Police v Womo [2021] PGDC 221; DC7082 (6 December 2021)

DC7082

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY JURISDICTION]
SUM NO: 116/2021.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

POLICE/STATE.
Informant (s).

AND.

GABIEL WOMO
Defendant.

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2021: December 03^rd and 06^th.

SUMMARY OFFENCES. Insulting and abusive word contrary to Section 7(b) of the Summary Offences Act, general denial.

Cases Cited:

References:

Representation;
Senior Constable Pasitara
Defendant in person

RULING ON VERDICT.

Background.

1. The Defendant Gabriel Womo is a mature adult male and is a Teacher at Martyrs Secondary School in the Sohe District of the Northern Province.
   
2. He is charged with one count of using abusive or Insulting Words on one Miss Pauline Kila Pat on Friday the 08/10/21 or 15/10/21 in the Classroom wherein he is alleged to have said to Pauling Kila-Pat, ‘You Look Like Indians, are you travelling to India to get your booklet?’
3. The Defendant was thereafter charged under section 7(b) of the Summary Offences Act for insulting/Abusive Language by the Police.
   
4. The Defendant Pleaded Not guilty on the 22/11/21 and so trial commenced on the 03/12/21.
   
5. Police called the victim Miss Pauline Kila Pat /Victim and she gave her oral Evidence on oath as follows that;
   
   1. On the 15/10/21 she was i class at Martyrs Secondary School when the Defendant came in to teach Mathematics and Science Lessons.
      
   2. He saw a black spot on her forehead and commented and asked her whet the dot was for and she did not answer so he asked her ‘If she was from India?’
      
   3. At this, other students laughed and Pauline was embarrassed.
      
   4. After the Science Lesson the Defendant then told the students to take out their 2018 Mathematics Booklet but the Victim was still sad about the ‘India’ Comment and so did not respond to the teacher/Defendant.
      
   5. The Defendants then asked the Victim again about her booklet but she was still not responsive as she was still upset about the ‘India’ comments made roughly 40 minutes earlier.
      
   6. After asking her several times with no response admittedly from the Victime, the Defendant then said ‘Pauline, are you going to India to get your papers?’
      
   7. At this statement, the other students laughed and the Victim walked out of the classroom, and called her father who then called the Police and had the Defendant apprehended by Police.
      
   8. The other Police witness was not allowed to present his testimony as he had been seated in court all throughout the Defendants Evidence and so was technically disqualified from testifying.
      
   9. Police case closed on that note.

6. Defendant gave his oral testimony as follows;
   
   1. The Defendant read through a prepared Statement/Affidavit that he read to the Court and then tendered to the court and the Prosecutor.
      
   2. He stated that he had a closed affinity to the Victims family as the Victims father had presented a bible to him in 2014 and also paid his school fees when he was doing his grade 12 in 2014 and so he considered the Victim as his younger sister.
      
   3. He also stated that his main interest was to encouraged and motivate the victim to do well in her lessons as by her being successful in her academic performance he would at least reciprocate the effort and interest her father had in the Defendants own education prospect previously.
      
   4. He being the class patron for the Victims class was also charged with the Grooming and attendance and other general appearance and presentation aspects of his students and on that day he saw a mark on the Victims forehead that looked like it was marked with a Marker or Pen and so he as patron commented on that mark stating that ‘Are you from India? That mark on your forehead is normally put there by Indian Woman as it is in their culture, not ours!’
      
   5. The Science Lesson thereafter went through for 40 minutes without incident.
      
   6. In the next lesson for mathematics, the Defendant then told the students to take out their Exam Booklets for Revision for the final examinations and while other students were taking out their booklets the Victim was not being responsive.
      
   7. The Defendant asked her to take out her booklet on a number of occasions without the Victim being responsive as if she was absent minded.
      
   8. On the fourth occasion the Defendant addressed the Victim directly and she came to her sense and searched in her bag for the Booklet.
      
   9. At this time the Defendant then said ‘Maybe your paper is in India and you are travelling to India to collect your paper? That is why you are delaying our time?’
      
   10. After this comment, the Complainant picked up the paper and left it on the desk and walked out of the classroom disrespectfully while the Lesson was in progress.
   11. While outside she called her father, who in turn called the Police and two hours later police came and took the Defendant to the Police station where he is charged with this offence.
       
   12. No opportunity was made for the matter to be addressed administratively within the ambit of the School and its Management or even through the Parents and Citizens Board.
       
   13. The Defendants other witness was not allowed to present his testimony as he had been seated in court all throughout the Defendants Evidence and so was technically disqualified from testifying.
       

OBSERVATIONS.

7. The Court makes the following observations;
   
   1. Section 7(b) of the Summary Offences Act reads;
      

PROVOKING A BREACH OF THE PEACE.

A person who–

(a) uses threatening, offensive or insulting behaviour; or

(b) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words; or

(c) makes threatening, abusive or insulting gestures,

with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace is likely to take place is guilty of an offence. Penalty: A fine not exceeding K300.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

2. The Amendment of 2018 in Section 6 raises the penalty Provision for offences under this heading from K300.00 to K3000.00 fine or in default 12 months in hard Labour.
   
3. The Defendant is not only a teacher but is also class patron for the Complainants Class.
   
4. As class Patron, it is claimed by the Defendant, and this court will also go to the extent of Taking Judicial Notice of the fact that, the general trends in appropriate grooming and appearances, dressing and presentations of Students in our Schools is by and large left to Teachers and Class Patrons to Advice, counsel and encourage in proper attire and personal presentations and so on that note this court doesn’t find a teachers commenting on Students appearance out of the ordinary or uncalled for.
   
5. I personally attended high school and National High School in the New Guinea Islands when Foreign Teachers were exiting and Teaching positions were being largely taken over by Nationals and the critique often times given about our personal appearances and presentations and also about our attentiveness in class by teachers were often times brutal, frank and one could say, Insulting, but we learned from such and aspired to do better next time.
   
6. Despite the Line of Questioning embarked on by the Prosecution, I do not find the interaction between the Defendant and the Complainant to be based on any ulterior motives such as any romantic interest or malicious ill-will from the Defendant of the Complainant.
   
7. The Defendants stressed that the Complainant was absent-mined in class on that day and so he had to resort to making such statements as those alleged in order to gain her attention.
   
8. Having observed the Complainants demeanor in court on the 03/12/21 during the trial, I note that she simply did not answer a couple of questions put to her by the Prosecution maybe due to being absent minded and or being not attentive to the questions put.
   
9. She also appears to be an obviously emotional person.
   
10. Different people react differently to stimuli and most people might laugh off the Defendants ‘India’ Comments, but some people might be genuinely hurt by even the slightest of comments issued in such circumstances.
    
11. So in the circumstances of this case, the ‘First Are you an Indian’ Comment followed by the ‘Second You are travelling to India Comment is suggested by the Prosecution to be Abusive and Insulting under section 7(b) of the Summary Offences Act.
    
12. Her actions thereafter in walking out of class ‘Disrespectfully’ is proof of this, she was hurt by the comments when other students started laughing that she felt compelled to walk out because of the hurt and embarrassment.
    
13. I asked the Complainant if the Students did not laugh, would she have been hurt? and she said ‘No’ and that she was hurt and embarrassed on account of other students laughing at her
    
14. The Defendant reiterated that as a class patron, he is responsible for the preparation of Students for their final Assessments and that it was his fervent desire to have the Complainant successful in her final Assessment on account of the Complainants father’s history with him.
    
15. The Defendant noted that the School Management at Martyrs Secondary School was not alerted to this matter nor was the School Management given an opportunity to deal with this matter before being referred to the Police.
    
16. The Complainant stated that after she called her father, he called the Police and Police came in two hours later and picked up the Defendant to the Police Station.
    
17. This Turn of events is concerning to this Court in that every day in classes and lecture halls in Papua New Guinea, students and their Teachers, Lecturers, Patrons and Mentors are interacting and in those interactions sometimes people become upset and angry and hurt and embarrassed.
    
18. Should we then call the Police every time someone is emotionally hurt or upset because of such interactions? Just imagine the chaos this would spell for the Education System if Teachers in our schools are to be arrested by Police Every time a Student is upset because of a Teacher. Our places of Learning will become a battle field with teachers ultimately refusing to teach and mentor students. Who then is to step up to the plate? The Parents?
    
19. The Parents and Citizens Committees or Associations of Schools and the School Boards are established just for that purpose to address Students and Teachers Concerns where student’s and teacher’s infractions or conflicts can be addressed.
    
20. This is a matter that ought to have being referred to the school board or Parents and Citizens Committee for their attentions.
    

8. The Referral of this matter direct to the Police is preemptive and akin to putting the cart before the horse.
   
9. Even if I am asked to determine if the Comments made by the Defendant of the Complainant would amount to Abusive and Insulting Language, I would be hard pressed to Rule in the affirmative as at the most I would think that the statements were made in jest rather than with ill-will or malice.
   
10. Then again, as state earlier, different people deal differently to stimuli and I am sure if the Complainant was Subjectively embarrassed and aggrieved as she claims, she probably was, but in Applying the ‘Objective man’s test’ to this, this court is not convinced that the Statements made by the Defendant were ‘Abusive and Insulting as Claimed.
    
11. At the most, the other students laughing at the comments probably tipped the scales for the Victim.
    
12. That being said, I still find that this matter ought to have being Dealt with Administratively at the School level instead of being referred direct to the Police.
    
13. Accordingly, the Court finds and orders as follows;
    
    1. The Court will not return a Verdict on this matter.
       
    2. The matter is referred back to the Martyrs Secondary School Board for them to deliberate on this matter with a view to having this interaction between the Defendant and the Complainant properly dealt with administratively as a matter for Future Reference.
       
    3. The Defendants Bail is to be refunded.
       

Police Prosecution for the State.
Defendant in person.