Sanamia v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2018] PGSC 104; SC1771 (28 September 2018)

SC1771

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCREV NO. 57 OF 2018

BETWEEN:
PETER SANAMIA, JUNIOR SANAMIA, ANGEL BERTH RAVA & CHRIS GALAWE
Appellants/Applicants

AND:
INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Respondent

Waigani: Dingake J
2018: 15 August

SUPREME COURT – Application for leave to review – No sufficient reason given for filing an appeal within 40 days – Application refused.

Counsel

Mr. Jeff Lome, for the Appellant
Mr. D Mark, for the Respondent

Case Cited

John Anis Pok v The State (1983) SC 253

28 September, 2018

1. DINGAKE J: This is an application for leave to review filed on the 4^th of July, 2018.
2. The applicants were all charged and convicted of attempted murder in the National Court and each sentenced to 19 years in hard labour.
3. They were convicted on the 20^th of March, 2018 and sentence was handed down on the 9^th of May, 2018.
4. The applicants had 40 days within which to file an appeal, which they failed to do, hence this review.
5. The reason why the applicants allowed the 40 days within which to appeal to expire is not satisfactory. They put the blame on their lawyer in general terms and provide no specific details in what way their lawyer failed them.
6. It is my considered opinion that the applicants have not demonstrated sufficient reasons for allowing the appeal to lapse without exercising their right to appeal.
7. I have also had regard to the proposed grounds of appeal to determine whether there may be any merit in any one of them.
8. In considering the merits of the case, the decision of the trial judge and the factual findings made must be accorded proper weight (John Anis Pok v The State (1983) SC 253). A single judge of the Supreme Court is not free to substitute his or her own findings of facts unless consideration has been given to the whole of the decision of the National Court.
9. Having carefully considered the proposed grounds, I am satisfied that this application is without any substance.
10. The order of the Court is that:
    1. Application for leave to review is refused.

___________________________________________________________
Jeffersons Lawyers: Lawyers for the Applicant
Office of the Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for the Respondents