Police v Ongugol [2020] PGDC 41; DC5029 (26 October 2020)

DC5029

Papua New Guinea

In the District Court

Held at Waigani

Sitting in its Committal Jurisdiction

Comm. No. 1713 of 2019

BETWEEN:
THE POLICE
Informant

AND:
PAUL ONGUGOL
Defendant

Port Moresby: T. Ganaii
2020: 04^th September; 26^th October

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – Charge - One count of Sexual Penetration contrary to section 229A of the Criminal Code Act

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - Is Police evidence prima facie sufficient to commit the defendant to stand trial in the National Court - Legal requirements for prima facie case - Presence of the elements of the charge - Evidence is sufficient to commit the defendant to stand trial in the National Court

Cases cited:
Akia v Francis PGNC 335; N6555
Beraro v The State [1989]PNGLR 63
Maladina v Principal District Magistrate Posain Poloh [2004] PGNC 208
R-v- McEachern [1967-68] PNGLR 48
St v Masit [2017 PNGNC 28; N6997 (24^th October 2017)
St v Wabu [1994] PNGLR 498
Yarume v Euga [1996] PGNC 24; N1476

Legislation
Criminal Code Act Chapter 262
District Court Act, Chapter 40

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: Sgt Sangam For the Informant
Mr. David Kayok, Public Solicitors For the defendant

RULING ON SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

04^th September, 26^th 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.

2. The court had administered section 96 of the DCA and will rule on this.

Charge
3. The defendant stands charged with one count Sexual Penetration of a child under the age of 16 years under section 229A of the Criminal Code Act.

Facts
4. The victim is eight (08) years old at the time of commission of the offence and was in Grade One (1) at the Wardstrip Primary School. She resides at Five Mile with her a parents at her grandparent’s house.

5. On the 22^nd day of October 2019, at about 12:30pm, the child complainant finished from school and walked to Unagi Oval. There she met the defendant who told her that he would take her to Five Mile and leave her at her house. The defendant took the child complainant into a PMV bus and they headed to Manu. At Manu, they sat on a lawn and the defendant slept. When he woke up he took the child victim to Gordons and then to Nine Mile.

6. At Nine Mile, the defendant took the child complainant to the back of Nine Mile plaza and into the bushes and up a mountain. He threatened her by saying that there were rascals. He hid her and went away. At nigh the defendant returned and told her to remove her clothes. She didn’t. He then removed her clothes and touched her vagina and anus. He then sexually penetrated the child complainant by inserting his penis into her vagina.

7. The child victim felt pain and didn’t want to do anything as she was scared. She slept in the bushes until day break. At break, the defendant again inserted his penis in to the child complainant’s vagina. After this the child victim wore her clothes and she was walked over to the bus stop. She got on a bus, got off at Five Mile and eventually made her way for home. Before reaching their home, her grandfather Mr. Aisi Baupua was returning home from early morning Eucharistic Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church and found her walking alone Henao Drive towards Sioni Kami Memorial Church. He picked her up and took her home. Her parents had gone to her school early in the morning to look for her. Mr. Baupua called them and informed them that he had found the child complainant.

8. The child complainant then told her parents what had happened to her. She told them that she was being sexually penetrated by the defendant. She told them she knew him and could identify him if she saw him again. The child’s parents took her to Unagi Oval to see if she could identify the defendant. She identified the defendant and showed him to her parents at Unagi Oval. The defendant was apprehended by the child complainant’s father and bystanders was taken to the Police, arrested and charged.

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.

10. The Sub-issue is whether there is sufficient evidence on each element of the offence of sexual penetration of a child under the Age of twelve (12) years, pursuant to section 229A (2) of the CCA.

The Law

The Law on Committal Proceedings

11. Part VI of the District Courts Act provides the legal basis for committal proceedings specifically under Section 94 to Section 100 of the District Courts Act.

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 and the second being when a further finding is made under Section 100 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)

229A. SEXUAL PENETRATION OF A CHILD.

^[5](1) A person who engages in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 years is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2) and (3), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 25 years.

(2) If the child is under the age of 12 years, an offender against Subsection (1) is guilty of a crime and is liable, subject to Section 19, to imprisonment for life.

(3) If, at the time of the offence, there was an existing relationship of trust, authority or dependency between the accused and the child, an offender against Subsection (1) is guilty of a crime, and is liable, subject to Section 19, to imprisonment for life.

Elements

15. The elements of the charge of Sexual Penetration of a child under the age of twelve as per State v Masit [6]are:

(1) the accused engaged in an act of sexual penetration with another person; and

(2) the other person was a child under the age of 16 years.

16. The court also held that in the trial of a child sexual offence, strict proof of age is required. Here such proof was absent, the accused was not found guilty.

Prosecution Case
17. To prove its case, the Prosecution produced four (04) witness statements. The witness statements are of:

(1) MB– who is the child complainant. Her evidence is that the defendant would often approach her at Unagi Oval after school when her parents didn’t pick her up and she was walking home from school. He would give her treats and on other occasions money. He took her on the bus to Manu, and twice to Nine Mile. At Nine Mile, on two different occasions he sexually touched her vagina and anus with his hands on the first occasion. Then on the second occasion he sexually penetrated her vagina.

She described the defendant as an old man, with a swelling black dot on his forehead, short and light skinned. She said she could still remember his face. She often saw him at the Bus Stop area and says he stays at the Bus Stop area. On an occasion he wove to her, sometimes he gave her money like K1.00. She stated that the first time he took her he says his name was John. The second time he took her away he said his name was Paul. She indicated that at night he told her a name but she had forgotten what it was.

(2) Aisi Baupua – who is the child complainant’s maternal grandfather. His evidence is on seeing the child on the road on Henao drive 24 hours after the child had gone missing. He had gone for early morning Eucharistic Mass at St Joseph’s Catholic Church and when returning home found his granddaughter, the child complainant. He took her home and alerted her parents.

(3) Leonitta Aisi – is the child complainant’s mother. Her evidence is that on the night of the date of the alleged incident, i.e. 22^nd October 2019, she was dropped off late from work at 9pm. She leant from her husband that the child complainant had not returned home from school that evening. They searched for her all night and morning at possible places she might be but were unsuccessful until her father, Mr. Aisi Baupua informed them that he had found her.

She also stated that upon questioning the child complainant, the child complainant cried and told them that a light skinned man with beard took her to Nine Mile and sexually penetrated her.

The witness took the child for medical check on the 24^th of October 2019 at the Three Mile Family Support Centre where she was medically examined.

On 28^th October 2019, at about 8:30 am the witness and her husband took the child complainant to Gordons to wait and see if she could identify the defendant. After waiting for an hour or two, the child saw the defendant and pointed him out to her parents. The witness’ husband Mr. Alex Biyang followed the defendant, alerted some boys who then assisted him to apprehend the defendant. Mr. Biyang called the Police who then arrested and charged the defendant.

(4) Alex Biyang – is the child complainant’s father. His evidence is similar to that of his wife’s. Mrs. Leonitta Aisi (above).

(5) Nima Bibiana – is the maternal grandmother of the child complainant. Her evidence is about the child not returning home from school. She stated that the child was found a day after and brought home by her husband Mr. Baupua Aisi. She noticed the child’s uniform was dusty and she had grass and twigs in her hair.

(6) Christine Waure (Jimmy) – is a registered nurse at the Family Support Centre, Port Moresby General Hospital. She stated that on the 24^th of October 2019 she conducted a medical examination on the child complainant. Her observations and findings are contained in a medical report attached.

(7) Samuel Koy – is a Police Officer and his evidence is about taking photographs of crime scenes at Unagi oval, Bus Stop area, along Sogeri Road towards Nine Mile Plaza and Nine Mile Makana, dirt road towards crime scene. He took a total of 12 photographs.

(8) Lineth Namia - is a police officer and corroborator in the conduct of the interview with the defendant.

(9) Adriana Kamasunga – who is a Police Officer and case investigator. She was involved in the investigations, obtaining of statements and conduct of the interview with the defendant.

Documentary Evidence:
18. The Police relied on the following documentary evidence:

1. Record of Interview, both English and pidgin version, dated 04^th November

2019;

2. 12 x original Photographs as follows:
   

Photograph 1 – depicts the child complainant pointing to a scene at Unagi Oval which is the scene where the defendant usually met her;

Photographs 2 and 3 – depicts the child complainant pointing to Bus Stop where she said she was met by the defendant

Photographs 4and 5 – depicts the child complainant pointing to road leading to Sogeri, and off Nine Mile plaza

Photograph 6 – depicts the child complainant pointing toward a hill. Approximately 1.5 km east of Nine Mile Plaza.

Photograph 7 – depicts the child complainant pointing to the hill

Photographs 8- 12 – depicts the child complainant pointing to hill side 1.5 km west of Nine Mile Plaza.

100. Medical Report dated 24^th October 2019, by Nursing Officer Christine Waure of PMGH, indicating the following finding: child was active and talked well; Laceration at labia minora of the vagina, hymen was discontinued, vagina was open 2cm wide; anal examinations revealed lacerations.
     

4. Antecedent Report –records of prior conviction is not considered at this stage. Other particulars showed defendant’s origin to be from Gungre, Kerowagi, Chimbu Province, is 47 years old, married with children, self-employed (does sales of wares and goods for a living) or informal sector business and resides at ATS
   

Defence Submission

19. Defence submitted through a filed written submission as follows:

1. All Police witness statements do not provide conclusive evidence against the defendant. Firstly, the statement of the child complainant shows it contains fluent English. She is 8 years old and in Grade 1. It is incredible that she would give her statement in fluent English. Secondly, that there is no certificate of translation or interpretation in compliance with section 94C of the DCA and case principle enunciated in the case of State v Kai Wabu^[7]. Having such a clause would show that the child witness knows and understood the consequences of giving a statement under oath. As a result it is doubtful that the statement was made by the child. Defence submits that statement was written by someone else and not the child and is not safe for the Courts to rely on.
   
2. Further, defence submitted that in that statement the child said the defendant gave her money and took her out, gave two names that the defendant went by; she did not report to her parents anything about the defendant or what he did or say to her when she followed him on many occasions. Defence submits that the child’s statement is inconsistent on the names, she didn’t know the defendant, couldn’t recall his name, and wrongly identified this defendant.
   

100. It is interesting that a total stranger can befriend an eight year old and take her out on numerous occasions without the child not saying anything. Victim’s evidence is therefore inconclusive and unreliable.
     

4. The second witness Mr. Aisi Baupua does not contain identification evidence and therefore is inconclusive.
   
5. Witness statement of parents of the child showed that when defendant was apprehended the child did not come forward and identify him instead she was upset and emotional and shaking with fear. Showed victim mistakenly identified the defendant.
   
6. Statement of Bibiana Nima does not show identification and is not sufficient to sustain the charge.
   
7. Statements of police officers showed investigations work and conduct of interview. There were no admissions. They mentioned about a CCTV footage however the exhibit is not tendered as part of PHUB.
   
8. Both medical reports are inconsistent with each other. The first report done by Dr. Tracey Mongo dated 23^rd October 2019 was not consistent with sexual penetration or any manipulation of the sexual parts of the child (except that the vagina was red, inflamed and raw).
   
9. The second Medical Report done on the 24^th of October 2019 by POM GH Registered Nursing Officer Christine Waure showed findings consistent with sexual penetration or manipulation of the sexual parts of the child namely that there were lacerations found on the labia minora of the vagina, redness, hymen discontinued, vagina 2 cm wide and on anal examination, was revealed that there was a laceration. The difference is that at paragraph 11 of her affidavit Nurse Waure indicates that she is a specialist nursing officer in dealing with victims of violence and has commenced in this specialty in 20016 making it her third year. She had dealt with up to 200 patients surviving from gender family and sexual violence. Although there are differences in both statements a significant similarity in both is that they mentioned there was redness around the vagina.
   
10. Further, defence submitted that both medical reports differ in case history related to them by the child. One said defendant was asleep when child escaped, and the other did not. Defence submitted that these inconsistencies render reports not credible.
    
11. On the exhibits, defence submitted that the photographs are of little evidentiary value for the following reasons:
    
    • - No specific spots but general views and
    • - show a clear area and no bushes as mentioned in the child complainant’s statement.;
    • - The CCTV footage is not included although mentioned in the Arresting officers statement and makes the investigations incomplete; and
    • - The ROI had no admissions and is unsigned.
      

50. Consequently, defence submitted that there is insufficient evidence and prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case against the defendant from evidence contained in the Police hand up brief.
    

13. The evidence by the victim and other witnesses is inconsistent and not supported by essential exhibit such as the medical reports and other missing exhibits.
    

Prosecution Submission:
20. Prosecutions made oral submissions as follows:

1. Complainant knew the defendant through recognition. Defendant had approached her many times. She had not mistaken his identity.
   
2. She is a child witness but speaks good English, Her statement was obtained in English and she herself wrote her name and understood the oath as told to prosecutor by the case investigator.
   

100. Before the child showed the defendant to the defendant, she gave matching description of defendant as light skinned, old, and named John and then Paul. These were names defendant himself told the child and not as submitted by defence that she was inconsistent with names.
     

4. The 2 different medical reports were made by two different persons hence the difference. Court is to note that corroboration is no longer required.
   
5. Child was missing at night. Where was she? Her story is real for that reason and is not made up.
   
6. On the age of the child, the mother’s evidence is sufficient however there is no such evidence on age in her statement. The court can use the photographs to make out prima facie evidence of age.
   

21. In reply, defence submitted that:

1. Child is under 12 and uses child appropriate language according to her level of understanding. There is need for interpretation which the arresting officer failed to do.
   
2. There is nil clinic book evidence on age which is not correct as there is a clinic book.
   

Analysis of the Evidence and Consideration of Defence Submission:

22. In response to the above submissions in the light of the evidence in the PHUB, the court responds in the following manner:

1. It is true that all other Police witness statements do not provide conclusive evidence against the defendant as crimes of such a nature are never usually committed in full view of the public or other person. Acts that are sexual in nature are usually committed in secrecy and in hiding. Consequent to that usual fact, victims of crimes that are sexual in nature are usually the only witnesses giving direct evidence on identification and act of penetration if that is the case. In this instance, defence rightfully stated that the child was the only witness. But to say that the other witnesses’ do not provide conclusive evidence against the defendant is not fair for the prosecution’s case given the very nature of the alleged offence.
   
2. The statement of the child complainant is contained in fluent English. She is 8 years old and in Grade 1. Prosecutor submitted that from instructions passed on to him by the arresting officer, the child is bright and well-spoken in English, meaning she is a fluent English speaker. That in my view is not admissible evidence as it should rightfully come from the arresting officer in the form of her statement based on her overall and thorough investigations including her interview with the child complainant. If anything, the only time the case officer said anything about how she obtained the child’s statement is at paragraph 2, at page 1 of her statement dated 29^th January 2020 where she said:
   

“...I took the victim’s statement and she described the accused and said he is a known person he normally sees at the Unagi oval bus stop”

100. I accept that the child is educated, is in school, lives in city of Port Moresby and speaks good English. I accept that her statement was made by herself. Defence submission that is incredible that she would give her statement in fluent English is rejected
     

4. Where the defence submitted that that there is no certificate of translation or interpretation in compliance with section 94C of the DCA and case principle enunciated in the case of State v Kai Wabu [1994] PNGLR 498, the court’s view is that the defence is saying two things: firstly, the translation will occur if the child spoke a different language, here she did not. She spoke fluent English, and secondly, requirements in Wabu’s case is to ensure that the child understood the consequences of giving evidence under oath. Court’s view is that due to the age of the child, the Arresting officer must expressly state this in her statement that she explained that to the child. Otherwise, evidence can be rejected. For now, because the child had written her own name, and the court accepts that she speaks and understands English, court can infer that the clause was explained. At trial in order for the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, the child must demonstrate to the court that they understood the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth and what will happen if they told a lie. As is the principle enunciated in the case of Beraro v State^[8].
   
5. Further, due to the above that the child understands and speaks English and wrote her own name on a Police statement with certification clause, I accept that this is evidence to make out prima facie case that the clause would have been explained to her.
   
6. Having such a clause would show that the child witness knows and understood the consequences of giving a statement under oath. Where the defence submits that a result no interpretation clause that is doubtful that the statement was made by the child, I reject that submission that statement was written by someone else and not the child. In the circumstance, where investigator said she obtained the child’s statement, that the child is school aged and is actually attending an urban school, I accept that she spoke good English, and that she wrote her own, name. I do not have any serious doubts at this stage.
   
7. Further, defence submitted that in that statement the child said the defendant gave her money and took her out, gave two names that the defendant went by; she did not report to her parents anything about the defendant or what he did or say to her when she followed him on many occasions. Defence submits that the child’s statement is inconsistent on the names, she didn’t know the defendant, couldn’t recall his name, and wrongly identified this defendant.
   
8. In my view, I read the child’s statement to mean that the names John and Paul were actually told to the child by the defendant himself. It was not that the child gave two different names. I quote from the last paragraph of her statement at page 2, “the first time he took me he said his name is John, that night he took me he said his name is Paul and in the nigh he says his name is ....I forgot”. The child’s evidence cannot be inconsistent due to this as it is what she said the defendant told her.
   
9. Defence submitted that is interesting that a total stranger can befriend a an eight year old and take her out on numerous occasions without the child not saying anything. Child’s evidence is therefore inconclusive and unreliable. Courts response is that the child may have her reason for not telling anyone. It will be a matter for trial on credibility issues.
   
10. Witness statement of parents of the child show that when the defendant was apprehended the child did not come forward and identify him instead she was upset and emotional and shaking with fear thus showing that the victim had mistakenly identified the defendant. Courts view is that the child’s reaction can only be explained by herself properly in trial proper. The only conclusion cannot be that she had mistaken the defendant’s identity. If may be because it reminded her of what had happened, or that she was afraid that her father and the boys may assault the person she was identifying and she feared witnessing that or knowing that would happen. It’s only a guess and would best be left for trial proper.
    
11. Statements of police officers showed investigations work and conduct of interview. There were no admissions. They mentioned about a CCTV footage however the exhibit is not tendered as part of PHUB. Statements of police officers are not complete in many ways for e.g.; the overall investigations and what was involved, e.g.; how child evidence was obtained; exhibits collected, exhibits shown to accused during conduct of interview; etc. etc. It only showed main parts of conduct of ROI and corroboration. There are no admissions so the ROI does not help the police case.
    

50. Both medical reports are inconsistent with each other. The first report done by Dr. Tracey Mongo dated 23^rd October 2019 was not consistent with sexual penetration or any manipulation of the sexual parts of the child (except that the vagina was red, inflamed and raw).
    

13. The second Medical Report done on the 24^th of October 2019 by POM GH Registered Nursing Officer Christine Waure showed findings consistent with sexual penetration or manipulation of the sexual parts of the child namely that there were lacerations found on the labia minora of the vagina, redness, hymen discontinued, vagina 2 cm wide and on anal examination, was revealed that there was a laceration.
    
14. Courts view is that the (difference is at paragraph 11 of her affidavit Nurse Waure indicates that she is a specialist nursing officer in dealing with victims of violence and has commenced in this specialty in 20016 making it her third year. She had dealt with up to 200 patients surviving from gender family and sexual violence. Although there are differences in both statements a significant similarity in both is that they mentioned there was redness around the vagina.
    
15. Further, defence submitted that both medical report differ in case history related to them by the child. One said defendant was asleep when child escaped, and the other did not. Defence submitted that these inconsistencies render reports not credible. Courts view is that the history of the case told to the medical officers does not render the report not credible. The main objective of the report is to ascertain findings as a result of alleged sexual penetration and the reports did that. The history of the case related by the child to the medical officers can be used on credibility issues at trial proper.
    
16. On the exhibits, defence submitted that the photographs are of little evidentiary value for the following reasons: that there no specific spots but general views and picture shows a cleared area and no bushes as mentioned in the child complainant’s statement. The court’s response is the child speak on the photographs at trial. For now, I accept that this is prima facie evidence of the alleged crime scene.
    
17. The CCTV footage is not included although mentioned in the Arresting officers statement and makes the investigations incomplete. Not having the CCTV footage does not affect the other evidence. The Case officer can explain in trial court what she meant by that.
    
18. There is a clinic book on file which shows that the date of birth of the child was on 15^th August 2011 which makes her 08 years old.

Determination/Findings

23. On the relevant issue of whether or not the evidence presented in the Police brief discloses sufficient prima facie evidence to put the defendant on trial for the offence charged and on the basis of the above answers, this court as a result of the performance of its committal function as an investigator into the strength of the case being mounted by prosecution and not as an adjudicator, has assessed the evidence in totality and makes the final finding that there is prima facie sufficient evidence on the essential elements of the charge of Sexual Penetration.

24. I find sufficient prima facie evidence that the defendant did commit the alleged offence of Sexual Penetration. Consequently, I form a bona fide opinion against the defendant that there is sufficient case against him in order to commit him to stand trial for Sexual Penetration contrary to section 229A (2) of the CCA

Conclusion

25. I have made an assessment of the evidence of the Police File and considered the Defence and prosecutions Submission on Sufficiency in the light of the PHUB and I find there to be a prima facie case to put the defendant on trial for the charge of Sexual Penetration of a Child under the age of twelve, pursuant to section 229A (b) of the Criminal Code.

26. The Court proceeded with the Examination of the Defendant in accordance with Section 96 of the District Courts Act.
Administration of Section 96
27. After the requirements of section 96 were explained to the defendant which he understood, he opted through his lawyer to write a statement. The matter was adjourned for a section 96 statement. After consideration of the defendant’s section 96 statement which was filed on the 8^th of September 2020, I consider that the defendant has raised and maintained his defence of general denial and raised an alibi. He also raised concerns about the manner of arrest and conduct of interview. My view is that these are matters for trial proper.

28. The ruling on prima facie sufficiency of evidence is intact. The defendant’s section 96 statement is transmitted to the National Court.

Final Orders

29. The court’s final orders after section 96 statement were filed are:

1. There is sufficient prima facie evidence on the elements of the charge to committed the defendant to stand trial in the National Court on one count of Sexual Penetration contrary to s 229A (2) of the CCA;
   
2. The defendant is committed to stand trial in the National Court on one count Sexual Penetration contrary to s 229A (2) of the CCA;
   
3. The defendant is to appear at the Waigani National Court, Criminal Listings on 16^th November 2020 at 9:30 am;
   
4. The defendant’s District Court Bail is extended on the same conditions and
   
5. Guarantors Anton Onoro and Rodney Ongugol are to appear the National Court on the 16^th of November 2020 for bail review. Both to sign Guarantors’ certificates.
   

Police Prosecution For the Informant
Public Solicitors For the Defendant

---

^[1] PGNC 335; N6555
^[2] [1967-68] PNGLR 48
^[3] [2004] PGNC 208
^[4] [1996] PGNC 24; N1476

5. ^[5]Section 229A of Part IV Inserted by No. 27 of 2002, s. 1.

^[6] [2017] PGNC 284; N6997 (24 October 2017)
^[7] [1994] PNGLR 498
^[8] [1989] PNGLR 63