Police v Kennedy [2021] PGDC 161; DC7017 (18 November 2021)

DC7017

Papua New Guinea

[In the Criminal Jurisdictions of the District Court Held at Waigani]
SITTING IN ITS COMMITTAL JURISDICTION

COM NO 716-717 OF 2021
CB NO 1248 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
[Informant]

AND:

ROBERT BARA KENNEDY
[Defendant]

Waigani: Paul Puri Nii

18th November 2021

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: -Charges- Attempt to pervert the course of justice -Section 136 and Abuse of Office- 92 (1)- of the Criminal Code Act 1974, Chapter No. 262. Have the Police investigators delivered prima facie reasonable evidence explaining and satisfying all the elements of the charges to commit the Defendant in the National Court to face trial.

PRACTICE AND PROCESS: Legal requirement for prima facie Case-Existence of the essentials of charges of Attempt to pervert the court of justice and Abuse of Office –Evidence of Complainant a former employee was terminated by the Defendant. Defendant lodged a criminal claim against the Defendant- Complainant alleges his termination barred the matter in Mt Hagen-whose interest? State interest? No-personal interest-evidence of payback- criminal proceedings wrong Track-Judicial Review Appropriate avenue. Evidence is insufficient-

PNG Cases cited:

Akia v Francis [2016] PGNC 335; N6555 (24 August 2016)
Malai –v- PNG Teachers Association [1992] PNGLR 568 (Supreme court)
Gitua –v- Paraka [2020] PGDC 1; DC4038
Ermas Wartovo –v- State (2015) SC1411
Police –v-Kambian [2021] PGDC 66; DC 6021 (30th January 2021)
Police v Medako [2021] PGDC 54; DC6011 (31 May 2021)
State –v- Peril [2005] PGNC 85; N2883
Police –v- Koka [2021] PGDC 53; DC6010 (31 May 2021)
Police –v- Dunamis [2021] PGDC 121; DC6067
Police –v- Kauna [2021] PGDC 120; DC6075 (25th August 2021)
Police-v- Naria[2021] PGDC 119; DC 6074(25th August 2021)
Police-v-Kimisopa [2021] PGDC 76; DC6031(30th June 2021)

Overseas cases cited:
Nil

References

Legislation

Constitution of the Independent state of Papua New Guinea
Criminal Code Act 1974, Chapter 262
District Court Act 1963, Chapter 40
Police Act 1997
National Court Rules
Employment Act
Public Services Management Act
Immigration and Citizenship Act
Public Services General Orders

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: Sgt Christian Iga For the Informant
Mr. Isaac David: Kalit Legal Consulting For the Defendant

DECISION ON POLICE EVIDENCE

18^th November 2021

INTRODUCTION

NII, P. Paul Magistrate. This is my conclusion on whether a prima facie case is appropriately validated within the implication of Section 95(1) of the District Court Act 1963, when police evidence and Defense argument are thoughtfully reflected. On 08^th September 2021, Mr David representative of the Defendant made his argument based on his submission filed on 9^th August 2021. The spirit of the submission is objecting to the Police evidence. Police Prosecutor Sergeant Christian Iga submitted to Court evidence is sufficient to commit the Defendant. I have carefully measured both interests pertaining to their opinions and now is my decision on committal.

FACTS (PARTICULARS)

1. Police Summary of Facts says Defendant is aged 42 years and originates from Lukumanda in the Wabag District of Enga Province who was at the time of the purported allegations was the Acting Chief Migration Officer. Police allege that on 17^th September 2020, Defendant approved a criminal Inquiry team involving the Complainant and several members of the police force and Immigration to fly up to Mt Hagen and Jiwaka to conduct investigation into foreigners existing and employed in these termed localities. It was alleged the team efficiently steered investigations and found numerous aliens in Simbu Province guilty while the same was going on in the MT Hagen District Court for infringing PNG Laws.
   
2. Police allege the Complainant together with others were ordered by the MT Hagen District Court to give evidence in respect of the arrests against the foreigners, however, the Complainant and others who were due for travel up to Mt Hagen and give evidence could not do so as their journeys were made immobile by the Defendant when they were sacked from occupation. Nevertheless, Defendant was arrested by Police on 13^th May 2021, upon command of the new Management. Defendant was arrested for allegation that at the time when he was the Acting Immigration Officer had abused his powers by supposedly preventing the Complainant and others from giving evidence in the MT Hagen District Court.
   

CHARGES (Accusations)

3. Defendant is charged with one count each of Abuse of Office under Section 92 (1), and Attempt to pervert the court of Justice under Section 136 of the Criminal Code Act 1974, Chapter No. 262. The offending charges against the Defendant are further explicated in the subsequent manner:
   

“92. Abuse of office.

(1) A person employed in the Public Service who, in abuse of the authority of his office does, or directs to be done, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanor.

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

136. Attempting to pervert justice.

A person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this Code, to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

ISSUE

4. Whether evidence in the police file is sufficient to commit the Defendant on the allegation of Abuse of officer and Attempt to pervert the course of justice against the Defendant.
   
5. The Sub-Issue for consideration whether the Complainant’s motive for lodging the allegation is for the interest of the Independent state of Papua New Guinea.
   

THE LAW

The Jurisdiction basis of Committal Proceeding

6. The Law under Sections 94 to 100 of the District Court Act 1963, affords the legitimate basis upon how the committal progression should be overseen by the court. The court must be gratified with the police file encompassing the witness statements and police evidence in general by meeting all the elements of the two (2) offence. In the implementation of the committal jurisdiction court will evaluate each and each statements including the Record of Interview which are retained in the police file served to the court on 17^th August 2021.
   
7. Several cases have reiterated and developed the committal court authority which are imperative in the development of committal court jurisprudence which I feel indispensable and important to acclimate them here in my ruling. The court in Police –v- Dunamis [2021] PGDC 121; DC 6067 presented the committal court’s utility under Section 95 of the District Court Act. This position is reciprocally reinforced and applied in Police –v- Kauna [2021] PGDC 120; DC 6075 and Police-v- Naria[2021]PGDC 119; DC 6074. The legal authority in Section 95[i] and the sustained cases come into influence instantaneously after enquiry on the police evidence and Defense submission are settled. In accumulation to this, the case of Police-v-Kimisopa [2021] PGDC 76;DC 6031, has clearly preserved the position his honor Gavara-Nanu, J, maintained in Akia v Francis [2016] PGNC 335; N6555. The court expounded the roles of committal court as a filtering development where evidence is strained out from the Police file to ensure it rightfully and prudently meets all elements of the conforming charges against the Defendant to certify there is acceptable evidence.
   

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

8. The prominence of forming each element of the offence with police evidence is central to succeeding an admissible conclusion. The court in Police –v-Kambian [2021] PGDC 66; DC 6021, braced the position engaged in Police v Medako [2021] PGDC 54; DC6011 that police must establish all the elements of the relevant charges. Moreover this position is particularized by the court in Police-v-Kimisopa[ii] that most offences have two(2) elements which are “mental (mens rea) and physical (actus reus), both must be proven by police”.
   
9. The court in Police –v-Kimisopa[iii] went on to place an obligation on the court to warily appreciate the offending charges against the Defendant before calculation on evidence is directed. In order to conform with this standard, the court will explain each charge as it is to provide an unblemished perception in admiration to the police file. The Oxford Dictionary defines “Abuse of Office” as approved misuse of power that is an unauthorized act purportedly completed in the presentation of an official duty while “Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice” as stopping the currency of justice in an offence comprising of any behavior done that impedes another person from facing the consequences of law and fairness. Given the descriptions, I will classify the elements and match with police evidence to certify there is necessary evidence to commit the Defendant.
   

Elements of Abuse of Office under Section 92(1)[iv]

a) A person

b) employed in the Public Service

c) who, in abuse of the authority of his office

d) does, or directs to be done,

e) any arbitrary act prejudicial to the

f) rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanour
Elements of Attempt to pervert the course of justice under Section 136

a) A person who attempts,

b) in any way not specially defined in this Code,

c) to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice
EVIDENCE

10. The ability in Police v Koka [2021] PGDC 53; DC6010, is fitting in committal hearing. The court in this matter stressed the significance of evidence that it plays an important part in the management of criminal evenhandedness to safeguard an impartial and rational conclusion. The court in Police v Koka[v] went on to state that an allegation is a mere assertion unless corroborated by evidence.....
    

.....“An allegation will only be proven through evidence since it is the accessible body of facts or material designating whether the allegation against the Defendant is proper or made-up” ....

11. Police confirmation and Defense submission on the affordability of evidence in the police file must gratify me that there is practical evidence meeting all the elements. If some of the elements are not met by Police, then evidence is still underprovided. Court will only put the Defendant on trial if evidence is reasonable to institute all the allegations against the Defendant. Hence, Police evidence delimited in the Police-Hand-Up-Brief will be measured to establish its competence by recitation to the elements of the alleged charges.
    

PROSECUTION CASE

12. The court in Police –v-Kimisopa[vi] noticeably expounds the substances of police evidence as it comprises witness testaments and documented confirmation comprising Summary of facts and aftermath from the Defendant’s record of interview, which therefore establish police case or evidence on the allegations against the Accused.
    

Police evidence in momentary (brief)

1. Mr John Bria – he is the Complainant and an officer with the Office of Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority (CIA). He says he is the Compliance and Enforcement Task Force Coordinator and he went to Simbu and assisted police by arresting aliens who breached visa conditions. Witness says there were also other arrests in MT Hagen in which he was attending court to give evidence until he was terminated by the Defendant which therefore stopped him from attending court and hence matter got dismissed by the court.
   
2. Nepol Potane –This witness is also an officer of the Immigration and Citizenship Authority. Witness says he was part of the group who assisted police to effect arrest on the foreigners for breach of immigration laws. However, witness says when he was terminated by Defendant he could not travel up to Hagen and give evidence in court and thus the matter in the MT Hagen district court was dismissed.
   
3. Sai Kolopu- this witness says he is also an employee of Immigration and Citizenship Authority and at the time he was the official language translator where he says he translated Chinese language to English and English to Chinese. Witness says in the matters involving Chinese he was engaged as the translator. However, the witness says he could not proceed after when Defendant terminated the officers involved in the prosecution against the foreigners.
   
4. Hillsharp Numapo- This witness says he was the senior immigration officer and his evidence shows how the other immigration officers were terminated by Defendant and thus it placed him in an awkward position to give evidence in the Hagen case which resulted in the case being dismissed.
   
5. Ben Nori. This witness claims himself to be a support officer to the Office of immigration and Citizenship Authority. He says he was part of the group that travelled to Mt Hagen to assist police arrest and detain illegal foreigners in Mt Hagen until he was terminated by the Defendant.
   
6. Andrew Sanny-this witness is a support officer who traveled to Mt Hagen to detain and arrest foreigners but was terminated by the Defendant.
   
7. Donny Markus- Witness says he is the HR manager with the office of Immigration and citizenship Authority and his evidence contains the process and procedures involved in the termination of employees within the department.
   
8. Gabutu Gaudi- this witness says he is a Legal Officer with the Office of the Immigration and Citizenship authority and he was part of the group that travelled to Mt Hagen for the case until he was terminated.
   
9. Constable Shley Waula, Constable Peter Paulus, Chief Sergeant John Korowa, Gilbert Som, Constable Stanley Billy and Constable Joshua Kraip- Evidence and statements of Policemen and arresting Officer involved in the investigation connecting arrests and detaining of foreigners and how the matter against the foreigners got dismissed in the Mt Hagen District Court. This also includes the statement of the police arresting officer against the Defendant.
   
10. Susan Kei and Gilbert Som- these witnesses are employees of the Mt Hagen District Court; their evidence contains copies of court endorsement and records of court direction and orders made regarding the dismissal of the Criminal Allegation against the aliens.
    

DEFENSE CASE

13. Defendant’s argument by his Lawyer is funded on three (3) limbs; first on the question of “Abuse of Court Process”, second on the evidence regarding the charge of “Abuse of Office’ under Section 92(1)[vii] and lastly also challenging the evidence on the charge of ‘Attempt to pervert the course of justice” under Section 136[viii]
    

a) Abuse of Court Process

14. Defendant thought his Lawyer Mr. Isaac David submitted that Committal court has authority to hear and decide competency issues comprising abuse of court process. Defendant says the charge of Abuse of Office pursuant to Section 92(1) of the CCA[ix], is ineffectual thereby causing the Committal Proceeding about the charge as an “Abuse of Process”. Defendant funded his argument on the case of Gitua –v- Paraka [2020] PGDC 1; DC4038, where its genesis is modified from the case of Ermas Wartovo –v- State (20150 SC1411, committal court has powers to determine issue on Abuse of court process.
    

b) Abuse of Office Under Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1974

15. Defendant submits the Complainant the matter against the Defendant was a former staff of the office in which the Defendant was the employer. Defendant says Complainant was administratively terminated from employment by the Defendant. Nevertheless, Defendant says Complainant did not appeal this termination to the Public Services Commission or alternatively to the National Court for Judicial Review under Order 16 of the National Court Rules. However, Defendant argues Complainant has decided to lodge a criminal complaint against the Defendant for terminating him. Defendant says there is nothing in the Public Service General Orders, Public Services Management Act and Employment Act says a person who has been administratively terminated shall or would seek redress through the criminal court. Defendant argues it was the first time he was arrested by police for terminating his employee.
    
16. Defendant through his Lawyer submits his client at the time was the former acting Chief Migration Officer and had the powers to hire and fire and thus in his capacity equipped with such authority and terminated the Complainant. Defendant argues that apart from Judicial review under Order 16[x], the option was also available for Complainant to seek damages if he was on contract and the termination had affected that contract as is the principle in the case of Malai –v- PNG Teachers Association [1992] PNGLR 568 (Supreme court). Defendant contested that terminating any employee for whatever reason is an industrial dispute (an act within the cause of employment) and should fall within the civil jurisdiction.
    
17. Defendant thus argues the Police officer has wrongly acted upon an allegation that was not criminal in nature and arrested him thereby, Defendant contested Police informant wrongly established the Complainant’s allegation. Lawyer for Defendant says when Police exercises their functions under Section 197 of the Constitution, they must walk within the domains of what constitutes an assertion which is criminal in nature. Nonetheless, Defense argues the Arresting officer traversed the boundaries of his delegated obligation and paced away from where he ought to have been when executing his duties. Constructed on the preceding, Defendant argues the charge of Abuse of Office under Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code Act, be dismissed.
    

c) Attempting to pervert the course of justice contrary to Section 136 of the Criminal Code Act 1975

18. Defense Lawyer submits his client did not in any way try to defeat the cause of justice by terminating the Complainant and others. Defendant argues he did not stop police from prosecuting the case in Mt Hagen or endeavor to stop police from procuring evidence within the office of Immigration and Citizen Authority. Defendant argues the act of attempting to stop the Complainant form giving evidence in the court must be direct whereby the outcome would be affected. Defendant maintained his argument on the rules proven by State –v- Peril [2005] PGNC 85; N2883. Defendant says there is no evidence that he neither tried stopping police from prosecuting the case in Mt Hagen nor stopped the Complainant from prosecuting the matter.
    
19. Defendant asserts the Complainant together with others were administratively terminated on Disciplinary grounds which they did not argue nor challenged the decision through the public services proven process for revising termination in the Public Service Commission and courts. Defendant argues there is no evidence from the Mt Hagen District Court which spells out in clear terms the matter was dismissed because the witnesses were prevented from travelling by the Defendant. Defense intensely contends after when the Complainant and others were terminated, their services with CIA were no longer needed by the Defendant and hence the court proceeding in Mt Hagen and therefore it is illegal for the Complaint to allege Defendant had calculatingly clogged him and others from prosecuting the case in Hagen.
    

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

Police evidence

20. The statement of Complainant John Bria expounds he worked with the Department of CIA[xi] for a whole of eleven(11) years until he resigned from service in 2017 to compete for the National election. Witness says in 2019 he had returned to CIA after his application for re-employment was permitted by the Defendant under Section 25(1) of the Immigration and Citizenship Act and made devoted to the position of Task Force Coordinator with CIA which was at the time unoccupied. Witness Bria then says after his re-appointed he leads a team of investigation comprising officers within CIA and Police dealing with non-nationals within the country breaking immigration Laws. Complainant also state he was involved in enquiry of more than fifty (50) foreigners and also three (3) officers of CIA were dismissed after evidence recognized they colluded with the Aliens to breach Immigration Laws.
    
21. Mr Bria also went on to say in his statement to police that Defendant’s position as former Acting Chief Immigration officer expired on 10^th September 2020 and thus he had applied to the position and his name was short-listed as one of names to be considered for selection. The reminder of Mr Biria’s statement is about the other officers of CIA who were purportedly terminated by the Defendant and also his dissatisfaction about the attitude employed by Defendant and terminated them.
    
22. The witness statement of Nepol Potane stated he was terminated by the Defendant on 18^th November 2020 without following the due process and laws under the Public Services. The statement of Hillsharp Numapo provides he was terminated by Defendant for travelling with the Complainant John Bria to Mt Hagen wile witness Sai Kolopu says he was also terminated by the Defendant for travelling to Mt Hagen with the team ted my John Bria to conduct investigations. The other witness statements of Andrew Sanny and Ben Nori are about their termination from the CIA by the Defendant.
    
23. Markus Donny claims he is the Human Resources Manager for the CIA . He says he has served the office for eight (8) years. His evidence is about the progression and procedures in the office where employers observe to suspend and terminate employees within the CIA. Witness says Defendant did not follow established procedures within the office and termination employees including the Complainant. Witness lastly says the behavior utilized by the former acting Chief Immigration Officer who is now Defendant at the time to terminate employees was proscribed under the laws handling behaviors of employees.
    
24. Finally, witness statements are from Policemen who were engaged by CIA to assist them in the investigation involving foreigners. These policemen are Ashley Waula, Paulus Peter and John Korowa. Their evidence is about why they were unable to assist the investigation when CIA members involved in the investigation were terminated.
    

Defense case.

25. Defendant in his submission sustained the Complainant and others were dismissed from employment for disciplinary reasons. Defendant says at the time when Complainant and others were terminated, he had the organizational authorities to hire and fire and thus the state witnesses were terminated in that capacity. The Defendant’s argument is about the nature of the proceeding and its constituents which are the subject charges against the Defendant.
    
26. Defendant in his argument maintained there is no criminality involved in his actions in terminating the Complainant and other state witness. Defendant preserved all through they were all terminated because of their conducts given their employment with the CIA. Defendant says his actions in terminating the Complainant does not license criminal proceedings since termination of employment falls under the private laws where the likely remedy the aggrieved parties could have sought was damages in the National Court or alternative for Judicial review under Order 16 of the National court rules.
    

Assessment of Evidence and Defense submission for both cases

27. Before I proceed to the determination of evidence for both charges against the Defendant, the Lawyer for Defendant raised some opening arguments on the issue of abuse of process. It is my judicial opinion to deal with this argument first because the rise and fall in my ruling on the question of “abuse of process” would have an undeviating behavior in the currency of the entire proceeding holding the information against the Defendant. And hence I will now address this issue. I stem my authority in Ermas Wartovo –v- State (2015) SC1411. I will make sure the development of criminal justice from the commencing practice to committal enquiry and subsequent trial in the national courts is not abused. The Criminal initiating process from the start to the finish should be appropriately shown in submission with the Criminal Practice and procedures that are well established and appropriate in our jurisdiction. The court in this matter heightened the committal court authorities by:
    

“41.....It would also be appropriate to deal with any abuse of process at the investigation state and at the District Court level by the District Court.

42....The District Court is obligated to properly follow all the required steps in the process. With the assistance of the parties and any counsel, the District Court undertakes a trial in a manner that is fair to both sides and in a way that is impartial, with all the rules of practice and procedure,

43...The committing magistrate needs to be satisfied that the formal requirements of the provisions under consideration are met and that there is a prima facie case for the accused to stand trial in the National Court..............”

28. The prominence of the Supreme court’s view on the “abuse of process” in my view is not only limited to criminal investigations but stretched to the distinctions between causes of actions which are criminal and civil in nature. These two (2) areas must not be tangled. Before commencing any lawsuits, one must judiciously understand the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law. According to my further reading on the difference between the two (2)....,”Criminal Law deals with behavior that is or can be construed as an offence against the public, society, or the State, even if the immediate victim is an individual and .... Civil Law deals with behaviors that constitutes an injury to an individual or other private party, such as a corporation”
    
29. Defendant was arrested and charged by Police for abuse of Office under Section 92(1) and Attempt to pervert the course of Justice under Section 136 of CCA for terminating the Complainant and others from employment who are now all state witnesses in the allegation against the Defendant. Complainant John Bria spoke on his statement to police dated 11^th January 2021 at paragraph 16 that his termination from employment by the Defendant contravened Sections 50, 51 and 52 of the Public Services Management Act 1995. Complainant also stated in his statement to police that Defendant had illegally terminated the other state witnesses. Moreover, the witness statement of Markus Donny says Defendant did not follow the correct procedure and process by terminating the Complainant and others. All the other witnesses shared the same sentiment by witness Markus Donny that laws dealing with termination from employment were not followed.
    
30. All the state witnesses including Complainant says they were unlawfully terminated by the Defendant from employment. If they were unlawfully terminated by the Defendant from employment, then how did the aspect of having them terminated from employment turned into a criminal cause of action? It is established Law in this jurisdiction where Employment Laws, Contract, Constitution, Administrative Laws and National Court Rules governs termination of employment. All these aspects of laws are civil in nature because they deal with behaviors that constitute an injury to an individual or other private party and not a behavior that is or can be construed as an offence against the public, society, or the State.
    
31. Mr John Bria in his statement to police at paragraphs 6 and 7 mentions Defendant terminated him form employment because his name was on the short-list of names to be considered for the position of Chief Immigrating Officer. This aspect of the evidence itself shows the Complainant had laid a criminal allegation against the Defendant because he was terminated from employment for having his name considered as one of the short-listed candidates for the position of chief immigration officer. Evidence indicates the truthfulness and genuineness behind the allegation is questionable.

RULING

32. After having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant and the other State witnesses excluding the police witness are all terminated by Defendant. The two charges against the Defendant, the charge of Abuse of Office (s 92(1) and (s136) Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice have been laid against the Defendant because state witnesses including the Complainant were terminated from employment by the Defendant.
    
33. When a criminal proceeding is filed by police against someone, by operation of Law, the Independent state of PNG becomes an interested part in the proceeding, it is not the victim, although he/she may be required to give evidence. The two State entities, Police to prosecute at the District or Committal court and Public Prosecutor in the National court. If for some reason, if person involved in the prosecution is either terminated or transferred then one cannot assert to have the matter prosecuted, it is not someone’s personally matter, it’s for the State, they should transfer the file to the one who is employed to carry on, it’s not someone’s personal matter, it’s for the interest of the State who is representing the 8 million population of PNG.
    
34. If the outcome in the dismissal of criminal proceedings in Mt Hagen District court is any indication that the independent state of PNG was greatly affected, then let alone the new Chief Immigration officer and Minister for CIA with consultation with the Minister for Justice and Attorney General appeal the decision. Evidence shows the manner in which the former terminated members of CIA and Police form pursuing the two (2) charges against the Defendant in the pretext of serving the interest of state is doubtful. Evidence demonstrates the motive for having these allegations levelled against the Defendant is for self-interest than for the interest of PNG.
    
35. In respect to the offence of Abuse of Office under Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code Act, evidence suggests Defendant was employed in the Public Service but did not abuse of the authority of his office did, or directs to be done, any subjective act prejudicial to the rights of the Complainant and other state witness. Therefore, evidence is insufficient to commit the Defendant. Moreover, on the charge of Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice pursuant to Section 136 of the Criminal Code Act, evidence shows Defendant is not the person who attempts, in any way, to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice by terminating the Complainant and others from employment, thus evidence is insufficient to commit the Defendant.
    

CONCLUSION

36. I have carefully considered evidence in the police file that was tendered to court on the 17^th August 2021 and upon my assessment, I have found out that evidence is insufficient to make a prima facie case against the Defendant. Evidence is insufficient to commit the Defendant for the charges of Abuse of Office under Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code Act and Attempt to Pervert the court of Justice under Section 136 of the Criminal Code Act.
    

ORDERS

37. My Final Orders
    
    1. Evidence is insufficient to commit the Defendant.
       
    2. The Information of Abuse of Office pursuant to Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code Act and Attempt to Pervert the court of Justice under Section 136 of the Criminal Code Act are dismissed.
       
    3. Defendant’s bail of K1,000 is refunded to the Defendant forthwith.
       

.

.

.

Kalit Legal Consulting For the defendant
Police Prosecutor For the State

[i] District Court Act
[ii] [2021] PGDC 76;DC 6031(30^th June 2021)
[iii] Supra
[iv] Criminal Code Act 1974
[v] [2021] PGDC 53; DC6010 (31 May 2021)
[vi] Supra (the case on point that specifies the contents of police file)
[vii] Sura (Criminal Code Act)
[viii] Supra (Criminal Code Act)
[ix] CCA=Criminal Code Act
[x] Of the National Court Rules
[xi] CIA = Citizenship Immigration Authority