Police v Gware [2022] PGDC 111; DC9051A (29 April 2022)

DC9051

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS SUMMARY COURT JURISDICTION]

SUM 333 of 2022
BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND

MISSIAN GWARE
Defendant

LAE: J MOROG

2022: 18 & 24 March 2022
     29 April 2022 

CRIMINAL- RULING – NO CASE TO ANSWER – SUBMISSION – SECTION 7 OF SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT – USE OF THREATENING WORDS – INTENT TO PROVOKE BREACH OF PEACE – CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE –

Cases Cited
Anthony Willie v Roger Taro [1985] PNGLR 5

References
Summary Offences Act

Counsel

SGT SAKARIAS ALBERT, for the PROSECUTOR

MAIK KARU, for the Defendant

29 April 2022

J MOROG: This is the Courts ruling on the submission by the defendant seeking to be acquitted and discharged on the basis that there is no case made out by the prosecution at the close of their case against him.

1. The defendant was charged that he on the 12^th day of February 2022 at Snack Bar Service Station in Lae, Morobe Province did use threatening words towards another person by the name of Hendrick Singin FUA and as such his actions contravened section 7 (b) of the Summary Offences Act 1977.

2. The charge is titled Provoking a Breach of Peace and the elements of the offence when charged specifically under paragraph (b) shall be; a person; use of threatening, abusive or insulting words; with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace is likely to take place...

3. On the 11^th of March 2022 the trial commenced and the prosecution called Mr Hendrick Singin FUA as their only witness and then rested their case so the Court adjourned for the defence case to resume on the 18^th of March 2022.

4. On the 18^th of March the defendant made his submission via his counsel that there is no case for him to answer which counsel filed a written submission and the court further adjourned for the prosecutor to respond to the defence submission. The prosecution filed their written submission on the 24^th of March 2022.

5. The evidence as it stands after the prosecution called their only witness can be summarised that at all material times the defendant made a hand gesture of a pistol and pointed at the complainant and said he (the defendant) will kill the complainant and also he had bolt cutter and other things in his car and also that he will organise his boys too. Also, he confessed to the complainant about a previous incident that it was he himself who bumped the gate to the complainant’s premises.

6. The defence did not take issue with the words uttered as claimed by the prosecution witness or the gesture demonstrated by the witness but they rather put their case that there was a land dispute between the defendant and the complainant that was ongoing and pending before the village court of Malahang that provoked the defendant to acted in that manner. At least that is what the Court inferred from the line of questioning by the defence counsel.

7. In their No Case Submission the defence conceded that the prosecution has made out prima facie all the elements of the offence except the intent to provoke a breach of the peace or a breach of the peace is likely to take place.

8. They relied on the case of Anthony Willie v Roger Taro [1985] PNGLR 5 to argue that mere use of threatening words or gestures is not sufficient to convict. There ought to be objective evidence establishing the intention to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace was likely to take place as well as the ability or capacity of the person to carry out his intention.

9. The principle is sound and applied in the circumstances of that case back then resulted in the quashing of the conviction by the District Court. However, the circumstances of that case can be distinguished from the case before me now that the Anthony case was a Senior Magistrate who after his wife left for their village, he went about under the influence of alcohol make his move on female complainants in their premises which resulted in a argument in which he said words to the effect that he would hit the lady and that was all.

10. In this case, there is a existing feud over a piece of land which the complainant is currently occupying and the defendant took out a village court summons and served on the complainant on the 9^th of February 2022 summoning him to attend court on the next day (10.02.22) but he asked the court to adjourned to 13^th February 2022 because he had commitments. On the 12^th of February 2022 the defendant behaved in the manner described by the complaint and confessed that he was the one to damaged the gate to the complainant’s house.

11. In these circumstances I find that there is sufficient evidence prima facie that the defendant has demonstrated on the evidence as it stands now, the intention and capacity to provoke a breach of the peace or a breach of the peach is likely to take place given his confession of what he did and also saying he had bolt cutter and other things in the car and even more when he said to organise boys.

12. Therefore, I find that the defendant has a case to answer and I rule accordingly by calling on the defendant to answer his charge.