Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Papua New Guinea District Court |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS COMMITTAL JURISDICTION]
Comm. No 19 of 2021
BETWEEN
THE POLICE
Informant
AND
JASON KANDIU
Defendant
2021: 12 July and 13 August
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - Charge- One Count of Attempted Murder contrary to section 304(a) of the Criminal Code Act (CCA)– Whether Police Evidence prima facie sufficient to commit the Defendant to stand trial at the National Court.
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – Legal requirements for prima facie case – Elements of Attempted Murder – whether prima facie evidence present to meet the elements of the charge of Attempted Murder – Evidence is sufficient to commit the Defendant to stand trial in the National Court.
Cases Cited
Backley Yarume –v- Sylvester Euga (1996) N1476;
Maladina –v- Principal District Court Magistrate Posain Poloh & The State (2004) N2468;
Mika Akia & Anor –v- Derrik Francis & Anor (2016) N6555
James Pah –v- The State [1985] PNGLR 188
The State –v- Andew Sinogup (2015) N5880
The State v Henry Judah Les (2005) N2950
The State v Michael Nuli (2011) N4198
The State –v– Raphael Kuanande [1994] PNGLR 512
Legislation
Criminal Code Act (CCA)
District Courts Act (DCA)
Counsel
Senior Constable Jonathan Nefoti, for the Informant
Mr. L. Toke, for the Defendant
RULING ON SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE under section 95 (1) DCA
13 August 2021
Introduction
Charge: Attempted Murder; s. 304(a) of the Criminal Code Act
Statement of Facts:
ISSUES:
THE LAW
The Law on Committal Proceedings
“95. Court to consider whether prima facie case.
(1)Where all the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution has been heard or received, the Court shall consider whether it is sufficient to put the defendant on trial.
(2) If the Court is of opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to put the defendant on trial for an indictable offence it shall immediately order the defendant, if in custody, to be discharged as to the information then under inquiry.
(3) If the Court is of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to put the defendant on trial for an indictable offence, it shall proceed with the examination in accordance with this Division."
“94C. Regard to evidence, etc.
(1) When conducting a committal hearing under this Part, the Court may, subject to Subsection (2), have regard to—
(a) the evidence contained in a written statement; and
(b) documents and exhibits,
of which a copy has been served on the defendant under Section 94(1) or made available for inspection under Section 94(2).
(2) Before admitting a written statement, the Court shall be satisfied that the person who made the statement had read and understood it, or if unable to read, had had it read to him in a language that he understood.”
“...I would describe as a two-phase committal process prescribed in Ss. 95, 96 and 100 and 103 (of DCA)...
In my opinion, the first phase of the committal process (apart from s.94B procedure on committal for trial without consideration of the evidence) takes place under S.95. The Magistrate "receives" or "hears" evidence offered by the prosecution only, considers the evidence, and decides whether the evidence "is sufficient to put the defendant on trial." If the Court is of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence, the Court discharges the defendant on the information. That is the end of the matter. If the Court is of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to put the defendant on trial, then the Court proceeds with the examination of the defendant under S.96.
Phase two is the examination of the defendant by the Magistrate under S.96. The prescribed wording of S.96 statement, which the Magistrate puts to the defendant is part of that provision. The Statement implies that the defendant has "heard" the evidence for the prosecution, which the Magistrate has considered, and made his decision under S.95. The Magistrate gives the defendant an opportunity to give evidence and to say anything in relation to the charge, if he so wishes to.
Under the two phase committal process that I have alluded to, it is clear that the Magistrate is required to form an opinion or judgement on the sufficiency of the evidence at two stages – a preliminary one under S.95 and a final one under S.100 (and S.103). The first is made solely on the evidence offered by the prosecution and the second is made based on the whole of the evidence – the evidence for the prosecution and the evidence on submissions, if any, made by the defendant. It is a fundamental principle of justice and fair hearing enshrined in the principles of natural justice adopted under S.59 of the Constitution, that the opinion formed under S.95 and S.100 must not only be fair but seen to be fair – in that justice by the District court must be not only be done but seen to done. A decision made and reasons for the decision under S.95 of course is not expressly required to be communicated to the defendant under S.95, but implied by principles of natural justice - that it must be communicated to the defendant, so that he understands that a prima facie case for committal has been made out by the prosecution, to which he has a right to respond under S.96, before a final decision to commit is made under S.100 or S.103. Under S.96, if he chooses to give evidence or say something either admitting or exculpating himself, it is to be recorded. If the Magistrate is satisfied on the whole of the evidence that the evidence is not sufficient to commit him, he must discharge the defendant under S.100 on that information.
Under S.100(1), the Magistrate considers whether "the evidence" is sufficient to put the defendant on trial. The general reference to "the evidence" in S.100(1) must be distinguished from the "evidence offered on the part of the prosecution" in S.95. By implication, S.100(1) "evidence" must relate to the whole of the evidence before the Court, that is evidence for the prosecution under S.95 and the evidence, if any, and anything said by the defendant under S.96. The final decision whether to commit the defendant for trial, is made under S.100 (or S.103 Committal for Sentence).”
(Emphasis added)
“5.The committal proceedings are governed by Part VI of the District Courts Act, Division1. It is of fundamental importance to note here that a committal proceeding is not a trial or a substantive hearing where a guilty finding or an acquittal of a defendant charged with an indictable offence can be made, it is an administrative process in which an inquiry is made into an indictable offence(s) charged to see if the evidence against the defendant constituted a prima facie case or is sufficient: Bank of PNG v. Eddie Oruba Mai (2007) SC862. At the end of such an inquiry the Committal Court may either discharge the defendant for lack of evidence or for lack of a prima facie case or commit the defendant to either stand trial or sentence in the National Court. The latter would be an appropriate order if the defendant admitted the offence as stipulated under s. 103 (1).”
2. The purpose of Committal hearing is to gather evidence and assess them to see whether the evidence is sufficient to Commit the accused for trial or sentence in the National Court. This 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. Sections 94B, 94C, 95 and 100 of Districts Courts Act, Ch 40 to be read together.
The Law on the Charge of Attempted Murder under section 304 (a) CCA
304. ATTEMPTED MURDER, ETC.
A person who–
(a) attempts unlawfully to kill another person; or
(b) ...,
is guilty of a crime.
Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.
“4. ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES.
(1) When a person, intending to commit an offence–
(a) begins to put his intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfilment; and
(b) manifests his intention by some overt act,
but does not fulfil his intention to such an extent as to commit the offence, he is said to attempt to commit the offence.”
“The elements of the offence in s 304(a) are:
(1) Intention actually to kill; and
(2) putting one’s intention into execution by some overt act.”
“The elements of the offence of attempted murder under Section 304(a) are that the accused:
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE IN POLICE HAND UP BRIEF
Witness Statements
She is the victim. She says, at around 6pm on the date of incident, she was on her way back home from Lakopend Market with her in-law, one Sila Don.
At about 7pm, half-way from the market and to her home, she and Sila Don were oblivious to any danger and were completely lost in their stories. At that time, suddenly someone approached from their back and swung a bushnife at her neck to chop off her neck. She bent over and the blade of the bushnife chopped the back of her head and she collapsed to the ground. The assailant then chopped her knee with the same bush knife and then she fell unconscious. When she came to, she was at the Wabag General Hospital bed. It was then, she realised she was chopped with the bushknife by her own husband, the Defendant. She says she was attended to by the doctors and nurses at the hospital, where her wounds were stitched and she was medicated.
She further says that sometime in Janaury 2021, she had filed for divorce with her husband at the Village Court due to being chopped by her husband and subjected to domestic violence many times. The matter was heard on Monday 22 February 2021 and decision was pending, when she was attacked and chopped by the Defendant on Wednesday 24 February 2021.
This witness was present with the victim at the time and date of the incident. She states that on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 at around 7pm, she accompanied her daughter Priscella Kati back from Lakopend Market. They were busy telling stories whilst walking back home. Suddenly she heard someone coming from their back and chopped Priscella Kati on her head.
She turned around and saw Priscella Kati’s husband, Jason Kandiu, was holding a bush knife and standing there. She was surprised and scared of her life. At that instance, Jason Kandiu again lifted the bushknife and chopped Priscella Kati on her knee (as she was on the ground) and the bushknife got stuck on Priscella’s knee. Jason Kandiu then left the bushknife where it was on Priscella’s knee and fled leaving also his coat behind.
She says after some time she saw the victim’s father, Erepia Kati come to the site of the incident and she informed him of the incident. Priscella was later assisted by Sopas Rural Hospital motor vehicle and taken to Wabag General Hospital.
This witness is the father of the victim. He says at the date of incident, between 7.00 and 7.30pm, he was on his way home from Lakopend Market. About 200m away, he heard a woman calling out in a loud voice that “Jason Kandiu chopped Priscella Kati and escaped”.
Upon hearing his daughter’s name being called out, he ran towards the scene of the incident to see what had happened. When he reached the scene, he saw a bush knife left stuck on his daughter’s knee so he removed it. He further looked around and saw a coat was left behind so he picked it up.
At that instance, he saw one Jacob Nee and Dick Sambao walking up so he informed them of the incident. The trio then shouted out for help and people at the Lakopend market came up to assist and they all took Priscella Kati to Lakopend Health Center. After that, help was sought from Sopas Hospital motor vehicle to take Priscella Kati to Wabag General Hospital, where she was treated and her wounds stitched.
This witness is the Police investigator and arresting officer in this matter. He was involved in the investigations and conducting of the Record of Interview.
He says that after receiving complaint of the brutual attack and chopping of the victim, he went and found out that the victim was still alive at the Wabag General Hospital. So he took out her statement and had the Defendant arrested when he was brought in by the victim’s relatives.
He says, at the interview, the Defendant admitted to committing the offence.
This witness is a R/Constable of Police attached with CID Section of the Wabag Police Station. He is the corroborator at the Police Record of Interview (ROI). He says the Record of Interview was conducted without any threat, assault or duress.
This witness is the medical doctor who attended to the injuries of the victim Priscella Kati. He says that the victim was initially seen at the hospital on 24 February 2021 for allegedly been slashed with a machete by her husband.
He says that from his initial examination, he noted multiple lacerations to the sculp and left lower limb with no bones involved. He also found no neurovascular compromise. The victim was treated; wounds were dressed as per the aseptic technique and EUA/debridement/suturing on 25 February 2021 and later discharged on antibiotics.
Documentary Evidence
Exhibits
DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
PROSECUTION’S SUBMISSIONS
ANALYSIS OF EVIDNECE IN THE POLICE HAND UP BRIEF
"Intention is a matter which goes to the state of mind, of the accused at the time he acted. It may be proven by direct evidence of the accused's expression of intention followed by the act itself or by circumstantial evidence. In either situation, it is necessary to examine the course of conduct of the accused prior, at the time and subsequent to the act constituting the offence."
FINDINGS
CONCLUSION
COURT ORDERS
Lawyer for the Informant: Police Prosecutions
Lawyer for the Defendant: The Public Solicitor of Papua New Guinea
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2021/128.html