State v Malaia [1978] PGNC 8; N158 (22 July 1978)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N158

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
V
GAIUS HELEX MALAIA OF KAPAKADA

Mendi

Raine DCJ
20 July 1978
22 July 1978

STATEMENTS BY ACCUSED PERSON IN RECORD OF INTERVIEW AND SO ON WHICH ARE SELF SERVING AND WHERE NO EVIDENCE IS LED TO SUPPORT THEM - evidentiary value - view that they have evidentiary value, as stated by Williams, J. in Regina v. Joseph Haiai Sarufa, ((1974) P.N.G.L.R. 173) followed.

(There is no need to publish the whole of this judgment of which the following forms a part.)

RAINE DCJ: He did nny to the police tice that he physically received K1,151.00 in cash, he admitted it in his record of interview, but it was a record of interview where the accused confessed and avoided. There good deal of self serving ming material contained in the record of interview. In this regard I follow the decision and apply the reasons of Williams, J. in Regina v. Joseph Haiai SarufaN158.html#_edn111" title="">[cxi]¹. I refer to two paragraphs in His Honour’s judgment, being the last two paragraphs of p.178, continuing to the end of the second paragraph on p.179. The headnote correctly summarises what His Honour said. It reads, inter alia:

“(1) Factcluding serf serving sing statements, related by an accused in a signed statement to the police put in evidence by the Crown, and in a statement made on oath pursuant to s.103 ... and subjected to cross-examination, are evidence in favour of the accused but must be considered along with all the other evidence in the trial, and the weight to be attached is a jury matter.”

I prefer His Honour’s reasons to my own in The Queen v. Iako KutoN158.html#_edn112" title="">[cxii]². As His Honour pointed out I had “some reservation in the practical application” of a passage I cited from Req. v. SparrowN158.html#_edn113" title="">[cxiii]³. In Iako KutoN158.html#_edn114" title="">[cxiv]⁴ (supra) after quoting a pasg passage from SparrowN158.html#_edn115" title="">[cxv]⁵ (supra) I sap>

“Wh20;While I respectfully agree that this is, ‘strictu senso’, a correct statement of law, it does seem to me that nevertheless the tribunal of fact would not pass over an unverified statement, by an accused, albeit self-serving, where it was consistent with other proved facts and highly plausible, and this particularly so in Papua New Guinea, where defence counsel have very real problems when they come to consider whether an unsophisticated accused should give evidence, or even make a statement from the dock.”

Additionally, when the matter was argued before me I was not referred to Reg. v. WilliamsonN158.html#_edn116" title="">[cxvi]⁶, which decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal His Honour preferred to SparrowN158.html#_edn117" title="">[cxvii]⁷ (supra).

Soor for thor the State: K.B. Egan

Counsel: M.P. Thompson

Solicitor for the Accused: M. Kapi, Public Solicitor

Counsel: D.L. O’Connor

N158.htm8.html#_ednref111" title="">[cxi]^{(1974) P.N.G.L.R. 173}

[cxii]^{(Unreported) Judgment, Port Moresby, 5 July 1973 1973}

N158.html#_ednref113" title="">[cxiii] ^{(1973) 1 W.L.R. 488}

N158.html#_ednref114" title="">[cxiv]^{(Unreported) Judgment, Port Moresby, 5 July 1973}

N158.html#_ednref115" title="">[cxv] ^{(1973) 1 W.L.R. 488 at 492}

N158.html#_ednref116" title="">[cxvi] ^{(1972) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 281}

N158.html#_ednref117" title="">[cxvii] ^{(1973) 1 W.L.R. 488}