Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Papua New Guinea District Court |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION]
B. No. 615 of 2021
CB No. 1033 of 2021
BETWEEN
THE POLICE
Informant
AND
TONY PHILIP
Defendant
Boroko: Seth Tanei
2021: 2nd of September
SUMMARY OFFENCE – Keeping Licensed Premises open for the Sale of Liquor During Prohibited Hours – s 104 (1)(b) – Liquor Licensing Act
SUMMARY OFFENCE- Trial- Keeping Licensed Premised Open for the Sale of Liquor During Prohibited Hours– Elements of the Offence Discussed – Prosecution has not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt – Defendant found not guilty.
Cases Cited
The State v Takip Palne [1976] PNGLR 90
References
Legislation
Liquor Licensing Act
Counsel
Constable Tarrabie Agu, for the Informant
Tony Philip, the Defendant In Person
RULING ON VERDICT
2nd September 2021
S Tanei: The Defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of Selling Liquor During Prohibited Hours contrary to section 104 (1) (b) of the Liquor Licensing Act.
CHARGE:
ISSUES:
THE LAW
“ (1) A licensee who, during prohibited hours—
(b) keeps his licensed premises open for the sale of liquor; .......
.....is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Immediate cancellation of the licence and a fine not exceeding
K1, 000.00 and in default of payment of the fine, imprisonment for a term of six months, and the court has no discretion to make a lesser order or to impose a lesser sentence.”
EVIDENCE
He is the Informant in this proceeding. He is a Police Officer bearing the rank of Constable. He is attached to Fox 200, Zone 2 Command, NCD. He testified that he was on duty on Monday 5th April 2021. He testified that it was Easter Monday, a Public Holiday at 11.00 pm to 11.30 pm at Two Four Market, they stopped a 5 door vehicle with Registration HAS 462, upon suspicion when they saw that the people in the vehicle were drunk. He said there were restrictions per the covid19 protocols regarding the sale and consumption of alcohol. He then enquired as to where these people got the liquor and they told them that they bought it at the Defendant’s store. They then told those people to lead them to the store which they did. They then went to the Defendant’s store where they found the window counter closed but not locked. They pushed open the counter window and took photos. They did not see anyone there. The Defendant was not there as well. The next day the Defendant was arrested and charged for keeping his store open during prohibited hours.
In cross-examination, it was put to the witness that the Defendant was not there at that time and the witness confirmed that. However, he said people sold beer but they escaped when they saw the police.
He is a Policeman attached with Fox 205 Task Force Unit. He was on duty on that night. He testified that he was the driver of the police vehicle at that time. They were patrolling Gerehu Stage 2. When they drove by 2-4, they saw a Toyota Landcruiser (5 Doors) maroon in colour with Registration HAS 462 parked there. Those in the car acted suspicious when they saw the Police car. He drove past and when he reached the roundabout at Gerehu Secondary School the vehicle drove past him. He followed the vehicle and stopped it at Gerehu Bus Stop and his colleagues went down and searched the vehicle. They found a 12 pack SP stubby and a 6 pack Chiller on four suspects. They enquired as to where they got the beer and the driver of the vehicle told them that they bought it at 2-4 and he was willing to show them where they bought it. They then drove to the Defendant’s store. When they arrived there everyone escaped when they saw the Police car. He said they found the counter window shut but not locked. They then pushed it open and took pictures,
In cross examination, it was put to him that he did not see the Defendant there and he confirmed that the Defendant was not there but said that people sold beer there at his store and they escaped when they saw the Police.
He is a Policeman bearing the rank of Constable and is attached with Fox 205. He testified that on the night of the incident he was on duty and was sitting offside the Police vehicle. He said just past 2-4 market, they saw a Toyota Landcruiser with Registration number HAS 462 parked next to Tony Philip’s store. He said he saw some boys there and the store was open. He said when they went closer they closed the store and ran away. He stated that he told the driver to drive straight up to them and the driver followed his instructions. He then saw the 5 door landcruiser drove by. He suspected them to be drunk so they stopped them and checked the car. The passengers were drunk. There was a 12 pack and a 6 pack beer in the car. They then enquired as to where they got the beer and they said they bought it at 2-4. They agreed to lead the police to where they bought it. They were led to Tony Philip’s store. He said there was a similar case against the Defendant in 2020. He tendered copies of the Court documents bearing the name of the Defendant (Exhibits P14 and P15). When they went to the store the Defendant was not there so they took pictures of beer in the store.
During Cross Examination, it was put to the witness that they did not identify who sold the beer and he agreed that they did not identify that person.
He is the Defendant in this proceeding. He testified that he was arrested on 6th April 2021. He stated that on or about March 2021 Police notified him and other liquor retailers and told them to stop selling liquor as a result of Covid19. He said he obeyed those instructions and laid off all of his employees as there was nothing to do. He testified that on 30th March 2021, he was sick and was suspected of having Covid19 so he was isolated at Rainbow until the date he was arrested. He tendered his medical report (Exhibit D1). He said at that time his Covid19 test results were pending. On 5th April 2021, he received a call saying that Police opened his store counter. He said he did not go down to Gerehu because he was sick and was unable to move and his covid19 status was unknown. The next day Police Officers went back to his house but he was not there. He then called them and told them that he would come to the station when he is cleared of covid19. Later that afternoon, he was cleared of covid19 so he went and saw the Police at Gerehu Police Station. He was then arrested and charged. He says the pictures from the police show that they forced open the counter window and the beer in the photos are not for sale but were leftovers from previous sales before the lockdown.
In cross examination, he maintained that he was not there and his store was closed all that time.
This witness is an employee of the Defendant. He sells liquor at the Defendant’s liquor store. He testified that because of covid19 lockdown, the Defendant laid them off because the liquor store was closed and there was no work. He testified that he was asleep when the policemen broke and entered the premises. He also said the Defendant was in isolation and was not at home at that time. When he came out he saw Policemen who accused them of selling beer. He said he and others at home were confused as their store was closed. When he came out he saw policemen taking pictures of the empty freezer and the house. Then they went away and returned the next day. He said the store was closed and he did not know why they arrested the Defendant.
During Cross examination she maintained that the Defendant’s store was closed at that time.
He is a senior Constable at Gerehu Police Station. He testified that all throughout the lockdown he witnessed the Defendant’s store to be closed. He said he talks to the store keepers and all that time he was told that the store was closed.
During cross examination he was not present on the night of 5th April 2021 when the incident occurred but he was told by the storekeepers the next day that the store was always closed.
EXHIBITS
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
UNDISPUTED FACTS
DISPUTED FACTS
FINDINGS
(1) Anything that, if done by a licensee personally, would be an offence against this Act is also an offence if done by a manager or employee of the licensee, and the manager or employee may be punished accordingly.
CONCLUSION
VERDICT
Lawyer for the Informant Police Prosecutions
Lawyer for the Offender: In person
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2021/125.html