DC7065
PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS COMMITTAL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 192 /2020.

In the matter of Ruling On Sufficiency of Police Hand-Up Brief(s) pursuant to Section 95 of the District Court Act 1963

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

POLICE/STATE.
Informant.
.
AND.
SEBASTIAN ARTHUR-KING
Defendant/Accused.

Popondetta:	Michael W. Apie’e 

2021: October 29th.

CRIMINAL LAW. Practice and Procedure-Sufficiency of Police hand-up brief, Section 95 of District Court Act. Whether Elements of the offense’s; 
i.	Forgery contrary to Section 462(1) (b) of the Criminal Code Act.
i.	Uttering such documents contrary to Section 463(1) of the Criminal Code Act.
ii.	Abuse of Office contrary to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code Act, are established on the Police Hand Up Briefs.
 
Cases Cited: 

References:
Constitution of Papua New Guinea
Criminal Code Act.
District court act

Representation;
Mr. Tobias Dalid for the Defendant.
Senior Constable Augustine Pasitara for the Police/State.
RULING ON SUBMISSION ON SUFFICIENCY OF POLICE HAND-UP BRIEF.
Background.

1.	The Defendant is variously charged with three counts as follows;

i.	Forgery contrary to Section 462(1) (b) of the Criminal Code Act.
i.	Uttering such documents contrary to Section 463(1) of the Criminal Code Act.
ii.	Abuse of Office contrary to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code Act.

2.	The gist of the allegations levelled against the Defendant is that;

i.	He is the Provincial Forestry Officer for Northern Province and also the Secretary to the Northern Provincial Forest Management Committee meeting No: 01/19.

ii.	It is during this time that it is alleged he;

a.	Between 28th March 24th of April 2019, Forged a Document, namely the Northern Provincial Forest Management Committee Meeting minute No: 01/19 dated 28th March 2019 by adding an Agenda Point # 3, as specified on the relevant information, contrary to Section 462(1) of the Criminal Code Act,

b.	Also that after Forging such document as above he is said to have during the same period knowingly and fraudulently uttered the said Meeting Minute No: 01/19 dated 28ht March 2019 especially the Agenda Point # 3 for some other person to act on it thinking it to be genuine, contrary to Section 463(2) of the Criminal Code Act.

c.	That by so doing the above, the Defendant is alleged to have abuse his authority as Provincial Forestry Officer for Northern Province and also as Secretary to Northern Provincial Forest Management Committee Meeting No: 01/19 in directing an arbitrary act by inserting agenda point # 3 which purportedly approved application for Northern Products Ltd for a Wanigela Tree Plantation which was prejudicial to the Rights of another, namely Northern Provincial Forest Management Committee. This is allegedly in contravention of Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code Act.

3.	The Defendant is charged and first brought before this Court on the 03/02/21 from Bail.

4.	The Police Hand Up Brief(s) (PB) to his various Counts is completed and served him on the 17th of March 2021 and the Courts Copies tendered on the 02/04/21, matter ws adjourned to the 26/04/21 for possible committal Ruling.
5.	On the 26/04/21, Mr Tobias Dalid (Counsel) from the PNG Forest Authority made appearance for the Defendant and made submission on the issue of Prima Facie Sufficiency of the PB on the 26/04/21’

6.	Police Response to the Sufficiency submissions by counsel for the Defendant on the. 26/05/21.

7.	Matter now returns for Ruling on the submissions.

Defendants Submissions.

8.	Counsel Dalid appears for the Defendant in his official Capacity as Legal Officer for the Papua New Guinea Forest Authority and makes submission on the following matter;

i.	He challenges the overall propriety of the charges laid against the Defendant given the Lack or sufficiency of the allegations to the Elements of the offences charged.

ii.	He also urged the court not be akin to a mere rubber stamp and to determine the sufficiency of the Case and exercise its powers under the Act to remove this case.

iii.	Counsel made References to various decision by my fellow Magistrates as a guide and I do appreciate these references even though I am not bound by them.

9.	The Prosecution via Senior Constable Pasitara submitted for Committal and in rebuttal 

i.	He further submitted that the Charge of Forging and uttering run hand in hand in that if something is forged, then the ultimate intention was for it to be uttered.

ii.	He more or less hinted that only the Trial Court, ultimately could decide on pertinent issues relating to the Guilt or innocence of persons charged wih indictable offence.

10.	Observations /Assessments. Having heard the 

i.	Ultimately Counsels submissions though not directly, does urge the District Court look at detail at the Contents of the Evidence proposed against the Defendant.

ii.	Given the work and obvious expenses undertaken by The Investigator(s) in preparing this case and also the fact that This case has much in terms of Public Interest attach to it causes this Court to be reluctant to summarily deal with this matter in the manner suggested by Counsel.

iii.	Even though I would echo Counsel’s sentiments and state that the District Court is not a mere ‘Rubber Stamp’, I am also mindful of the fact of the District Courts Very Specific Role in Committal Proceedings, and that is to only assess sufficiency of the case and not to weigh the proposed evidence with a view to formulating and opinion on guilt or innocence.

iv.	The Defendant has been allegedly identified and linked with carrying out certain Actions within the specific times and spaces insofar as the general allegations against him are concerned by witnesses who are obviously willing to come to court to testify. 

v.	This court is not an Arbiter of Guilt or innocence, but rather of whether the proposed case is sufficient to commit to trial.

vi.	Although I appreciate the depth and passion in the submissions posed for the Defendant by Counsel, in the exercise of my discretion I hold that some matter should rightly be presented for consideration before the Trial Court, and in this case the Argument presented for the ‘sufficiency or Lack thereof’ of the Evidence proposed against the Defendant of the three counts against him are such that should be posed to the National Court as a ruling on this would be akin to a Finding of Guilt or innocence.

vii.	Though I appreciate the arguments raised by the Counsel, The Issues raised ultimately go to the question of Guilt or innocence and therefore ought to be made at the right tribunal, being the National court.
 
viii.	The Submissions on Lack of Sufficiency in the Police Hand-up Brief are not made out of each of the 3 counts preferred against the Defendant at this time.
	
11.	In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;

a.	The Police Hand-Up Briefs presented against the Defendant are found to be Sufficient in their relevant parts against the Defendant.

b.	In regards to the Count Forgery contrary to Section 462(1) (b) of the Criminal Code Act, the Defendant is committed to Stand Trial in the National Court.

c.	On the Count of Uttering such documents contrary to Section 463(1) of the Criminal Code Act, the Defendant is also committed to the National Court for Trial.

d.	On the Count of Abuse of Office contrary to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code Act, the Defendant is also committed to the National Court for Trial.

12.	Accordingly, the Court holds and Orders as follows;

i.	The Defendant is committed to the National Court for Trial on all three Counts.

ii.	His District Court Bail of K1500.00 is now extended to the next call over of the National Court at a Time and Date to be set by the National Court Registry for mention of his Case(s) and also review of his bail.

iii.	The Defendant is to commence reporting to the National Court Sub-Registry every Second Monday (2 x per month) starting on Monday the 02/11/21 between the hours of 9.00am to 3.00pm. 

Police Prosecutions for the State.
National Forest In-House Lawyer for the Defendant.