Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Papua New Guinea District Court |
Papua New Guinea
In the District Court
Held at Waigani
Sitting in its Committal Jurisdiction
Comm. Nos. 1148 of 2019
BETWEEN:
THE POLICE
Informant
AND:
PHILIP KENDE
Defendant
Port Moresby: T. Ganaii
2020: 26th October
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – Two counts of Deprivation of Liberty contrary to section 355(a) of the Criminal Code Act – Prima facie sufficiency of evidence to commit the defendant to stand trial in the National Court - Legal requirements for prima facie case - Presence of the elements of the charges - Evidence is sufficient to commit the defendant to stand trial in the National Court
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – Evidence of touching the complainant without his consent, ordering him to surrender and move out of a shop although for a brief moment
amounts to deprivation of liberty – Evidence of tying of legs and hands and taking away against Complainant’s will amounts
to deprivation - Sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case on the two charges of Deprivation of Liberty
Cases cited
Akia v Francis PGNC 335; N6555
R-v- McEachern [1967-68] PNGLR 48
Maladina v Principal District Magistrate Posain Poloh [2004] PGNC 208
Yarume v Euga [1996] PGNC 24; N1476
Overseas Cse
R v Awang [2004] QCA 152; [2004] 2 QLD R 672
Legislation
Criminal Code Act Chapter 262
District Court Act, Chapter 40
Counsel
Police Prosecutor: Koniu Polon For the Informant
Mr Alois Jerewai For the Defendant
RULING ON SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
26th October 2020
Introduction
Ganaii, SM . This is a ruling on whether a prima facie case is made out within the meaning of Section 95 (1) of the District Courts Act (DCA) where all the evidence of the Prosecution is received in the form of a Police Hand Up Brief (PHUB) and the Court is required to consider
whether it is sufficient to put the defendant on trial. Defence submission is also considered in this ruling.
Charge
2. The defendant is charged with two counts of Deprivation of Liberty under section 355 (a) of the CCA.
4. The charges read as follows:
Count 1 Deprivation of Liberty on the 30th of June 2006
4.2 On the 30th of June 2006 at Arere Street, Tokarara June Valley, NCD, the defendant Philip Kende, 56 years of age, from Sambirigi village, Erave in the SHP did unlawfully confine another namely Mathew Sisimolu at Section 23, Allotment 231, Arere Sreet, Takarara June Valley against his will
Count 2 Deprivation of Liberty on the 15th of June 2019
4.1 On the 15th day of June 2019, at Uni Style Clothing Shop, Vision City Mega Mall, Waigani, NCD, the defendant Philip Kende, 56 years of age, from Sambirigi village, Erave in the SHP did unlawfully confine another namely Mathew Sisimolu in Uni Style Clothing Shop Vision City Mega Mall against his will .
Facts
5. According to the facts contained in the PHUB, the complainant is known to the defendant and his other accomplices namely Philemon
Tuki and Kisa Walama and oethers unknown. They are land owners from Southern Highlands Province and are associated with Petroleum
Resources Gobe Ltd. The complainant was involved in the laying of a criminal charge of fraud against the defendant in 2006 where
the defendant was arrested and charged for fraudulently obtaining monies.
6. In relation to count one Police allege that on the 30th of June 2006, the first act of deprivation occurred. The complainant was at his home at Burns Peak, Hohola. The defendant and others came in a Dyna Truck and approached the complainant. They tied his hands and legs, put him in the truck and took him to Section 23, Allotment 231, Arere Street, Tokarara June Valley They accused the complainant of being involved in sorcery resulting in the death of one of their relatives. He was then forced to sign an agreement for the release of some landowner monies. He was later released at 9pm that night.
7. In relation to count two, on the on the 19th of June 2019, the complainant was in Uni Style Clothing at Vision City Mega Mall trying to purchase some clothing item. He was surrounded by the defendant, his accomplices Philemon Tuki and Kisa Walama and several others of their relatives. They swore at him, held his hands without his consent, pushed him and demanded that he surrender so they will take him out of the shop. At that instant and for a brief moment he was stopped from doing what he wanted to do. He realized he was under attack and so he alerted the security guards who went to his rescue. He went with the guards into the safety of their office and stayed there until his relatives came and he went with them.
Issue
9. The issue before this court is whether a prima facie case is made out and that is whether the evidence received from the prosecution is sufficient to warrant the committal of the defendant
to stand trial at the National Court on the two information laid.
10. The sub-issue is whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence on each elements of the two offences of Deprivation of Liberty under section 355 (a) of the CCA.
The Law
The Law on Committal Proceedings
11. Part VI of the District Courts Act (DCA) provides the legal basis for committal proceedings specifically under Section 94 to Section 100 of the DCA.
12. The Committal Process whilst requires the Court to make a finding on the evidence presented by the Police, this process is very administrative in that the Court need only to form an opinion that there is a bona fide prima facie case against the Defendant; as per Akia v Francis [1]and R-v- McEachern[2].
13. In the matter of Maladina v Principal District Magistrate Posain Poloh [3]His Honour Injia DCJ (as he then was); expressed in his opinion that the Committal process involves two phases, the first is when the Committing Magistrate makes a finding on whether or not there is sufficient evidence and whether a prima facie case is made out under Section 95 of the DCA on whether to discharge or commit the Defendant only after the Court administers an examination of a Defendant under Section 96 where the defendant is asked whether he desires to give evidence.
14. Furthermore, in the case of Yarume v Euga [4]the National Court said in respect to committal hearings that the process of committal requires proper and reasonable assessment of the evidence with a view to see whether all the elements or ingredients of the offence is present before he can commit the accused; Section 94B, 94C, 95 and 100 to be read together.
The law on the offending provision(s)
A person who unlawfully—
(a) confines or detains another in any place against his will; or
(b) deprives another of his personal liberty,
is guilty of a misdemeanour.
Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
Elements
15. In the case of R v Awang [2004] QCA 152; [2004] 2 QLD R 672, Williams JA stated the terms ‘confines’, ‘detains’, ‘deprives’ and ‘liberty’ should
be given their ordinary and natural meaning. He stated that most opposite meaning of ‘liberty’ was ‘the condition
of being able to act in any desired way without restraint or power to do so as one likes’. He went on to state that to ‘deprive’
includes the denial of enjoyment of something and ‘detain’ has a variety of meaning including ‘keep in a confinement’,
‘hold back’, ‘delay’ and ‘stop’.
Prosecution Case
16. To prove its case the Prosecution produced twelve (12) witness statements. The witness statements are of:
(1) Mathew Sisimolu– who is the main complainant. His evidence is that the defendant and others took him away and held him against his will on two different occasions. The first alleged incident happened on the 30th of June 2006 and the second incident occurred on the 19th of June 2019.
(2) Sange Kerire – who is the complainant’s nephew. His evidence is that he was with the complainant at Vision City Mega Mall when the defendant and others surrounded the complainant, assaulted him and pushed him out of the store.
(3) Jeffery Tomo – who is the security officer at Vision City who rescued the complainant.
(4) Steven Eiyu – who is the security officer at Vision City who rescued the complainant.
(5) Israel Jimmy – who is the security officer at Vision City who rescued the complainant
(6) Randy Moses – who is the security officer at Vision City who rescued the complainant
(7) Paul Kiripe – who is a cousin of the complainant. He stated that he was with the defendant and he heard the defendant say that he will kill the complainant..
(8) Akoa Mike Pialia – who is the elder brother of the complainant. His statement is about how he was with the complainant at his house on the 3th of June 2006 when the defendant and others took the complainant away against his will.
(9) Sevanaia Koroi – who is the Security Manager for Vision City Mega Mall. He statement is about obtaining the CCTV footage in the Uni Style Clothing Shop and handing it to the case investigating officer.
(10) Lazarus Ikamata – who is a Police Officer involved in the conduct of the Police interview with the defendant as the interviewer.
(11) Bradley Murrie – who is a Police Officer involved in the conduct of the Police interview with the defendant as the corroborator.
(12) Gilford Avenoma - who is a Police Officer involved in investigations, arrest and charging of the defendant.
Documentary Evidence
17. Police rely on the following documentary evidence:
Defence Submission
18. Defence made submissions relying on a typed submission filed on the 17th of August 2020. A summary of their submission is as follows:
Prosecution Submission:
20. Prosecutions submitted as follows:
Count 1 First act of Deprivation of Liberty on the 30th of June 2006
Count 2 Second act of Deprivation of Liberty on the 19th of June 2019
Analysis of the Evidence and Consideration of Defence Submission:
21. In response to the submissions and the court’s analysis of the evidence, the court responds in the following manner:
Conclusion
22. Upon a requirement under Section 95 (1) of the DCA to make a determination on whether there is some evidence on each element of the offence to make out a prima facie case against the defendant to warrant his committal to the National Court and that is whether there is sufficient evidence on each
element of the offence contained on the Police Hand Up Brief to warrant a committal on each charge as per the Information, I find
sufficient prima facie evidence that Mr. Philip Kende did commit the alleged offences of Deprivation of Liberty under section 355 (a) of the CCA. Consequently, I form a bona fide opinion that there is sufficient evidence against the defendant in order to commit him to stand trial.
Administration of Section 96
23. After the requirements of section 96 were explained to the defendant which he understood, though his lawyer, he opted to remain silent.
24. The ruling on prima facie sufficiency of evidence is intact. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to make out a case against the defendant on two counts of Deprivation of Liberty.
Final Orders
25. The court’s final orders are:
Police Prosecution For the Informant
Jerewai Lawyers For the Defendant
[1] PGNC 335; N6555
[2] [1967-68] PNGLR 48
[3] [2004] PGNC 208
[4] [1996] PGNC 24; N1476
[5] supra
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2020/37.html