Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Management of the Criminal Circuit [1989] PGNC 20; N755 (22 September 1989)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N755

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
MANAGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CIRCUIT

Waigani

Brunton AJ
22 September 1989

BRUNTON AJ: On Tuesday the 19th September 1989 the Court instructed that the Public Prosecutor and the Public Solicitor appear in person, within forty-eight hours. The Court was informed that the Public Solicitor was on leave. The Deputy Public Solicitor appeared. The Court was informed that the Public Prosecutor was sick. No appearance was made by his Deputy or any other senior counsel from that office. The Court does not regard this absence lightly, and the Public Prosecutor or in his absence, his Deputy, was instructed to appear at 9.00 am Friday 22 September 1989. Mr. Noka appeared at that time.

The management of the Criminal Jurisdiction, Waigani Circuit, of the National Court has been of concern to the Judges for sometime, and steps have been taken by the judges to improve management procedures, reduce delays, and ensure that offenders receive a fair trial within a reasonable time as is required by s 37(3) of the Constitution.

There have been a number of disappointing features seen in the management of the September Circuit of the National Court in Waigani:

1. The State Prosecutors were invariably late in the morning. Indeed it seemed that State Prosecutors were incapable of transporting themselves from their office at the Waigani Central Government Offices to the National Court building by 9.30 am on those days on which the National Court sat. The Public Solicitors, who have to travel from Garden City in Boroko, were somewhat better in their attendance, but they too had a habit of arriving late.

The most frequent excuse offered by counsel for their lack of punctuality was the absence of transport. The Court will not accept this as an excuse in future. Acts or ommissions that are calculated (or by their persistance may be deemed to be calculated) to interfere with the due administration of justice may be contempt of the Court. Persistant disrespect to the Court may be unprofessional conduct. Adequate provision exists under s 225 and s 23 of the Constitution to ensure that Constitutional officer-holders are reasonably resourced. If the Office-holders do not take advantage of these provisions, and as a result breach their obligations to the Court, then they must bear the consequences.

2. The preparation of cases for this month’s sitting was inadequate. On the 1st of August 1989 my Associate wrote to both the Public Prosecutor and the Public Solicitor advising them to be prepared to proceed to trial without undue delay. The Court is concerned that matters which were indicated to be pleas at the call-over on the 1st and 4th of September were not ready on the morning of the 19th of September when court-time was available for hearing them. The matters which were indicated to be possible pleas were:

3. The Registrar held a Criminal Call-Over yesterday for next month’s Waigani Circuit. No lawyers from any office whether that of the Public Prosecutor, the Public Solicitor, or from the private sector attended that call-over.

4. On the 1st of September 1989 I issued an order under s 42(5) of the Constitution that Alphonse Tau Kale was to be brought before me so that an inquiry could be made into the legality of his detention. This has not occurred.

5. On the 1st and 4th of September 1989 the State Prosecutors made undertakings to review a number of cases in which accused was called - but did not appear, for the purpose of applying for Bench Warrants. These applications have not been made.

6. There were some 163 outstanding Bench Warrants for the Waigani Circuit. This means that 163 persons, charged with serious offences such as murder, rape, robbery and property-related crimes are at large in the community. Conversely only a minority, perhaps thirty percent of all those committed for trial on serious offences are bothering to turn up before the National Court. The system has become optional. It would appear that some Constitutional office-holders may well be in breach of their Constitutional duty.