State v Sahin [1994] PGNC 7; N1225 (23 March 1994)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1225

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 303/92
THE STATE
v
LUKE SAHIN>

Buka

Doherty J
23 March 1994

Admission of evidence before the District Court in committal proceedings.

Held:

1. ـ҈ S60; Sectionction 97 and S. 102 District Court Act permit admission of evidence in the National Court.

2. ټ&##160; S60; Sectionction 102 vests a discretion in the National Court if certain preconditions are present. Section 97 is self eing.

Counsel:

N Miviri for the State

T Tamusio for the Accused

INTERIM RULING

23 March 1994

DOHERTY J: The State applies to adert certain evidence adduced in the committal court and cross-examination and answers in that court in the matter of The State v Sahin.

The initial application the court was told by the State, the evidence was toas to be admitted by consent but there is in fact an objection to that particular evidence being admitted. The application is apparebtly brought under S. 102 of the District Court Act. It is commound at S 97 of 7 of the District Court Act does not apply. Sec102 (b) of the Dit Cour Court Act provides a discretion in the court to admit witt without further proof evidence on the committal if a Certificate of the persot serve the accused or his legal representatives with the dthe documents and the evidence is before the Court and that statement is on Oath. There is on the Coile an a an affidavit or statement sworn before a Commissioner of Oath from Inspector Koteke that he served Messrs Warner Shand, the accused’s Lawyers with the committal proceedings on the 21st of February 1992. Commiin itself amounts to s to a prima facie case against an accused. This appears to be the status it is given by S. 95 of therict Court Act. The District or Comm CourtCourt is obliged to form an opinion if the the evidence is sufficient to put the deft on trial and that evidence does not extent beyond that prat prima facie case.

Counsel for the State has said that, the credibility of the witnesses will be in issue and credibility often depends on such matters as demeanour etc in assessing who to believe. In the exercise therefore of the discretion of the Court and in the circumstances of this case, I will exercise that discretion in favour of the accused as apparently there is no other to the witnesses being called. For example it is not suggested that they are ill or being kept away from the Court to prevent them giving evidence. In the circuces I will notl not admit that particular evidence and the witnesses should be called. I will hr admit the recordecord of interview which was tendered by nt.

Lawyer for the State: Pubrosecutor

L

Lawyer for the Accused: Public Solicitor