Police v Sodi [2021] PGDC 207; DC7066 (10 November 2021)

DC7066

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS COMMITTAL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 192 /2020.

In the matter of Ruling On Sufficiency of Police Hand-Up Brief(s) pursuant to Section 95 of the District Court Act 1963

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

POLICE/STATE.
Informant.
.
AND.

1. PETER SODI AND TEN OTHERS.
   

AND.

2. SOUL GONA AND WINSOR SODI
   

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2021: November 10^th.

CRIMINAL LAW. Practice and Procedure-Sufficiency of Police hand-up brief, Section 95 of District Court Act. Whether Elements of the offense’s;
i. 8 x counts of Arson contrary to Section 436 (a) of the Criminal Code Act.
Established on the Police Hand Up Briefs.

Cases Cited:

References:

Representation;
Mr. E. Yawisa for the Defendants
Senior Constable Augustine Pasitara for the Police/State.

RULING ON SUBMISSION ON SUFFICIENCY OF POLICE HAND-UP BRIEF.

Background.

1. The Defendants are variously charged with 8 x counts of Arson each that on the 30^th of January 2021 at Juminda Hamlet at Ononda Village in Popondetta they each and Severally committed these offences.
   
2. The Defendants are charged and first brought before this Court on the 31/03/21 as follows, Peter Sodi from Bail and the Rest from Custody.
   
3. The Police Hand Up Brief(s) (PB) to his various Counts is completed and served them on the 06/08/21 and the Courts Copies tendered on the same day, matter was adjourned to the 20/08/21 for possible committal Ruling.
   
4. Due to non-attendance by certain defendants from time to time this matter is deferred variously until the 03/09/21 when Mr. Yawisa from Public solicitors attended and also file a submission on sufficiency.
   
5. Mr. Yawisa filed on the 03/09/21 and Prosecutor Senior Constable Pasitara filed his response on the 06/09/21
   
6. Matter now returns for Ruling on the submissions.
   
7. Observations /Assessments. Having heard the Submissions in respect of this committal matter, I make the following observations and assessments;
   
   1. The Defendants are each and Severally Identified and placed in Proximity to the Scene of the Crime by witnesses especially witness Wilson Kaumi NAONI and to some extent Stephen Meingo.
      
   2. The Defendant each and severally potentially raise the Defense of Alibi in that there were at a certain Location when the Fires started at a different Location.
      
   3. Defense Raise the issue of Impropriety of Two Statements under section 94(1) of the District Courts Act, however as far as witness Statements in a hand-up brief is concerned, these are just proposed evidence until the matter committed to the National court and questions or ‘prior statements’ be it inconsistent or otherwise become the issue.
      
   4. The Test/Issue at this time is whether on Face Value (Prima Facie) a Sufficient case has been established against the Defendants on the police Hand Up Brief?
      
   5. Regarding the Issue, I will observe as follows;
      
      1. On Face value, the Defendants have been placed within the locality of the Offences, even though there is the potential Alibi being each and severally raised by the Defendants.
         
      2. Other issues relating to the Technicality or Construction of Statements by witnesses are matters that can be rightly raised during the Trial Proper before the National Court if issues of Prior Statements become relevant.
         
      100. This Court will not Second Guess the proper tribunal being the National Court to Investigate the Facts of this case by making a Determination of the Evidence at this time.
           
      4. There are many Defendants in this case and to shift through the Proposed Evidence in the Police hand-up brief with a view to remove certain people and certain statements at this time is cumbersome and potentially messy and could be prejudicial to the whole of the case.
         
      5. Though the Submissions made by the Defense might be deemed to be valid and rightly before this court, I will resort to section 94B of the District Court Act to Commit this matter to the National Court for its Deliberations on the various issues raised.
         
8. Accordingly, the Court Rules and Orders as follows;
   
   1. The Defendants are each and severally Committed to the National Court for Trial.
      
   2. The Defendants bail are each and severally extended to the Next call over of the National Court in Popondetta at a time and date to be set by the National Court Registry.
      
   3. The Warrant of Arrest for Defendant Danilla Ageda is further Extended to the Next call over of the National Court in Popondetta at a time and Date to be fixed by the National Court Registry.
      
   4. The Bail Guarantee’s by Messrs. Marcus Omba from Mumburanda village, and Isaac Angita from Ononda Village with Non-Cash Sureties of K1000.00 each is also extended to the Next Call-over of the National Court in Popondetta at a Time and Date to be set by the National Court Registry.
      

Public Solicitors for the Applicant.
Police Prosecutions for the Respondent.