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

Songi v Police [1998] PGNC 44; N1812 (12 June 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1812

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

MP NO. 163 OF 1996
HIMONI SONGI
APPLICANT
V
THE POLICE
FIRST RESPONDENT
AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
SECOND RESPONDENT

Goroka

Sawong J
12 June 1998

Counsel

Plaintiff in Person

Alu, for the Defendants

12 June 1998

SAWONG J: This was a claim for damages for the enforcement of breaches of the plaintiff’s human rights. The application was made under s. 57 of the Constitution.

The applicant claims that his right from inhuman treatment, right to protection of the law, liberty to his person, freedom from arbitrary search and entry, freedom of expression and his freedom of movement were breached by several policemen under the command of Titus Pamben, and were acting in the course of their duty and were at all material time the servants and or agents of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

At the trial of this matter the plaintiff and a Mr Bell gave evidence for the plaintiff. The State offered no evidence. At the end of the trial, by consent of parties, I gave certain directions regarding submissions. The directions that were given were as follows:

(1) The defendants were to file and serve their written submissions by close of business on 27 February 1998, and

(2) The plaintiff was to file his submissions by close of business on 13 March 1998.

None of the parties complied with the directions. On 6 April 1998 during the April call over, the court reminded Mrs Mogish that the defendants and the plaintiff have not complied with the directions. Consequently I gave further directives that the defendant was to file its written submission by close of business on 17 April 1998. This has not been done. Only the plaintiff has filed written submissions. This was filed on 16 April 1998. Together with his written submissions, are copies of newspaper reports etc. These are irrelevant and I do not consider them as part of the submissions.

The uncontested evidence from the plaintiff is quite clear. On or about 20 December 1995, the plaintiff was in the house, when a number of policemen numbering 15 to 20 went to his house, called him out and ordered him to go into one of the police vehicles. Once he got into the vehicle he was beaten up all the way to Goroka in the police station where he was further beaten up. He was locked up in the police cells for about three (3) hours. He was released after three (3) hours and without being charged.

Mr Bell also confirmed seeing the applicant the following day with bruises on various parts of his body. The applicant gave evidence that he took some photographs after the incident and there are evidence. He also took some medical treatment.

As I said earlier, there is overwhelming uncontested evidence that the plaintiff’s various constitutional rights and freedoms were breached by the several policemen, the servants and agents of the State. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff has proved his case. I therefore find the defendants liable.

The next issue is what is the amount of damages that ought to be awarded for the breaches that was committed. In his submissions he has claimed a total of K107,730.00.

In my view this amount is not sustainable on the evidences. There is no doubt that he was assaulted. There is equally no doubt that he was detained unlawfully. There is equally no doubt that he paid for medical treatment and took some photos. But the way he has computed his claim is without any basis.

In my assessment, based on the evidence before me, I would assess his damages for the breaches of all his constitutional rights at five thousand kina (K5,000.00).

I award special damages as follows:

In so far as economic loss is concern, there was no claim for that. More importantly there was no evidence of any economic loss. It follows that the claim under this heading is without any merit. This part of the claim is dismissed. This would also apply to the claim for defamation.

In summary, I award the following damages.

I also order that the Defendants pay the Applicant’s costs, such costs are to be agreed if not taxed.

Lawyers for the Applicant: Applicant in Person

Lawyers for the Defendants: Solicitor General

9 June 1998

Mr Himon Songi

P O Box 632

GOROKA EHP

Dear Sir

Re: MP No. 163 of 1996 - Your Claim against the Police and the State

I write to advise you that the decision in your case will be handed down on Friday 12 June 1998 at 9:30 am in Goroka. Please come to Court then and receive the decision.

Yours faithfully

J. RUPA

Associate to Sawong J

cc: Solicitor General