Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

State v Nano [2007] PGDC 16; DC516 (26 March 2007)

DC516

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

DCCr 169 OF 2007

BETWEEN

STATE

AND

PHILIP NANO
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2007: March 13, 26

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Section 7 (b) of Summary Offences Act

Counsel
For The State - Sergeant Warkia
For The Defendant - In Person

26 March 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: This is a simple offence in which the defendant has been charged for provoking a breach of peace under Section 7 (b) of the Summary Offences Act.

2. Did the defendant behave in a threatening manner toward another person namely Mike Keiguma whilst being armed with a bush knife, whereby a breach of peace was likely to have taken place?

3. The evidence by the State was from two (2) witnesses including that of the victim.

4. The first witness gave his evidence stating that he is the Headmaster of Asaroka Primary School. On the 13th February 2007 at about 9:00 o’clock he was at the school with the School’s treasurer, Mr. Silas Namo. The two were registering students and collecting school fees.

5. While there the defendant entered his office with a long bush knife in hand. He stated that the defendant had then accused him, saying he was illegally occupying the office and also illegally collecting school fees. The defendant told the victim not to collect any in case the monies are used for his own purposes.

6. An argument continued over the appointment of the Headmaster position of the said school. The victim in his explanation said that he had won the position when he had applied for it as it was advertised in the Education/ Government Gazette.

7. The victim told the defendant that he should see the Provincial Education Authorities to verify who is entitled to occupy the Headmaster position at the school.

8. In the course of the argument the victim stated that the defendant was pointing his right hand fingers at the victim. He said when he could not stand the finger pointing at him he fanned off the defendants hand and fingers and stood up and walked away. At this point in time the defendants nephew, punched the victim across his neck area and knocked him unconscious.

9. The victim stated that during the argument and confrontation by the defendant, he had in his left hand a long bush knife all through out the period.

10. The second State witness is the school Treasurer. He stated that on that date the 13th day of February 2007 he was with the victim who is the Headmaster of Asaroka Primary School. He stated that both of them were in the school office when the Defendant entered holding a long bush knife. While holding the bush knife in one hand he used the other to point at the victim on the nose for a long time and for many times. He stated that the victim then brushed away the defendants hand and stood up. The argument and pointing of fingers he said lasted for about one half hour. He stated that, at the time the victim brushed away defendants fingers the defendants son, then punched the victim across his neck which knocked him unconscious.

11. He stated that in his opinion what the defendant did could have erupted into violence. This is the end of the prosecution case.

12. The defendant gave evidence on his own behalf.

13. He stated that on the 13th January 2007 he had checked the teachers posting list at the Provincial Education office and found the victims name was given against the Asaroka Primary School, whilst his name did not appear against the same school.

14. He said he then proceeded to see the Lutheran Bishop and the church Education Secretary on the 08th January 2007 over the posting issue, with the knowledge that since the school is a church agency, the church selects teachers to their own schools.

15. He stated that the Bishop and his Education Secretary then gave him a letter authorising him to take up posting at Asaroka, assumably as a Headmaster.

16. The next day he said he went to look for the school Board Chairman at the said school. He talked to the Chairman, who advised him (defendant) to given him (Chairman) time to sort the matter with the Provincial Education Office Personnel.

17. He said he was asked by the Board Chairman to return on the 13th February 2007. On that date he went to the school but the Board Chairman did not turn up.

18. After waiting for sometime he went into the office to see the victim and the school treasurer. He said he entered when there were no parents or students with the victim.

19. He said upon entry he dropped his bush knife and stood about 2 metres away and asked whether he can see the School Board Chairman.

20. When that question was put to the victim he responded by saying that it was none of the defendants business to see the Board Chairman.

21. The Defendant stated that the favourable response by the victim made him angry as he had been waiting for the Board Chairman for sometime.

22. This was when he told the victim twice to get out and not to collect any school fees as he may run away with the collected fees. He said he had told the victim that the Lutheran church had appointed him to the school.

23. He further told the victim that the Provincial Education Board appoints teachers to Government Agency Schools and not church Agency.

24. He further stated that the victim was illegally occupying the position.

25. He said the victim then responded by throwing down the money brief case and told him that he was not afraid. He said the victim then walked to him and punched him. The victim then walked to the door and was returning to punch him again. He said this was when Jerry Nano punched the victim.

26. The issues are whether the defendant behaved in a threatening manner and whether a breach of peace was likely to have taken place.

27. And if the defendant behaved in a threatening behaviour, whether holding a bush constitutes threatening behaviour.

28. The offence of provoking a breach of peace is created under Section 7 of the Summary Offences Act.

It reads:

“7 Provoking a breach of the peace.

A person who –

(a) uses threatening, offensive or insulting behaviour, or
(b) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words; or
(c) makes threatening, abusive or insulting gestures with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace is likely to take place is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K300.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

29. The defendant is said to “behave in a threatening manner” or “use threatening behaviour” in the exact words of the section.

30. The defendant was said to have been holding a bush knife in one of his hands while using the right hand to be pointing at the victim. And he was simultaneously challenging the victim over the position in which the victim was occupying and exercising in the said school.

31. Evidence shows that there is no dispute that the victim and the defendant had an argument over who was legally entitled to occupy the Headmaster position. This argument went on for about half an hour.

32. Throughout that time the prosecution evidence was that the defendant in his left hand held a long bush knife.

33. This is denied by the defendant who said that the knife was dropped before entering the office. Furthermore, he claimed that he had initially gone there to see the school’s Board Chairman and that he had no intention of the use of it.

34. Neither of these points were raised by the defendant in cross examination of the state witnesses, who were available when testifying and had the opportunity of verifying those claims.

35. In addition to that, the defendant did not explain the reason why he had the bush knife taken into the school. There is no evidence of work related activities in the school or anything else where the defendant could possibly and reasonable use the knife. In the absence of such I must take it that the knife was intended for a reasonable and unacceptable purpose. I accept the evidence of the prosecution that the defendant had in his hand a bush knife, while arguing with the victim. In considering whether holding a bush knife while arguing, constitutes a threatening behaviour the whole of the circumstances in which such behaviour was seen or done must be considered.

36. In this circumstances the victim and the defendant were arguing over a created Headmaster position. The school academic year had commenced, when the defendant learnt that he was not listed on the School’s Headmaster position. He had approached the School Board Chairman after consulting the Lutheran Church Authority. On that date he went to the school hoping to see the Board Chairman who did not turn up on the appointment, out of frustration he entered the school office to see the Headmaster who was resuming and exercising authority in the school in collecting school fees.

37. I infer that in the given circumstances, the mere seing of the victim exercising the school authority may have infuriated and frustrated the defendant which then ensured into the argument and taking of the bush knife into the office. In all of these circumstances, I am of the view that the behaviour of the defendant amounted to threats and intimidation and constitutes threatening behaviour.

38. The appropriate thing for the defendant to have done was follow up with his query with the Education Authorities at the Provincial Headquarters office. The School Board Chairman is not an appropriate authority to deal with position appointments or postings. His authority is limited to the school whereas the Provincial Education Authority have authority over Educational Institutions and postings to those institutions.

39. The behaviour of the defendant has been held to be a threatening behaviour. Is that behaviour then sufficient to cause a breach of the peace.

40. During the cause of the argument the victim did react to the finger pointing by the defendant. This then was followed by the victim being punched by Jerry Nano.

41. It is obvious from evidence that a breach of peace had occurred.

42. The defendant claims that he acted in self defence of an assault by the victim on him. These claims cannot be sustained on two basis.

43. First, he never raised that in the cross-examining the state witnesses and secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that the victim had either abused, insulted or threatened him (defendant) in any way.

44. On these basis I find without doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged.

For the State: Sergeant Warkia
For the Defendant: In Person