Augerea v Koroma [2013] PGNC 192; N5434 (10 December 2013)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

AUGUSTINE KOROMA, DOMINIC ANGIA, DONALD YAMA, JACK TONGIA, JOHN NEGINZU, JUSTIN MENDE,
KOMBO ANDAMBO, KUNDA KANA, MICHAEL TOMORANGAI, RUTAI TONGIA, STEVEN ANDANBO, THOMAS KUMBRE & TIAMURA ANDANBO
Contemnors

CONTEMPT – incident outside courthouse – alleged threats and incitement to violence by contemnors against parties to ongoing court proceeding.

There was an incident outside a courthouse, which led to 13 persons being charged with two counts of contempt of court for (1) threatening and inciting violence against and intimidating a party to court proceedings and others, and (2) disturbing the peace of the precincts of the National Court. A trial was held to determine whether any of the persons charged (the contemnors) was guilty of contempt.

Andrew Kwimberi v The State (1998) SC545
John Jaminan v The State (No 2) [1983] PNGLR 318
Peter Luga v Richard Sikani (2002) N2285
Ross Bishop and Others v Bishop Bros Engineering Pty Ltd and Others [1988-89] PNGLR 533
Yama v Yagama (2013) N5354

This was the trial of an originating summons charging 13 persons with contempt of court.

1. CANNINGS J: This judgment gives reasons for the Court's verdicts on 13 persons who have been tried for contempt of court. They were each charged with contempt in relation to an incident outside the National Court at Yabob Road Madang during the luncheon adjournment on Tuesday 3 September 2013.

2. The Court had that morning commenced hearing various applications regarding the result of a Court-ordered recount of votes in the 2012 general election for the seat of Usino-Bundi Open. The result of the election had been the subject of an election petition, EP No 52 of 2012. Mr Peter Yama, the petitioner, was challenging the election of Hon Anton Yagama MP. Soon after the Court adjourned at about 11.20 am and parties and their supporters and lawyers and members of the public left the courthouse, the incident unfolded.

3. The incident led the Registrar of the National Court, Mr Ian Augerea, to charging Augustine Koroma and 12 others, the contemnors, who are supporters of Mr Yagama, with two counts each of contempt of court. The Registrar alleges that the contemnors were members of a rowdy group of people who were armed with bushknives and other weapons who threatened and abused Mr Yama and his group as they were driving along Yabob Road. The statement of charge alleges that the contemnors engaged in conduct in or in the precincts of or in the vicinity of the National Court that was calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice by each:

4. Contempt of court is a criminal offence, the elements of which are any act or omission, committed in the face of the court or outside court, which is intended to or calculated to or likely to interfere or obstruct the fair or due administration of justice (Andrew Kwimberi v The State (1998) SC545). The prosecution bears the onus of proving contempt according to the criminal standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt (Ross Bishop and Others v Bishop Bros Engineering Pty Ltd and Others [1988-89] PNGLR 533). There are numerous categories of contempt, including disobeying court orders, scandalising the court or a judge and taking reprisals on parties, witnesses or officers of the court (including lawyers) on account of what they have said or done in court (Peter Luga v Richard Sikani (2002) N2285). This case falls into the last category.

5. I was the presiding Judge in EP No 52 of 2012. I became aware of the incident when it was reported to the Court by Mr Yama's lawyer, Mr Kiuk, at the start of the afternoon session on 3 September 2013. After hearing further reports of the incident, and after delivery of the ruling on the recount (Yama v Yagama (2013) N5354) I, on 5 September 2013, summoned the contemnors to attend the court. They attended on 10 September 2013 and I informed them of the allegations of contempt against them and that I was directing the Registrar, under Order 14, Rule 47(1) of the National Court Rules, to commence contempt proceedings against them. The charges were served on the contemnors, they were given time to engage a lawyer and normal criminal procedures were applied. Each of the contemnors was arraigned and they each pleaded not guilty so a trial was conducted.

6. Some contemnors claimed that they had been misdescribed in the originating summons and statement of charge. They requested the Court to correct its records so that their names are spelt correctly. There was no objection and I upheld those requests. One of the contemnors, Kombo Andambo, died after the commencement of the trial. The corrected names and status of the contemnors are:

7. This judgment is set out as follows. First the prosecution's evidence is summarised. Next, the contemnors' evidence is summarised. Then general findings of fact are made. Then the evidence concerning each contemnor is assessed and a verdict is given in relation to each contemnor. Finally the verdicts and orders of the Court are pronounced.

8. The evidence in support of the charges was by affidavit, in accordance with Order 14, Rule 44 of the National Court Rules. The prosecution tendered five affidavits, which were admitted into evidence without objection. The evidence of the deponents is summarised in the following table.

No	Witness		Description
1	Linus Yangi Lai		Principal Clerk, National Court, Madang
Evidence		He saw people moving to and fro in a hurry at the front of the Registry – he walked out of the Registry and proceeded to the main gate of the courthouse – saw a group of people with painted faces and mud, with bushknives, iron rods and axes standing outside the Training Centre 70 metres away – they were swearing, shouting war-cries and emotional – bystanders told him that they were Mr Yagama's supporters – he identified Augustine Koroma [1st contemnor] and Steven Andanbo [11th contemnor] who were very vocal and shouting. Another group was gathered outside the NBC gate: this group was very peaceful. While he (the witness) was at the main gate Mr P C Yama and his lawyer and two support vehicles drove towards Mr Yagama's group – Mr Yama stopped his vehicle, opened the door and said something to the group and then sped off – the angry mob tried to attack them and threw stones at Mr Yama's vehicle – Mr Yagama's supporters were dressed in tribal attire and were emotional and caused fear to the National Court staff and Madang town inhabitants; by contrast Mr Yama's group was very peaceful.
2	Peter Charles Yama		Petitioner in EP No 52 of 2012
Evidence		He lives only four houses away from Mr Yagama and at 8.30 am on the day of the incident he heard a war-cry coming from Mr Yagama's residence – he sent one of his boys to check what was happening and he reported back that Mr Yagama's supporters had painted their faces black and were armed with knives, axes, iron rods and home-made guns – he took an alternative route to the courthouse and attended the morning session of the court. After the morning session finished at 11.15 he and his lawyer Mr Kiuk drove down the road – he saw that Mr Yagama's supporters were blocking the road – they had painted their faces black and were armed with knives, axes, iron rods and home-made guns – he told them 'You people coming to fight?' – he recognised Augustine Koroma [1st contemnor], Dominic Angia [2nd contemnor], Kombo Andambo [7th contemnor, deceased] and Steven Andanbo [11th contemnor], all with their faces painted black – he heard shouting, eg 'Wanpela bai dai' ['One of you will die'] and Augustine Koroma [1st contemnor] called out to him: 'Yupla giaman tumas, go!' [You are telling too many lies. Go!] – his two escort vehicles were stoned and dented on their rear doors – when he returned to the courthouse at 1.30 pm he complained to the Police that they were not doing their job properly and that Mr Yagama's supporters had almost killed him, so they should be disarmed.
3	Ismael Yama		Petitioner's son
Evidence		He escorted his father and Mr Kiuk out of the courthouse – he drove one of the escort vehicles while his father and Mr Kiuk went ahead – Mr Yagama's supporters were blocking the road, armed with bushknives, axes, iron rods and spears: they threatened his father and Mr Kiuk by dragging bushknives and iron rods along the road. He recognised and named the 13 contemnors as being amongst the group: Augustine Koroma, Dominic Angia, Donald Yama, Jack Tongia, John Neginzu, Justin Mende, Kombo Andambo, Kunda Kana, Michael Tomorangai, Rutai Tongia, Steven Andanbo, Thomas Kumbre and Tiamura Andanbo. As he (the witness) drove past, members of the group threw stones at the vehicle he was driving – the Police were present but did nothing.
4	Hilarion Ori		Security Supervisor, National Court, Madang
Evidence		He stood at the main gate of the courthouse and saw Mr Yama drive along Yabob Road followed by two escort vehicles – when Mr Yama was about to drive past Mr Yagama's supporters he heard an exchange of words and saw Mr Yagama's supporters rush towards Mr Yama's vehicles armed with bushknives and iron rods.
5	Ben Simanjuang		Personal Assistant to Mr P C Yama
Evidence		He was in one of the escort vehicles, driven by Labi Yalop – as they were driving out, he noticed a roadblock and a lot of Mr Yagama's supporters were blocking the road, with their faces painted black, armed with bushknives, iron rods and stones – he recognised Augustine Koroma [1st contemnor] and Steven Andanbo [11th contemnor] – the Police did nothing.

9. Each of the contemnors swore an affidavit, which was admitted into evidence by consent. Their evidence is summarised in the following table.

No	Witness		Description
1	Augustine Koroma		1st contemnor
Evidence		He attended the Court with family members, supporters and friends of Mr Yagama – was present outside the courthouse as only six supporters each of Mr Yagama and Mr Yama were allowed in the courtroom – the police had cordoned off Yabob Road with barricades and the two groups of supporters were at opposite ends of the road – after waiting for a couple of hours people came out of the court – Mr Yama drove his vehicle towards Mr Yagama's supporters and slowed down next to Mr Yagama's supporters and said 'Yupla laik pait, orait bai yumi pait' [If you want to fight, then we will fight] – this statement angered the Yagama supporters who told Mr Yama to stop telling lies – he (the witness) went to ask the crowd to come back to their camp and wait for Mr Yagama – then Ismael Yama and one of Mr Yama's guards drove their vehicles at high speed towards Mr Yagama's supporters – this angered them so they shouted at the Yama group – if Mr Yama and his son had not acted in a provocative manner nothing would have happened – he (the witness) denies threatening or inciting any physical violence; he did not take part in the incident, he did not behave or react in a manner that would interfere with the due administration of justice – all the Yagama supporters were patient and very respectful of the court process.
2	Dominic Angia		2nd contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he was at Newtown with Donald Yama, John Neginzu, Kombo Andambo, Tiamura Andanbo – he has no knowledge of the incident.
3	Donald Yama		3rd contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he was at Newtown with Dominic Angia, John Neginzu, Kombo Andambo, Tiamura Andanbo – he has no knowledge of the incident.
4	Jack Tongia		4th contemnor
Evidence		He attended the Court but did not go in the courtroom – he was standing 50 metres away from the courthouse – Mr Yama drove his vehicle towards his (the witness's) group and slowed down next to Mr Yagama's supporters and said 'Yupla laik pait, orait bai yumi pait' [If you want to fight, then we will fight] – this statement angered the Yagama supporters who told Mr Yama to stop telling lies – he (the witness) was aware there was a court order in place in EP No 52 of 2012 not to disturb the peace or the administration of justice, so he never took part in the incident or acted in a manner to contravene the court order.

5	John Neginzu		5th contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he was at Newtown with Dominic Angia, Donald Yama, Kombo Andambo, Tiamura Andanbo – he has no knowledge of the incident.
6	Justin Mende		6th contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he is employed by MCC and he was at Kurumbukari, at work.
7	Kombo Andambo		7th contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he was at Newtown with Dominic Angia, Donald Yama, John Neginzu, Tiamura Andanbo – he has no knowledge of the incident.
8	Kunda Kana		8th contemnor
Evidence		He attended the Court but did not go in the courtroom – he was standing 50 metres away from the courthouse – Mr Yama drove his vehicle towards his (the witness's) group and slowed down next to Mr Yagama's supporters and said 'Yupla laik pait, orait bai yumi pait' [If you want to fight, then we will fight] – this statement angered the Yagama supporters who told Mr Yama to stop telling lies – he (the witness) was aware there was a court order in place in EP No 52 of 2012 not to disturb the peace or the administration of justice, so he never took part in the incident or acted in a manner to contravene the court order.
9	Michael Tomorangai		9th contemnor
Evidence		He attended the Court but did not go in the courtroom – he was standing 50 metres away from the courthouse – Mr Yama drove his vehicle towards his (the witness's) group and slowed down next to Mr Yagama's supporters and said 'Yupla laik pait, orait bai yumi pait' [If you want to fight, then we will fight] – this statement angered the Yagama supporters who told Mr Yama to stop telling lies – he (the witness) was aware there was a court order in place in EP No 52 of 2012 not to disturb the peace or the administration of justice, so he never took part in the incident or acted in a manner to contravene the court order.
10	Rutai Tongia		10th contemnor
Evidence		He attended the Court but did not go in the courtroom – he was standing 50 metres away from the courthouse – Mr Yama drove his vehicle towards his (the witness's) group and slowed down next to Mr Yagama's supporters and said 'Yupla laik pait, orait bai yumi pait' [If you want to fight, then we will fight] – this statement angered the Yagama supporters who told Mr Yama to stop telling lies – he (the witness) was aware there was a court order in place in EP No 52 of 2012 not to disturb the peace or the administration of justice, so he never took part in the incident or acted in a manner to contravene the court order.
11	Steven Andanbo		11th contemnor
Evidence		He attended the Court but did not go in the courtroom – he was standing 50 metres away from the courthouse – Mr Yama drove his vehicle towards his (the witness's) group and slowed down next to Mr Yagama's supporters and said 'Yupla laik pait, orait bai yumi pait' [If you want to fight, then we will fight] – this statement angered the Yagama supporters who told Mr Yama to stop telling lies – he (the witness) was aware there was a court order in place in EP No 52 of 2012 not to disturb the peace or the administration of justice, so he never took part in the incident or acted in a manner to contravene the court order.
12	Thomas Kumbre		12th contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he is a student and he was in Lae, attending classes.
13	Tiamura Andanbo		13th contemnor
Evidence		He was not at or near the courthouse – he was at Newtown with Dominic Angia, Donald Yama, John Neginzu, Kombo Andambo – he has no knowledge of the incident.

10. There is sufficient evidence for the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, during the luncheon adjournment on 3 September 2013, as one of the parties, Mr Peter Yama, and his lawyer and other associates were driving along Yabob Road in the direction of Modilon Road, they were confronted and threatened with physical violence by a group of supporters of another party to the proceedings, Hon Anton Yagama MP. That group of supporters shouted at and abused Mr Yama. The incident occurred about 50 metres from the courthouse gate.

11. None of the contemnors refuted the evidence of the prosecution that those members of the Yagama group near the courthouse had painted faces and were armed. I find that some members of the Yagama group had black paint and mud on their faces and that some of them were armed with weapons including bushknives, iron rods, stones and axes, which were brandished in a threatening manner, for example by being scraped along the road. There is insufficient evidence that they had guns of any description.

12. I reject the argument that responsibility for the incident should rest with Mr Yama because of the provocation he offered by his exchange of words with the Yagama supporters. I find that Mr Yama did say to the group 'You people coming to fight?' but I reject the claim that he added the words 'OK we fight' as there is no evidence to suggest that he and his group were displaying any interest in fighting anyone. If he did add those words, they were not so provocative to justify the threats and intimidation that followed. I find that members of the Yagama group had stationed themselves outside the courthouse so that they would be able to intimidate Mr Yama and his lawyer and members of Mr Yama's group as they left the precincts of the Court.

13. There is independent evidence in the affidavits of court officials, Mr Lai and Mr Ori, to support the finding that this was a serious incident, involving threats of violence with weapons and a high level of intimidation, against a party to ongoing court proceedings, and his lawyer and other associates, in the precincts of the National Court. The aggressors were members of a group of Mr Yagama's supporters. Mr Yama's supporters were stationed at the opposite end of Yabob Road. They did not offer any aggression and did not get involved in the violent incident. They kept the peace.

14. The aggressive conduct of Mr Yagama's supporters was likely to interfere in the due administration of justice as it had real potential to interrupt the orderly dispatch of the business of the National Court by hampering the ability of Mr Yama and his lawyer (who is an officer of the court) to freely put their case to the court without fear of intimidation or reprisal. Conduct of this nature is a sign of disrespect to the Court and is a threat to the authority of the Court. It is conduct that constitutes contempt of court. The question of fact now to be determined is which, if any, of the contemnors was a member of the group that engaged in that contemptuous conduct.

15. There is strong evidence that he was a member of the group who engaged in the contemptuous conduct and that he was a vocal and leading member. The evidence of Peter Yama, Ismael Yama and Ben Simanjuang supports that finding. I acknowledge, as Mr Boboro for the contemnors emphasises, that they cannot be regarded as independent witnesses. However, their evidence is corroborated by an independent witness, Mr Lai, who said that Augustine Koroma was very vocal and shouting. The contemnor agrees that he was present and tries to portray his role as that of a peacemaker. However, I reject that evidence. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Augustine Koroma was an active and leading member of the group of Mr Yagama's supporters who engaged in contemptuous conduct and that he thereby:

16. This contemnor raises an alibi: he was not outside the courthouse, he was at Newtown, about two kilometres away, and he had no involvement in the incident. The first thing to note about the alibi is that there is little evidence to support it. It is corroborated only by similar evidence of other contemnors. There is no independent evidence that he was at Newtown.

17. However, as the Supreme Court pointed out in the leading case of John Jaminan v The State (No 2) [1983] PNGLR 318 if an alibi is raised the burden of proof does not shift from the prosecution. The onus is never on the accused in a criminal trial to prove an alibi or prove innocence. These are contempt proceedings and this is tantamount to a criminal trial, so the Jaminan principles must be applied. That means, in practical terms that the question of how strong or convincing the alibi evidence has to be depends on the strength of the prosecution's evidence that the person was present at the scene of the crime. If the prosecution's evidence is very strong, the alibi evidence needs to be reasonably strong to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge as to the guilt of the accused. The court must always be satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Great caution should be exercised before drawing an inference adverse to an accused, as a result of the accused's failure to call a witness that might reasonably be expected to support the accused's alibi.

18. Having regard to the Jaminan principles, I note that two prosecution witnesses named Dominic Angia as being present: Peter Charles Yama and Ismael Yama. Those witnesses do not give any reason they were able to recognise Dominic Angia (eg that he is a relative or friend or is a well known person in the community). The prosecution evidence that Dominic Angia was present and in the group that engaged in contemptuous conduct is not very strong. The alibi evidence does not have to be detailed and corroborated in this situation. I have considered a further potential weakness in the alibi: that the contemnors who raised the alibi defence all say that they were with Kombo Andambo at Newtown; whereas there is evidence from two prosecution witnesses (Peter Charles Yama and Ismael Yama) that Kombo Andambo was a member of the group engaged in contemptuous conduct. However, that prosecution evidence is insufficient to make a finding that Kombo Andambo was present and it is insufficient to nullify the alibi of Dominic Angia. The contemnor must be given the benefit of the doubt.

19. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dominic Angia was present at the scene of the contemptuous conduct. He is not guilty of both counts.

20. He raises the same alibi as Dominic Angia. His evidence is also vague and uncorroborated. However, the only prosecution witness who says that he was present outside the courthouse is Ismael Yama whose evidence is uncorroborated.

21. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Yama was present at the scene of the contemptuous conduct. He is not guilty of both counts.

22. Ismael Yama names Jack Tongia as being a member of the group that engaged in the contemptuous conduct. The contemnor agrees that he was standing in a group of Mr Yagama's supporters about 50 metres away from the courthouse. That is the spot at which the contemptuous conduct was committed. The contemnor denies taking part in that conduct, however I reject the denial. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that the contemnor was a member of the group and he willingly participated in its activities. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Jack Tongia was an active member of the group of Mr Yagama's supporters who engaged in contemptuous conduct and that he thereby:

23. He raises the same alibi as Dominic Angia. His evidence is also vague and uncorroborated. However, the only prosecution witness who says that he was present outside the courthouse is Ismael Yama whose evidence is uncorroborated.

24. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that John Neginzu was present at the scene of the contemptuous conduct. He is not guilty of both counts.

25. He raises the alibi that he was at Kurumbukari, working. His evidence is vague and uncorroborated. However, the only prosecution witness who says that he was present outside the courthouse is Ismael Yama whose evidence is uncorroborated.

26. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Justin Mende was present at the scene of the contemptuous conduct. He is not guilty of both counts.

28. Ismael Yama names Kunda Kana as being a member of the group that engaged in the contemptuous conduct. The contemnor agrees that he was standing in a group of Mr Yagama's supporters about 50 metres away from the courthouse. That is the spot at which the contemptuous conduct was committed. The contemnor denies taking part in that conduct, however I reject the denial. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that the contemnor was a member of the group and he willingly participated in its activities. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Kunda Kana was an active member of the group of Mr Yagama's supporters who engaged in contemptuous conduct and that he thereby:

29. Ismael Yama names Michael Tomorangai as being a member of the group that engaged in the contemptuous conduct. The contemnor agrees that he was standing in a group of Mr Yagama's supporters about 50 metres away from the courthouse. That is the spot at which the contemptuous conduct was committed. The contemnor denies taking part in that conduct, however I reject the denial. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that the contemnor was a member of the group and he willingly participated in its activities. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Tomorangai was an active member of the group of Mr Yagama's supporters who engaged in contemptuous conduct and that he thereby:

30. Ismael Yama names Rutai Tongia as being a member of the group that engaged in the contemptuous conduct. The contemnor agrees that he was standing in a group of Mr Yagama's supporters about 50 metres away from the courthouse. That is the spot at which the contemptuous conduct was committed. The contemnor denies taking part in that conduct, however I reject the denial. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that the contemnor was a member of the group and he willingly participated in its activities. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Rutai Tongia was an active member of the group of Mr Yagama's supporters who engaged in contemptuous conduct and that he thereby:

31. There is strong evidence that he was a member of the group that engaged in the contemptuous conduct and that he was a vocal and leading member. The evidence of Peter Yama, Ismael Yama and Ben Simanjuang supports that finding. I acknowledge, as Mr Boboro for the contemnors emphasises, that they cannot be regarded as independent witnesses. However, their evidence is corroborated by an independent witness, Mr Lai, who said that Steven Andanbo was very vocal and shouting. The contemnor agrees that he was standing in a group of Mr Yagama's supporters about 50 metres away from the courthouse. That is the spot at which the contemptuous conduct was committed. The contemnor denies taking part in that conduct, however I reject the denial. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence is that the contemnor was a member of the group and he willingly participated in its activities. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Steven Andanbo was an active member of the group of Mr Yagama's supporters who engaged in contemptuous conduct and that he thereby:

32. He raises the alibi that he was at Lae, in classes. His evidence is vague and uncorroborated. However, the only prosecution witness who says that he was present outside the courthouse is Ismael Yama whose evidence is uncorroborated.

33. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Thomas Kumbre was present at the scene of the contemptuous conduct. He is not guilty of both counts.

34. He raises the same alibi as Dominic Angia. His evidence is also vague and uncorroborated. However, the only prosecution witness who says that he was present outside the courthouse is Ismael Yama whose evidence is uncorroborated.

35. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tiamura Andanbo was present at the scene of the contemptuous conduct. He is not guilty of both counts.

Verdicts accordingly.
________________________________________
NJSS In-House Lawyer: Lawyer for the Plaintiff
Kuman Lawyers: Lawyers for the Contemnors

No	Name	Count 1	Count 2
	Augustine Koroma	Guilty	Guilty
	Dominic Angia	Not guilty	Not guilty
	Donald Yama	Not guilty	Not guilty
	Jack Tongia	Guilty	Guilty
	John Neginzu	Not guilty	Not guilty
	Justin Mende	Not guilty	Not guilty
	Kombo Andambo	No verdict	No verdict
	Kunda Kana	Guilty	Guilty
	Michael Tomorangai	Guilty	Guilty
	Rutai Tongia	Guilty	Guilty
	Steven Andanbo	Guilty	Guilty
	Thomas Kumbre	Not guilty	Not guilty
	Tiamura Andanbo	Not guilty	Not guilty

National Court of Papua New Guinea

Augerea v Koroma [2013] PGNC 192; N5434 (10 December 2013)