N345(M)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

BETWEEN

KUMAN KURUMBA AND 22 OTHERS
APPELLANTS

AND

ROBERT ROMALUS, PAVE AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS

Kundiawa: Quinlivan AJ
25 September 1981; 28 September 1981

APPEALS - Rights of Magistrates to be Treated "Fairly".

QUINLIVAN AJ: This appeal, as far as the Court file is concerned, is one in which, in accordance with what I said in Appeal of Martin Yagom, Counsel should have been here on Friday last to look after, and present, the Magistrate’s side of the story. The Notice of Appeal (which is dated 9th February 1981 and filed, together with a affidavit of service on 18th February-- although the date of swearing is incongruous) lists as two of the four grounds of appeal

"1. 	"There was such poor interpretation which resulted in confusion and misunderstanding amongst the defendants which led to substantial miscarriage of justice

"3 	The defendants’ witnesses were not called to give evidence,"

both of which plainly reflect adversely on the Magistrate in his professional capacity and on his ability to see that justice is done in his court.

The fact that Counsel was not here to represent the Magistrate was, however, not the fault of anybody here because, when the case did come on, it became clear that Counsel at the Bar-table were dealing with a later set of documents, dated and filed in March, which made no such allegations against the Magistrate. Because of this I adjourned the hearing until today so that full inquiries could be made to see precisely what it was that was before this Court.

I should point out that (since I had occasion to mention it in Appeal of Kunjip Dai No. 1. although I deleted it from the published report) the appeal, and the names of the appellants, was fully called outside the courtroom after having been listed in the National newspaper as an appeal which would be dealt with at this Sittings, but nobody appeared. Nor did anyone attend so that they could be represented - except, of course, for Mr. Koaru who has most ably represented the Public Solicitor’s Office in all the many appeals that have been dealt with on this Circuit. And I feel that I should mention that the appeal was not brought by the Public Solicitor’s Office when the documents were first filed on 18th February, 1981.

Counsel have, today, informed me that they have made full investigation and Mr. Koaru informs me that his office (which lodged appeals on more conventional lines in March) now accepts that the appeal ought to be dismissed because the record of the Court appealed from is more than adequate to cover all possible grounds of appeal. He has, therefore, been instructed to not proceed with the case.

With the exception of repeating what I have said elsewhere about the rights of magistrates to be treated fairly, and the duty of those who use the processes of this Court to exercise especial care, it is difficult for me to do more than deplore the fact that proper standards and the use of proper procedures appear to have gone by the board. But they have, and I hope that the remedial action which I have indicated in other appeals dealt with at this Sittings will cause a radical change and a return to the proper standards which were so much our pride, and sustenance, in the past.

Since it is conceded that, despite the worry they have caused to the Magistrate, these appeals are groundless and are not to be proceeded with, they are dismissed and the convictions and sentences are, each and severally, confirmed.

Representations are not recorded.