Queen v Maren [1971] PGSC 65 (4 February 1971)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
TERRITORY OF PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

CORAM: FROST, S.P.J.
Thursday,
4th February 1971

THE QUEEN v. PAUL MAREN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this indictment against the accused man, Paul Maren of Sauri Village, there are three counts; first, that on the 26th September 1970 he unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to one Rufus Donald Symons; secondly, on the same date he unlawfully assaulted Mr. Symons and thereby did him bodily harm; and thirdly, on the same date and place that he unlawfully wounded Mr. Symons.

The onus is on the Crown to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of every element of the charge. The accused as I said yesterday has this advantage: that he comes into this Court with a presumption of innocence which is not displaced in the absence of proof which satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of each element of the charge. As to the first count what are the elements? The elements of the charge are that the accused man by an act on his part unlawfully caused, or unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to Mr. Symons, and that concept is defined as meaning any bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger life or to cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.

So far as the second count is concerned, an assault must be shown which in the circumstances of this case is a direct application of force by the accused man, proved to have been committed by him, and thereby doing bodily harm which means any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort. And so far as the third count is concerned, again there must be proved an act whereby Mr. Symons was caused a wound, an act done by the accused man which caused a wound, that is that the true skin was broken.

Now then the important elements of the law which I must advert to are the defences raised by Mr. Adams on behalf of the accused man. At this stage I should say that I have had the assistance of both Mr. Bradshaw the learned Prosecutor and Mr. Adams in this case who have very fully and helpfully explored all the facts before me and put all the considerations of law which are relevant to it. And the fact that I have had the case so fully investigated and argued before me enables me at this stage to give without further consideration my judgment in this case.

There are three defences relied upon by Mr. Adams; first, there is the defence under Section 31 of the Code, that a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission it he does the act - that's the relevant part - under the circumstances that when the act is reasonably necessary in order to resist actual and unlawful violence threatened to him or to another person in his presence. Here the onus is upon the Crown to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt, if there are circumstances which brings this defence into operation, - the Crown has to satisfy me that the act done by the accused man was not reasonably necessary in order to resist violence threatened to him; and what is reasonably necessary is a concept which brings in the reasonable man. It is this - either force which a reasonable man would suppose to be necessary or which in the circumstances the accused man honestly and reasonably believed to be necessary, so he has the objective test of a reasonable man, but he also has the support of Section 24 of the Code, that is if he has an honest and reasonable belief as to the necessity of that force, then that is a defence which is open to him. Allied to that is Section 271 of the Code and at this stage I do not consider it necessary to advert to a legal argument not put to me by either Counsel, that is, whether Section 31 and Section 271 both apply, because it seems to me that there is some ground for supposing that Section 271 is a special provision which alone applies, rather than the general provisions of Section 31. But for the purposes of this case I shall assume that Section 31 is applicable and I naturally do not decide the point which was not argued before me.

Section 271 paragraph 1 is relied upon. It provides "When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, provided that the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm." Here, then, the accused man does not have to prove anything except that the circumstances must be raised which bring the defence into play. But once there are circumstances which suggest an action done in self-defence sufficient for the consideration of the tribunal of fact, then the onus is upon the Crown to show the absence of any one of these requirements: first of all, that the accused man was unlawfully assaulted, that is actually hit or threatened, or that he had not provoked the assault, or by showing the force was not such as was reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, or that the force was either intended or was likely, that is in the estimation of a reasonable man, to cause death or grievous bodily harm, in this case grievous bodily harm. So the Crown has to exclude either that the accused was unlawfully assaulted, that he had not provoked the assault, or show that force was used which was more than reasonably necessary or that, in this case, the force was such as was likely to cause grievous bodily harm.

Now, then, those being the facts let me then somewhat briefly review the testimony. The whole basis of this case is that it is admitted that on the day in question, which was about 1 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon on 26th September, a stone which was thrown by the accused man hit Mr. Symons on the back of the head. It is also, as I understand it, not contested that this did him same injury the extent of which will have to be gone into. The defences raised by the accused man were not only those which I have just mentioned but a third defence which I did omit to mention and I therefore should do it now, somewhat belatedly, that is that reliance is made on the provisions under Section 23 as follows: that the person is not criminally responsible for an act which occurs independently of the exercise of his will or an event which occurs by accident. And at this stage I indicate Mr. Adams' defence: he says the stone which was thrown by this man was thrown independently of his will inasmuch is he had no intention or he had no will that it should hit the unfortunate Mr. Symons or that he was hit by accident. The fact that the injury was suffered by him was an accident, and I do not want in any way to confine the defence at this stage; I shall come to it later. Mr. Adams submits that this was an act which was done independently of the exercise of his will or by accident within the meaning of Section 23.

Now there were two witnesses called on each side as to the facts of the case. They were Saun and Mr. Symons, and the accused man and his companion Clemen, and I go now to the facts of the case. Saun appeared before me, he is a mature man, he remembered the 26th September; he was engaged on his peaceful occasions on that day, going down to do some work at the Country Club, and no doubt he might have had to cut some grass, but it is not suggested that he was carrying a bushknife for any ulterior motive because he had that under his arm. And on his way, close to the Country Club, he says that Paul came up and held him, he told Paul to let go, tried to shake him off, but Paul hold him again, and eventually Saun managed to shake himself free. As he then went towards the Country Club Saun heard the accused say, "Are you stupid?" and he turned round and said, "Have you not heard the Government forbids this? I am not an educated man." and he then noticed that Clemen then came along and Saun said, "I spoke to him", and he said he was then struck an openhanded blow to the side of the face. Well, the note I have would indicate that it was Clemen who did this but Saun was never asked was it the accused man or was it Clemen who did it. Now, it is possible here that there was something in the interpretation which is perhaps not specific because later on it was Paul who said he was hit. The accused man says that Saun hit Paul and that he, Paul, then hit him. He then got in touch with his employer and Mr. Symons then came down and after a conversation, Mr. Symons and Paul got in the truck and went down to where they saw these two men. These men were running along and Mr. Symons got out and Saun says they proceeded to fight him (Mr. Symons). The two men made as if to run away while Saun stood on the top of the tray of the truck. But Mr. Symons came back to the car, stood up holding the door, and then Paul ran away and halted and then he threw his first stone and then a second stone which was thrown at Saun. The first stone hit the rear window of the vehicle, and a second stone was thrown, Saun then ducked and the stone missed him. In Any event, Mr. Symons then got out of his vehicle, or rather let the door go, and proceeded to walk to the two men and then Paul the accused man threw a third stone and hit Mr. Symons on the top of the head which caused him to collapse on the ground and then all Saun's efforts were designed to secure somebody who would apprehend these two men. It did occur to Saun that these two men had been drinking. Well, now, in cross-examination Saun was asked some questions as to the second time when Mr. Symons went towards the accused man and Clemen. Mr. Adams asked, "Didn't the accused man say, 'Master don't fight me, I don't want to fight?' "And Saun said, "No, I did not hear this." Then the question was asked, "As soon as Symons started to walk towards Paul, Paul started to walk away?" Answer,"No, he threw the stone first and then he started to walk away." He was asked in cross-examination, "You saw Symons get his fist and swing at Paul twice?" Answer, "This is true. However the two men came towards Mr. Symons in an aggressive manner and he was protecting himself." Question, "It is true that Symons swung his first fist at the accused's head?" Answer, "These two men ran up to my master in an aggressive manner and he then returned their fight" (indicating making a swing at them with his fist). He was then asked in cross-examination, "On the second occasion when Symons stopped", it was put to him, "these men went back from him", Answer, "This is true, the two men were moving backwards and then they threw the stone at Symons." Question, "It is true that he turned away and then he threw it over his shoulder." And this is the most important question, Mr. Adams said, "Is it true that he turned away and then the accused threw it over his shoulder." Answer, "That is not true. He was facing the master and he aimed at him and threw the stone at him."

Mr. Symons then gave evidence and I shall read his account. He says that after he had seen Saun and as a result of something which was said to him he saw two men walking along the side of the road. He said, "I stopped the car and approached the two men. I asked them why they had caused trouble at the Country Club or in the vicinity. They became abusive and adopted a threatening attitude. They went to strike me. Question, "Was there anyone present there now in Court?" He identified Paul as being present. He then went on to say, "They became abusive and went to attack me. I struck one of them. Saun was at the back of the car and he came to my assistance. When Saun came the men ran away, ran towards the Country Club. I got into my vehicle intending to go to the Club and ring the Police. As I started the vehicle (which means it may have been moving) a rock struck the back of the vehicle." Question, "Had you turned around?", Answer, "I was facing towards Wewak, I hadn't turned around." Question, "Then, what then?" Answer, "I stopped the vehicle and got out of it. Another rock was thrown and struck me on the head." Question, "Are you able to recollect how it was thrown?" Answer, "It was thrown by the man over there, (indicating the accused) from a distance of about 20 feet." .... I saw him, he was standing up, he drew his arm back and threw the stone. I then fell to the ground. I may have been unconscious for a couple of seconds, I don't know, my left arm was paralysed."And he was struck on the top of the head. He then told the Court that he was taken to Wewak Hospital, he was operated on by Dr. Buddee at 7 o'clock that day, and then he remained in hospital.

I now came to the cross-examination of Mr. Symons. He was asked. "While you went up to them and asked about the trouble (this is the first time, the time when he saw them not running, they were walking, just frolicking), they weren't offensive, aggressive?" Answer, "No." Question, "Do you remember aiming two punches at the man which he warded off?" Answer, "No, I do not." Mr. Symons then said he aimed a punch at the teller of the two men. Again this was put to him that he aimed two punches at the head, and he denied it; he said that he only aimed one punch at the teller one (Clemen was obviously taller), which was warded off. Question, "Well, then, did Saun come to you and they ran down the embankment?" Answer, "Yes", Saun got off the vehicle, they made threatening movements to me and I swung a punch at one of them." Question, "Did they raise their fists?" Answer, "Yes, in a threatening manner." Question, "How far away were you?" Answer, "About two feet." Question, At the stage after you struck at the taller of the two (which was the one he said he did strike at) Saun came down?" Answer, "Yes." Question, "This first rock did it hit the back window." Answer, "It hit the left hand side of the rear window." He then said he became annoyed and the question was then put, "I suggest you came to Paul and he said, 'Master don't fight', or words to that effect." Answer, "He didn't speak one word." Question, "He had rock in his hand?" Answer, "He was bending down to pick up a rock, I took about two paces from the vehicle and the rock struck me." Question "What happen was, you came to this man, Paul cried 'don't fight'. You started to come and he turned away and threw it at you over his shoulder." Answer, "No, he was facing me and he threw the stone with full force, in the direction of my face and head." Well, then, in re-examination Mr. Bradshaw said, "The first time you approached the two men, Saun came to your assistance. Were they able to move away from you fairly easily?" Answer, "Yes, the accused went across towards the beach." Question, "Did they have any trouble moving away from you?" Answer, "No trouble at all." I ask him a question as to the size of the stone, he said about four or five inches in diameter, about the size of a grapefruit, and he said it felt hard when it struck him. He said that he had disability in his left leg and quite a bit of discomfort, he was immobilised in hospital for about six or seven days, he had to lie in one position, couldn't even go to the ablution rooms or the toilet; he had headaches and was he was ordered to rest for about three months, he couldn't work for two months and he had this disability in the left leg, this numbness which interfered with him and his estimate of distance when he was walking.

Then the accused man gave evidence, he said they had been drinking, and they were frolicking on the beach, intervening between a group of boys and a group of girls, and then a traffic policeman was stopped. The traffic policeman spoke to him and eventually, coming to the facts of the case, the accused man said that Saun came up behind him, "I didn't see this man but he slapped me on the face. I held him by the shoulder and said to him, 'You are older, I have been drinking, you had no right to come and then I retaliated by striking the other man. He fell down and I said to Clemen, "Well, we have hit this man, we had better run away." Question, "Were you frightened he might hit you with a bush knife?" Answer, "Yes." Well they left him and he continued, "We went down to the beach. The next time a European came in a car, stopped his car and left it and came towards us." Question, "Was this Mr. Symons?" Answer, "Yes, I did not know him at the time." Question, "Did he say anything to you?" Answer, "He did not say anything to me. He came as if to punch me twice. I turned my back towards him and proceeded to run away. When he went to strike me I put my hands to stop him striking me. I turned around and I ran away from the man." Question, "Why did you run away?" Answer, "Because the European fought me and I did not know why he fought me, I did not want to continue to fight him. I ran away. He returned to his car, I threw a stone at the car." Question, "Why?" Answer, "Because I did not know for what reason the European assaulted me." Asked, "Was Symons inside the car or outside the car?" He answered, "He was in the car and he was making the car gradually move off. The stone went into the back of the vehicle." Question, "What happened?" He said that the stone went into the vehicle. He then said that the Symons "stopped the car, he ran towards me." Question, "what did you do?" Answer, "I was running away from him. I picked up a stone and said to him 'Do not fight, do not fight me, you are not to fight me'. I held up my hand and back away. I held up my left hand and held the stone in my right hand, I thought the European still wanted to fight me, I wanted to scare him off, I was running away from him, because I was running I threw the stone like so (indicting throwing backwards over his left shoulder with his right hand). I only wanted to frighten him, I did not want to fight him." Question, "Where were you looking?" Answer, "I was not looking at Symons, I was running and I threw the stone back." Question, "Did you want to hit Symons?" Answer, "No." And he said it wasn't as big as a grapefruit or four or five inches it was only half the size of a glass. Asked did he see the stone hit Symons' head, he said he didn't see it strike it because he was running. Well, then, Mr. Bradshaw in cross-examination received some significant answers. Question, "The first time that you had a fight with Symons you were able to run away from the fight weren't you?" Answer, "Yes, but he locked the path and forced me to turn around and go in the opposite direction from which he had come." Question, "What happened when he got into the car?" Answer, "No, he didn't block my path then." Question, "You could have got away from Symons without throwing stones at him?" Answer, "True." Question, "And you could have gone to the police?" Answer, "Yes, but I was drunk." A later question, "You could have run away from him, couldn't you?" Answer, "Yes but he run after me." Question, "Why did you stop and pick up a stone?" Answer, "Because I wanted to scare him. If I did not do this he would follow me and flight me again." He went on to say later that he was not completely drunk. And questioned again, "You admit that the first stone that you threw at the car was a payback for what he had done for to you?" Answer, "Yes, it is true" – and he said he was only ten feet away when he threw the stone at the car. Mr. Bradshaw asked, "When this European first fought you and Saun, you were quite easily able to get away from the two?" Answer, "No, they had forced us and it was not easy for us to get away so we fought them. It wasn't that easy and I had to turn round and then go." Question, "You were only two feet away when you ran away (this was the first time)?" Answer, "About three feet from the European when I turned and run away."

And then in re – examination Mr. asked him, "The second time if you had not thrown the stone did you think you could have got away?" Answer, "I thought that if I did not throw the stone he would have caught me because he appeared to be running very powerfully"; and I asked him a question and he said the reason why Mr. Symons was hit was just an accident. "Did you see Saun on the truck?" I asked him, and he said, "No, because I thought he was a different fellow."

Then Clemen was called and he supported the accused man's evidence in this respect as to the way the stone was thrown, that it was thrown not whilst Paul was looking ahead but he threw it over his lefthand shoulder, that is the stone which struck him." Question, "Where was Symons when Paul threw the stone at the car?" Answer, "He was in the car and started to make the vehicle move. Then when he got out of the car Paul was running away and called out 'stop, stop'. And Symons got out of the car and run after Paul, Paul picked up a stone and threw it (again indicating over his shoulder) and Paul was still running." Question, "Before he threw the stone and while he was still running." Question, "Before he threw the stone and while he was running did he say anything to Symons?" Answer, "No". Question, "You said before he called 'stop, stop'. Was that the first time he got out of the car or second?" Answer, "The second time after he was chasing Paul." In cross-examination he said that the accused was 20 feet away when he threw the stone. Question, "The throwing of the stone by Paul at the car is a payback to Europeans?" Answer, "He just bakim" – that is, a payback. Question, "Did you ever think of throwing a stone?" answer, "No." Question, "When Paul threw the stone over his shoulder had anything said by you or Symons?" Answer, "No." Then he contradicted himself as to what he said in evidence-in-chief and then, when Mr. Adams brought him back to it, he came back to his original story, and asked when the stone hit Symons was Symons standing still or running he said, "He was running." I had asked the question, "Was anything said by Paul just before Paul threw the stone?" Answer, "No."

That is a review of the evidence which has perhaps taken too much time. I now proceed to give my opinion.

Well, I regret to say that perhaps Paul was not at his best yesterday, but he appeared merely a facile liar, and I reject his evidence where it is not in conformity with that of Mr. Symons or Saun; and I also reject the evidence of Clemen, his companion, insofar as it is inconsistent with that of Saun and Mr. Symons. Mr. Adams' first submission was that I should reject Saun's evidence because of so many inconsistencies. It is true that there are some inconsistencies but there always are – if there are no inconsistencies it is said that the witnesses have put their heads together, and so the Court cannot believe them; if there are inconsistencies then one or the other has not told the truth. It seemed to me that Saun was substantially telling the truth and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused man who stopped him. They had been frolicking on the beach, Paul had been drinking. Saun had no reason whatever to stop this man and it was the accused man said, or rather let me say certainly he is to be given the benefit of doubt, or rather let me say certainly he is to be given the benefit of the doubt, that Saun struck him. So an altercation took place which was initiated by the accused man. Mr. Symons then came up and together they went along to and reached the accused and Clemen, and here again the account that I accept is that Symons did get out, that fists were swung at each other and that the two men, the accused and Clemen, then started to run away, which was a very significant thing, and managed to get away. Symons gave up and whether they were barefooted or not was not elicited, which would have made it easier, but they run away. Symons then got back in his vehicle and then a stone was thrown and this was thrown in anger and in retribution by the accused man. Symons then got out. What then occurred, I accept, is this: that from a distance of about 20 feet or so – or something of that order – the accused man then threw a stone at Symons. I accept the evidence of Mr. Symons and of Saun that it was thrown whilst the accused man was facing Symons and that it was flung at him deliberately. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that is the true version of this account for the two reasons: firstly, as I have said I reject the evidence of the accused man and Clemen and I accept the evidence of Symons and Saun and, secondly, because it seems to me that this conforms with the responsibilities – one, for a man to be turning round and flinging a stone backwards over his shoulder, for it to hit the other man on the head is an accident which can happen but it is not likely and, two, it is certainly not likely to hit Symons with such force that he became unconscious, even for a few minutes, and suffered the injury which he became unconscious, even for a few minutes, and suffered the injury which he did which kept him in hospital for a week immobilized. Whilst the probabilities are consistent with the version that I have preferred, the reason why I have accepted that version is, as I say, that I reject the evidence of the accused in the witness stand and I am perfectly satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the story told by Mr. Symons and Saun is correct. Their evidence is such that I can act on it and I do act on it.

1
Let me now turn to the defence. It is quite apparent that the defence under Section 23, that the act was done independently of the accused man's will or by accident, falls to the ground. He intended to do this, his will accompanied the act and he carried out his intention of throwing the stone and hitting Mr. Symons. Section 31 upon which Mr. Adams relies, excuses a person from responsibility if the stone was thrown, in this case by the accused, and it was reasonably necessary in order to resist actual violence threatened to him, actual and unlawful violence threatened to him. And it is convenient at this stage to deal also with the defence under Section 271.

This question of self-defence has been raised and I indicate my opinion. Usually the truth can be seen at some stage in a case, either expressly by divining the circumstances, and this answer of the accused to a question put by Mr. Bradshaw in cross-examination seems to me to give his true state of mind. Question, "You could have got away from Mr. Symons without throwing stones at him?" Answer, "True." Question, "You wanted to pay him back and that is why you threw the stone at him," Answer, "Yes, but I did it because he fought me for no reason." The view I have reached is that the accused was not acting in self-defence at all. He had been drinking, he had been frolicking, he had been spoken to by a policeman, he had trouble with Saun, and then Symons had come up to him and swung a fist at him. At that stage, he then lost all restraint, he had gone to the length of throwing in broad daylight, with two men in the vehicle, a stone which penetrated the rear window, and then when Symons came out at him (and I accept Symons' evidence that he just came out of the car without any further altercation) the accused then threw the stone at him. From this together with the answer given to, Mr. Bradshaw in cross-examination I am satisfied that this man was just acting in retaliation. He was not acting in self-defence at all. That of course may be the end of the defence of self-defence but I propose to go further. We all recollect what we are told at our mother's apron strings, "Don't throw stones, you may knock out a boy's eye". It is very good advice, if a stone is thrown at another person - a stone even the size of half a tumbler - it may strike him in the eye and cause him to lose the sight of an eye or injure his eye, or it may knock him in the teeth and dislodge his tooth, or hit him in the face or ear or some other part of the body. And in all the circumstances of this case having regard to the facts - that Symons was not armed in any way, that the accused man had before eluded him and run away (it was remarkable the answer which was given, - couldn't they run away? Oh, yes, we could run away but not the way we wanted to run. We had to put ourselves to the inconvenience of turning around and running in some other direction); it was open for them to have run away, and to throw the stone as I am satisfied he did intend to do, at Mr. Symons, was an action, having regard to the fact that the stone was thrown so hard that it rendered him unconscious, even momentarily, that it was likely to do grievous bodily harm; it was likely to strike him in some portion of the body, not only the face, but also some vulnerable part of the body, which was likely to cause him some injury such as to endanger health, so that self-defence is excluded by the Crown for those reasons. The force used was likely to cause grievous bodily harm and also I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the force was more than was reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault. They could have run away as they did before and to throw a stone with that force was going beyond what was reasonably necessary. I am prepared to give the accused the benefit of the doubt that Symons in his approach to him was honestly and reasonably believed by the accused to be guilty of something in the nature of an unlawful assault not provoked by the accused; I am prepared to give him the benefit of that doubt, but I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the other two matters are excluded. Coming back to Section 31 that disposes of that also, for this act done by the accused man, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, went beyond what was reasonably necessary in order to resist any actual and unlawful violence threatened to the accused man or to Clemen in his presence.

At this stage it seems to me that I have covered all the defences raised by Mr. Adams. Section 23 does not avail the accused, the honest and reasonable belief in the state of facts, because as I say I am satisfied that he intentionally threw the stone.

Now it will be noticed that I have not and I do not act on the two pieces of evidence which I have admitted. One is the statement made by the defendant to the Court below and I have not referred to the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Prentice. Now of what offence, as there was plainly an assault, of what offence is the accused man guilty? It is a departure in our law, in the common law, to try cases even partly on evidence which is on paper, the Court not having the witness before the Court, and I refer to the evidence of Dr. Buddee, and I propose to take case as far as I can in favour of the accused man and have regard to the evidence only which was given before me. It was quite plain, it was not argued to the contrary, that Mr. Symons suffered bodily injury, he was knocked unconscious, and this interfered with his health or comfort and still does, he was in hospital immobilized suffering from headaches and paralysis and this went on for some time. This evidence was not contraverted.

Accordingly the judgment of the Court is that the accused man is guilty of unlawfully assaulting Rufus Donald Symons thereby doing him bodily harm, that is, guilty on the second count.

ALLOCUTUS

The prisoner said: "This Court in which I have been tried, is it possible for me to be fined, I have no more to say."

Mr. Adams called Inspector Grove, who was duly sworn.

Q. What can you tell the Court about his reputation?

A. His employers all speak quite highly of him. He is always dressed well. There is nothing known to his detriment or to put a mark upon his character. He says he supports his mother and her six children and I have no reason to doubt this. I do not know his salary. He has been suspended without pay since 26th September 1970 from his position in the Public Service. It usually follows that if he is sent to the Corrective Institution he would be dismissed.

His Honour

Q. What work does he do?

A. I understand his work takes him into the field for D.A.S.F.

Mr. Adams

Q. If he were given a chance by this Court and placed upon a bond, do you consider he would become a respectable citizen.

A. I cannot answer.

Q. What is the feeling of his family?

A. The family are most concerned, they feel that his prospects would be greatly marred if he went to the Corrective Institution. He is the educated one of his people and all of them think very highly of him.

His Honour

Q. What is the incidence of damage to vehicles in Wewak from stone throwing?

A. It is unusual for stones to be thrown here at vehicles. I cannot recall another case.

Q. Have you anything else to tell the Court about this prisoner?

A. I feel that drink was the cause of his case. Whenever I have seen him about the town, he has always been very well-behaved and a credit to his people.

Mr. Adams to the Court.

Friday,

5th February 1971

SENTENCE

Paul Maren you have been convicted of unlawful assault and thereby doing Mr. Symons bodily harm. It is now for this Court to sentence you.

The trouble that you were first involved in on the date in question was not very serious, you grabbed hold of Saun, slapping him and he slapped you back. You behaved like this because you had been drinking but Saun became most annoyed and was not prepared to forget it. He complained to his employer, Mr. Symons, who decided to catch you and take you to the Police. He went up to you and you then caused serious trouble. After you avoided him and he went back to the car you threw a stone into the window and then deliberately threw a stone at him. Although you may not have intended to inflict the actual injury he suffered, in fact you did cause him serious injury hospital for which he was in hospital for about a week and off work for about two months. He has a gap in his head and he is not yet fully recovered, even after his time in hospital. This conduct deserves punishment, but if I send you to the Corrective Institution you will lose your position and with all the unemployment at present at Wewak you are unlikely, or it will be difficult for you, to get other employment, and your family who is dependent upon you for support will suffer.

Mr. Grove has spoken well of you, he says you are a credit to your people as he has been able to observe when he has seen you about the town and when you have been sober. Unfortunately, drink on this occasion brought out a violent part of your nature and I feel you would not have done this had you not been drinking, and this is something which you should watch in the future.

In view of the circumstances I propose to take into account that this offence was committed after Mr. Symons approached you and without premeditation on your part and in view of the circumstances applicable to you as the offender, which I have set out, I have decided to suspend the execution of the sentence of six months' imprisonment which I now impose.

The Crown has also applied for me to order compensation. Mr. Symons' expenses amounted to $140, but Mr. Adams has informed this Court that you have no money in the bank and your fortnightly salary is $22.00. In the circumstances I order that from the bail money of $30.00 you are to pay $20.00 compensation.

__________________________

Solicitor for the Crown: P.J. Clay, Crown Solicitor.
Solicitor for the Accused: W.A. Lalor, Public Solicitor.