N11341
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS (HR) NO 15 OF 2023

PATRICK  LIRI FOR HIMSELF & 86 OTHERS OF GABI VILLAGE, NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A” 
TO THE WRIT OF SUMMONS 
Plaintiffs

V

DAVID MANNING, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
First Defendant

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Defendant

WAIGANI: CANNINGS J
28 MARCH, 18, 26 JUNE 2025

DAMAGES – assessment – breach of human rights – police raid of village – damage to plaintiffs’ properties – assessment of damages after trial on liability.

This was a trial on assessment of damages after the 87 plaintiffs proved that the second defendant, the State, was vicariously liable for five breaches of human rights committed by members of the Police Force during three raids on the plaintiffs’ village. The plaintiffs claimed four categories of damages: (a) damages for breaches of human rights, K2,175,000.00; (b) general damages for pain, suffering and hardship, K870,000.00; (c) exemplary damages, K435,000.00; (d) damages for cash and property losses, K63,297.77. The total amount of damages sought was K3,543,297.77. The defendants argued that the claims were excessive, but did not argue that the question of liability should be revisited or that the plaintiffs should be awarded nothing. 

Held:

(1)	Damages were awarded to the 87 plaintiffs in the following amounts: (a) damages for breaches of human rights, K15,000.00 x 87 = K1,305,000.00; (b) general damages for pain, suffering and hardship, K5,000.00 x 87 = K435,000.00; (c) exemplary damages, K5,000.00 x 87 = K435,000.00; (d) damages for cash and property losses, K632,977.68 x 0.10 = K63,297.77. Total damages awarded was K2,238,297.77. 

(2)	In addition, interest on the total amount of damages at the rate of 2% per annum was awarded under s 4(2) of the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015. Total interest awarded was K78,788.08. 

(3)	The total judgment sum was damages K2,238,297.77 + interest K78,788.08 = K2,317,085.85. 

Cases cited

Baine v Ulga (2019) N8076
Fuliva v Wagambie [2013] 1 PNGLR 142
Jacob v Namora (2020) N8385
Jobou v Kumasi (2012) N4607
Liri v Commissioner of Police & The State (2024) N11068
Mano v Wagambie (2023) N10410
Munvi v Tukai (2018) N7100

Counsel

J P Gene for the plaintiffs
A Kajoka for the defendants

1.      CANNINGS J:  This is an assessment of damages following a trial on liability. The second defendant, the State, was found vicariously liable for breaches of human rights committed against 87 residents of Gabi village, National Capital District by members of the Police Force during three separate raids of the village in April 2020 (Liri v Commissioner of Police & The State (2024) N11068).

2.     The first raid was on 6 April 2020 at 10.00 am. Police entered the village and targeted betel nut traders. This was during a state of emergency in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic, a time when trade in betel nut was restricted. The second raid was on 29 April 2020 at 10.00 am. The third and biggest raid was on 29 April 2020 at 2.00 pm when a convoy of 15 police vehicles entered the village. Police fired tear gas and live ammunition which caused panic and fear amongst the villagers and other people present at the village, some of whom fled the village. Again, the pretext on which the raid was carried out was to enforce the betel nut ban during the state of emergency. 

3.     The police created fear and terror and issued verbal assaults on the plaintiffs, threatened physical violence, killed pigs, confiscated bags of betel nut and mustard intended for sale, fired teargas and gunshots indiscriminately, looted trade stores, destroyed market tables, stole market goods and cash and in one instance sexually assaulted one of the plaintiffs and generally damaged and/or destroyed the plaintiffs’ properties. 

4.     The plaintiffs claimed that five of their human rights were breached by the Police:

•	right to freedom from inhuman treatment under s 36 of the Constitution;
•	right to full protection of the law under s 37 of the Constitution;
•	right to freedom from arbitrary search and entry under s 44 of the Constitution;
•	right to privacy under s 49 of the Constitution; and 
•	right to protection from unjust deprivation of property under s 53 of the Constitution.

5.     I found each of those claims proven in that:

•	the plaintiffs, especially mothers and children caught up in the raids, were treated inhumanely, without respect for their inherent dignity as human persons, contrary to s 36 of the Constitution; 

•	the plaintiffs were denied the full protection of the law under s 37 of the Constitution as the members of the Police Force acted unlawfully and arbitrarily without a court order authorising their entry into the village and search for and seizure of betel nut;

•	the plaintiffs’ right to be free from the arbitrary (or unauthorised) entry of their premises under s 44 of the Constitution was infringed as the entry into their homes was unauthorised by law or by any court order;

•	the plaintiffs’ right to privacy under s 49 of the Constitution was also infringed by the arbitrary entry into their homes unauthorised by law or by any court order;

•	as to s 53 of the Constitution, the forceful destruction of the plaintiffs’ properties including betel nut and mustard amounted to taking compulsory possession of their property without just compensation. 

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 

6.     The plaintiffs claim four categories of damages: 

(a) damages for breaches of human rights, K2,175,000.00; 

(b) general damages for pain, suffering and hardship, K870,000.00; 

(c) exemplary damages, K435,000.00; and 

(d) damages for cash and property losses, K63,297.77. 

The total amount of damages sought is K3,543,297.77. 

7.     The State argues that the claims are excessive, but does not argue that the question of liability should be revisited or that the plaintiffs should be awarded nothing. 

EVIDENCE

8.     The plaintiffs’ case consisted of affidavits sworn by each of the 87 plaintiffs, deposing to what the police had done and the property damage the deponent had incurred and/or witnessed. There was no evidence for the defendants. 

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 
9.     I will assess damages in the four categories of damages sought by the plaintiffs.

(a)	Damages for breach of human rights 

10.     Mr Gene for the plaintiffs submitted that each plaintiff should be awarded K5,000.00 damages for each of the five breaches of human rights proven at the trial on liability, a total of K25,000.00. That approach would be consistent with other police raid cases such as Munvi v Tukai (2018) N7100, Jacob v Namora (2020) N8385 and Mano v Wagambie (2023) N10410. However, this is the first time I have found that five separate human rights breaches have been committed in a single series of incidents. I do not think it would be right to give the benefit to the plaintiffs of having their case articulated more extensively than in other cases. I will award K3,000.00 for each human rights breach. Each plaintiff will receive K15,000.00. The total amount awarded is K15,000.00 x 87 = K1,305,000.00. 

(b)	General damages for pain and suffering, distress etc

11.     Mr Gene submitted that each plaintiff should be awarded K10,000.00 general damages. That would be consistent with the awards of general damages in the cases of Munvi, Jacob and Mano. However, each case must be assessed on its merits. I have decided that in the present case, where the plaintiffs have benefited by the more extensive articulation of their claims for separate human rights breaches, a lesser amount is warranted. I will award K5.000.00 to each plaintiff. The total amount awarded is K5,000.00 x 87 = K435,000.00. 

(c)	Exemplary damages

12.     Mr Gene submitted that each plaintiff should be awarded K5,000.00 exemplary damages. That amount would be consistent with the awards of exemplary damages in the cases of Munvi, Jacob and Mano. This is a valid claim. It is a punitive form of damages, and it is warranted in this case. Having regard to s 12(1) of the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996, there has been a breach of constitutional rights so severe as to warrant an award of exemplary damages. I award K5,000.00 to each plaintiff. The total amount awarded is K5,000.00 x 87 = K435,000.00. 

(d)	Cash and property losses 

13.     Each of the 87 plaintiffs gave evidence of the police destroying or seriously damaging their homes and other properties, and particularised their claims with a total value of K632,977.68. Ms Kajoka, for the State, submitted that each claim should be discounted by 90% as the claims were exaggerated and uncorroborated. 

14.    That is the approach I have taken in many similar police raid cases. In addition to the three already referred to, Munvi, Jacob and Mano, I refer to Jobou v Kumasi (2012) N4607, Fuliva v Wagambie [2013] 1 PNGLR 142 and Baine v Ulga (2019) N8076. It is a sensible and pragmatic approach. Almost invariably the claims of economic loss lack corroboration and in most of those cases the defendants asserted that nothing should be awarded for property losses. However, I have consistently taken the view that it would be unjust to award plaintiffs nothing for their property losses. 

15.      It is pleasing that in the present case the State has not submitted that nothing should be awarded for property losses. Clearly these incidents happened as alleged. A lot of homes and other properties were damaged. The plaintiffs have a right to be compensated for their property losses. I will award 10% of K632,977.68 = K63,297.77.

SUMMARY 

16.     The plaintiffs are awarded the following amounts: 

(a) damages for breaches of human rights, K15,000.00 x 87 = K1,305,000.00; 

(b) general damages for pain, suffering and hardship, K5,000.00 x 87 = K435,000.00; 

(c) exemplary damages, K5,000.00 x 87 = K435,000.00; 

(d) damages for cash and property losses, K632,977.68 x 0.10 = K63,297.77. 

Total damages awarded = K2,238,297.77. 

INTEREST 

17.     I will award interest on the total amount of damages at the rate of 2% per annum under s 4(2) of the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015. 

18.     I will fix the start date of the period in respect of which interest is calculated as the date of issue of the writ of summons, 23 September 2023. The end date will be the date of this judgment. The period is 1.76 years. Interest will be awarded by applying the formula D x I x N = A, where D is the amount of damages, I is the interest rate per annum, N is the period in years, A is the amount of interest. 

Total interest awarded is K2,238,297.77 x 0.02 x 1.76 = K78,788.08.

COSTS

19.     The general rule is that costs follow the event, ie the successful party has its costs paid for by the losing party on a party-to-party basis. However, Mr Gene has asked the court to award costs in a fixed sum. He proposes K1,000.00 for each plaintiff. Ms Kajoka agreed. I endorse that agreement. The total amount of costs awarded is K87,000.00. 

ORDER 

1.	Damages are payable by the second defendant to the plaintiffs in the total sum of K2,238,297.77.

2.	In addition, interest is payable by the second defendant to the plaintiffs in the total sum of K78,788.08.

3.	In addition, the second defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of the entire proceedings in the fixed sum of K87,000.00.

4.	The proceedings are thereby determined and the file is closed.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the plaintiff:		Public Solicitor
Lawyer for the defendants:	Solicitor-General