Baine v The State [1995] PGNC 21; N1335 (16 June 1995)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1335

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 202 OF 1994
ALBERT BAINE - PLAINTIFF
V
THE STATE - DEFENDANT

Mount Hagen

Woods J
13 June 1995
16 June 1995

POLICE - Actions for wrongs - Police raid on village - Destruction of property - Assessment of damages - Valuation of property - Corroboration required of valuation.

Counsel

P Kopunye for the Plaintiff

No Appearance for the State

16 June 1995

WOODS J: This is a claim fmagesmages suffered by the plaintiff and his family from Ambine Village near Banz in the Western Highlands Province on 14 July 1992 when a number of police entered the village and looted and destroyed property. The State haled to properloperly defend the action and judgement by default was signed against the defendant for damages to be assessed.&#16ilst the State did appear at a date for the trial on the assessment in May and an adjournmeurnment was granted it has failed to appear at this fresh hearing date.

The claim is brought by the Plaintiff who whilst living in Port Moresby has a house in the village and has filed this claim on behalf of himself and his parents and other relatives for the destruction and looting of four houses and the contents thereof. The Plaintiff states inencidence that he was contacted by his father after the incident happened and he came home from Moresby and took photographs of the site of the destroyed houses and assessed the goods destroye taken. The father gaer gave eve ance also of the destruction apparently done by the police following an incident when some young men from a neighbouring village had caused some trouble at a Mission. No explanation or legason ason was ever given by the police to the plaintiff or his father as to why the police did this destruction. There was no eve of any alny alleged crimictivity by the plaintiff or his family.

The Plhe Plaintiff claims the destruction of 4 houses. Three of these housre traditional bush material houses and the figures placed aced on them are K500 and K300 and I find no reason to seek any further evidencthat. However one of the housesais called a semi-permanent house and it is stated thad that it had substantial timbers and an iron roof. However the photograpthat that house site show no destruction to support that this house was valued at K8,000 the value put on it by the Plaintiff.

The court must demand more corroboration of such a value and cannot go merely on the talk of the plaintiff. By analogy ifr is damaged aged in an accident a court requires an appropriate valuation from a reputable car dealer, if a house in town is destroyed it is usually assessed by an insurance assessor. Whilst not expecting an inan insurance assessor to assess village raid destruction the court must have some independent evidence to support estimates of value, such aoronial inquiry, evidence from people in authority like Dise District Officers who knew the area and who were called upon to visit the site immediately after an incident. District Officers arll thel the officers of the Government who are supposed to know all about communities and to monitor activities in rural communities and they are the first people such incidents should be repoto and who should investigastigate problems like this. So for tlue of the semi-pemi-permanent house it is difficult to accept the bare evidence of the Plaintiff, as well the photos of the house site do not show burnt and warped roofing irons. I ther willaccept the valu value alue claimed but will give a value of K4,000 on the evidence of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is cla for the loss of 56 coffee trees, against which there is no contemporaneous independent rept report by a district officer or such like who could have examined the burnt remains of coffee trees and reported accordingly. I wicept that as the househouses were surrounded by coffee trees that some may have been destroyed as a consequence of the destruction of the houses. However l planumber of 30 f 30 for that. I s reason to d to discounscount any of the other matters claimed.

Therefore for the detion of the matters claimed and as compensation for these and in this breach of the Constitnstitutional rights under sections 44 and 49 of the Constitution I award an amount of K8970.00. I will adurther amount of t of K1,000.00 onto this for the distress caused by this destruction to the peaceful lives of the victims. I wllow interest on these hese amounts at 8 percent from the df the writ to to-day and thnd this assesses at K935.26.

I order judgement against the State for K10,905.26.

Lawyer for laintiff: P Kopunye