime, misdemeanour or indictable offence; or

(b) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months,

is an indictable offence.”

13. Section 22 of the Interpretation Act provides that;

“An offence that is not an indictable offence is punishable on summary conviction.”

14. In the case of Kamit v Aus-PNG Research & Resources Impex Ltd [2007] PGNC 4; N3112, the Court held that Offences under Sections 6 and 33 of the Central Banking (Foreign Exchange and Gold) Regulation are indictable offences and must be prosecuted on indictment, following committal proceedings.

15. Section 24 (1) of the District Courts Act allows a District Court to Transfer proceedings. It provides that;

(1) Where proceedings have been commenced in a Court, the Court may, at any time before judgement, with or without an application from an interested person for that purpose, for reasons that shall be recorded, make an order staying the proceedings and, on such terms as to it seem just transferring the proceedings for hearing and determination by some other District Court or, if the proceedings are such that they could have been instituted before the National Court in the first instance, by the National Court.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW

16. After careful reading of the law, I find that the offence under section 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 2014 is an Indictable Offence. This is because the provision itself declares that the offence is an indictable offence.

17. Also the penalty prescribed under section 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is beyond the powers of the District Court. It carries a fine of K 50, 000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

18. In addition, pursuant to section 21 of the Interpretation Act, an offence that is declared as an indictable offence and carries a penalty of over 12 months imprisonment is an indictable offence.

19. Furthermore, section 22 of the Interpretation Act provides that an offence can only be tried summarily if it is not an indictable offence.

20. The result of the above findings of the law is that the Traffic Court does not have the power to deal with this matter summarily.

21. I apply the principles in the case of Kamit –v- Aus-PNG Resources Impex Ltd and hold that since the offence under section 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is an Indictable offence, it must be tried on indictment and must follow the Committal Process.

CONCLUSION

22. After due consideration of the Law, I find that section 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 2014 is an indictable offence and as such the District Court sitting as the Traffic Court does not have the power to hear this matter and decide on verdict summarily.

23. Having found that the offence under section 39(2) of the Road Traffic Act is an Indictable Offence and that I do not have the power to decide on verdict in this matter, I use my powers under section 24 of the District Courts Act to stay this proceedings and transfer it to the Committal Court to follow the Committal Process.

COURT ORDERS

24. The following are the formal orders of the Court;

1. Pursuant to section 24 of the District Courts Act, this proceeding is stayed and transferred to the Committal Court.
   
2. Bail is extended for the Defendant.
   

Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions

Lawyer for the Offender: In Person