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

State v Paraka [2022] PGNC 452; N9970 (29 September 2022)

N9970

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (FC) 118 of 2019

THE STATE

V

PAUL PARAKA

Waigani: Berrigan, J
2022: 23^rd and 29^th September

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Power of National Court to take evidence via video link in a criminal trial - Decision to allow the prosecution to call evidence via video link to be determined according to the interests of justice – Considerations discussed.

It is alleged that between 2007 and 2011 the accused misappropriated K163m of State monies paid to his law firm through other law firms for legal bills which were not due or owing. Mr Devete was the Solicitor General of Papua New Guinea between 2008 and 2012 whose primary function it was to appear as an advocate for the State in matters coming before the courts in Papua New Guinea. The State applied to lead evidence in the trial from Mr Devete via video link. The witness is located in Townsville, Australia and unable to travel to Papua New Guinea under the conditions of the bridging visa upon which he resides with his family in that country.

Held:

(1) The National Court has power to take evidence in a criminal trial via video link. The use of video link is simply a tool for taking evidence in the trial. It is consistent with the general rule that evidence in a criminal trial should be given orally and under oath or affirmation: State v Warun [1989-89] PNGLR 327 considered. It is consistent with the requirements of the Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act, 1962. The witness is subject to the same or similar risk of prosecution for perjury as a witness who has travelled to the country to give evidence. No jurisdictional issue arises. The witness will appear and give evidence before the National Court sitting in Papua New Guinea, albeit that he/she does so via video link. The use of video link is consistent with the right of the accused to face his/her accusers and challenge them through cross-examination, and to do so in a manner that enables the parties and the court to assess their evidence and observe demeanour. It is a facility which allows an accused to examine the witnesses called before the court for the purpose of s.37(4)(f) of the Constitution, and to call witnesses to testify before the court on his/her behalf.

(2) In determining whether or not to allow the prosecution to call evidence via video link the essential question is whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. The question is one of discretion to be determined by the trial judge in the circumstances of the particular case having regard to the importance of having all available and relevant evidence before the court whilst ensuring the accused’s right to a fair hearing under the Constitution. The ability of a witness to appear in person, the costs involved, and questions of efficient judicial administration will be relevant considerations.

(3) In determining the issue of fairness, consideration might also be given to the following factors, which are not intended to be exhaustive: the availability and quality of equipment and video-link facilities at the relevant locations; whether the witness will give evidence in a controlled environment, such that they are subject to neither influence nor inhibition; the ability of all parties, counsel and the court to see and hear each other and the witness in the remote location; and the extent of documentation which might need to be viewed by the witness, the court and parties.

(4) Mr Devete is a material witness, who is unable to travel to Papua New Guinea under the terms of his bridging visa, which do not permit travel outside of Australia. The taking of his evidence via video link will permit the admission of relevant evidence in this trial in the interests of justice. It will not prejudice the accused in his defence and will facilitate the completion of the trial in a timely manner in the interests of efficient judicial administration.

(5) In the absence of legislative provisions or rules directions for this purpose will be given pursuant to s 185 of the Constitution.

Cases Cited:
Papua New Guinean Cases

The State v Merimba (2021) N9129
State v Warun [1989-89] PNGLR 327
William Powi v Pastor Bernard Kaku, unreported 29 July 2022
Kumagai Gumi v. NPF (2006) SC837

Overseas Cases

R v Davis [2008] 1 AC 1128
Polanski v Conde Naste Publications [2005] UKHL 10

Legislation cited:

Sections 37, 185 of the Constitution.
Section 12 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 2005
Sections 1, 2 of the Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act
Sections 121, 555 of the Criminal Code
Section 37B of the Evidence Act

Counsel

Ms H Roalakona with Ms S Mosoro, for the State
Mr P Paraka, for himself

RULING ON APPLICATION TO CALL EVIDENCE VIA VIDEO LINK

29^th September, 2022

1. BERRIGAN J: The State applies to lead evidence of a witness in this trial via video link. It seeks to have the Court give directions for that purpose pursuant to s 185 of the Constitution. The application is supported by affidavits sworn by the witness on 21 and 22 September 2022.
   

Background

2. The witness is Neville Devete. He is the former Solicitor General of Papua New Guinea and served in that capacity between 2008 and 2012. He currently lives in Townsville, Australia, with his family.
   
3. The State applies on the basis that the witness is willing to give evidence in this trial but is unable to travel to Papua New Guinea for that purpose. The conditions of the bridging visa upon which he resides in Australia do not permit him to leave the country. It relies on a decision of mine in The State v Merimba (2021) N9129 to direct that his evidence be taken via video link. Whilst made in the context of Covid travel restrictions it says that the principles are applicable in this case in the circumstances.
   
4. The accused objects on a number of grounds. He says that the governing provision is s 12 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The State should have made the application to have the witness’ evidence taken under s 12 long ago. The State indicated initially that it would apply to call the witness via video link, then that it would call him in person, then that it would not call him at all, and now that it would call him via video link. It is too late for it to do so at this stage. The Court cannot use s 185 of the Constitution when s 12 expressly provides the mechanism for calling evidence via video link.
   
5. In addition, the affidavits relied upon by the State have not been deposed in accordance with the requirements of the Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act, 1962.
   
6. Furthermore, the witness does not set out the basis for the protection visa under which he is staying in Australia. The accused is entitled to know the basis. The Australian government is entitled to know the basis. The claims for protection are false and the Australian authorities should not be misled. There are no threats to him anymore. There have never been any threats. There will not be any threats. There is only media speculation. The accused is entitled to know what the claims are so they can be challenged in Australia.
   
7. Finally, the witness must appear to be cross-examined in person in accordance with the accused’s right to a fair trial under s 37 of the Constitution.
   

Consideration

8. Section 185 of the Constitution provides:
   

Lack of procedural provision

If in the circumstances of a particular case before a court no provision, or no adequate provision, is made in respect of a matter of practice or procedure, the court shall give ad hoc directions to remedy the lack or inadequacy.

9. To my mind the taking of evidence from a witness is a matter of practice and procedure. As discussed below there are no provisions specifically governing the taking of evidence from a witness via video link.
   
10. Two issues arise for determination. The first is whether the National Court has the power to take the evidence of a witness via video-link in a criminal case, and the second is whether, if it does, the evidence of Mr Devete should be taken by video-link in this case.
    
11. As above, the accused submits that the Court cannot make directions for the witness to give evidence via video link pursuant to s 185 of the Constitution when s 12 expressly provides the mechanism for calling evidence via video link from a witness located overseas.
    
12. Section 12 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 2005 provides (emphasis mine):
    

REQUEST BY PAPUA NEW GUINEA FOR ASSISTANCE WITH EVIDENCE.

(1) For the purposes of a proceeding or investigation in a criminal matter in Papua New Guinea, the Minister may request the appropriate authority of a foreign country:

(a) to arrange for:

(i) evidence to be taken in the foreign country under the law of that country; or

(ii) a document or other article in the foreign country to be produced under the law of that country; and

(b) to arrange for the evidence, document or other article to be sent to Papua New Guinea.

(2) When making a request under Subsection (1), the Minister may also request that an opportunity be given for the person giving the evidence, or producing the document or other article, to be examined or cross-examined, through a video link with Papua New Guinea by:

(a) a party to the proceeding or the party’s legal representative; or

(b) a person being investigated or the person’s legal representative.

13. There are a number of things to note about s 12 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The first is that it envisages that the use of video link facilities in the taking of evidence in criminal matters is, at least in general terms, permissible.
    
14. The second is that it does not exclusively govern the circumstances in which evidence may be taken from an overseas witness by video link or otherwise. S 5 makes clear that the “Act does not limit the provision or obtaining of international assistance in criminal matters other than assistance of a kind that may be provided or obtained under this Act”. Thus the State is not confined to obtaining the evidence of an overseas witness under the Act. Here it is envisaged that logistical assistance will be provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, a matter I will return to below.
    
15. Furthermore, whilst s 12 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act does provide a mechanism for obtaining evidence from a witness who is overseas, it does not envisage the taking of that evidence before the Court in Papua New Guinea. The evidence is taken “in the foreign country under the law of that country” and then “sent to Papua New Guinea”, where consideration would then need to be given to its admission in the proceeding.
    
16. The effect of s 12 is that the evidence would not be given before me, the presiding judge in the matter, but before another authority in the foreign country appointed for that purpose. It would also deprive me as the trial judge, the opportunity of asking questions myself.
    
17. That is not to say that the approach envisaged by s 12 may not be entirely appropriate in the circumstances of any particular case. Furthermore, s 12 is a very useful provision, particularly where a witness is unwilling to give evidence in a proceeding, and where they are beyond the reach of a summons issued in this jurisdiction. It allows, amongst other things, a request to be made to the authorities in the foreign jurisdiction to compel a person to attend for examination. But it is not necessary in this case to have recourse to s 12. Mr Devete is willing to appear before this Court and give evidence, albeit that it is intended that he does so via video link.
    
18. Whilst it is the practice that a witness usually attends in person to give evidence from the witness box in a criminal trial, I have not been directed to any statutory provision mandating this.
    
19. As a general rule, what is required is that evidence is given orally. Critically, that evidence must ordinarily be under oath or affirmation.
    
20. In considering the obligation of the prosecution to prove its case in a criminal trial, Cantley J said in State v Warun [1989-89] PNGLR 327 (emphasis mine):

“When it is said that the State must prove its case, the State must bring witnesses who give testimony, generally on oath. The witnesses may identify and prove a document which may be used because of its contents in a testimonial manner, or as either circumstantial or real evidence: Cross, par 1.26 at 14-15. The witnesses may give testimony to identify things put in evidence, like an axe, or a knife, as real evidence. In all these cases a witness is required to get the evidence properly before the court. The witness must be sworn or affirmed in accordance with the Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act (Ch No 317). The purpose of the formal swearing or affirmation is to make the testimony or other evidence binding because any person who knowingly gives false testimony on a proceeding is guilty of the crime of perjury: Criminal Code, s 121. It is this sanction that creates the character of judicial evidence authentic assertions or things before the court under threat of sanction.”

21. In my view, the State does intend to bring the witness before the Court, to give oral evidence, and that evidence is to be given under oath in accordance with the Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act.
    
22. Having reviewed the Oaths, Affirmations and Statutory Declarations Act, it appears to me that the taking of the oath via video link is consistent with its requirements. Section 1 and 2 are both relevant:
    

1. GENERAL PROVISION

Nothing in this Part invalidates an oath taken in a sufficient and lawful form.

2. WITNESS’S OATH

Witnesses may be sworn–

(a) in civil proceedings in Form 1; and

(b) in criminal trials in Form 2.

23. Form 2 referred to in s 2(b) of the Act is the standard oath to be administered, which in the event the application is granted, would be the oath administered by my associate, albeit that the witness, while holding the bible, would swear the oath before this Court via video link. To my mind that is consistent with ss 1 and 2 of the Act.
    
24. Importantly, Mr Devete would be subject to the same or similar threat of prosecution for perjury as any witness who had travelled from overseas to give evidence at the trial. I will return to this matter below but note that s 121 of the Criminal Code makes clear that the witness would be subject to prosecution for perjury upon taking the oath, and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years in the event he gives false testimony:

PERJURY.

(1) A person who in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceedings, knowingly gives false testimony concerning any matter that is material to any question then depending in the proceedings or intended to be raised in the proceedings, is guilty of the crime of perjury.

Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(2) If an offence against Subsection (1) was committed in order to procure the conviction of another person for a crime punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, the offender is, subject to Section 19, liable to imprisonment for life.

(3) It is immaterial whether the testimony is given on oath or under any other sanction authorized by law.

(4) The forms and ceremonies used in administering the oath or in otherwise binding the person giving the testimony to speak the truth are immaterial, if he assents to the forms and ceremonies actually used.

(5) It is immaterial whether the false testimony is given orally or in writing.

(6) It is immaterial whether or not–

(a) the court or tribunal is properly constituted, or is held in the proper place, if it actually acts as a court or tribunal in the proceedings in which the testimony is given; or

(b) the person who gives the testimony is a competent witness; or

(c) the testimony is admissible in the proceeding.

(7) A person shall not be arrested without warrant for an offence against Subsection (1).

(8) A person cannot be convicted of committing perjury or of counselling or procuring the commission of perjury on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.

25. Furthermore, I see no impediment in the Evidence Act. Whilst s.37B(2)(h) of the Evidence Act provides for, amongst other things, “evidence to be given from a place other than the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television or other facilities that enable communication between that place and the courtroom” in certain prescribed circumstances, the provision does not exclude the taking of evidence via similar means in other circumstances. Rather, s 37B(1) is a facilitative provision, such that it requires the court, by the use of the word shall¸ as a protective measure to make one or more of the orders under subsection (2) if in the opinion of the court the quality of the witness’ evidence would likely be diminished by reason of fear or distress in connection with testifying in the proceedings. It does not follow that the use of video link may not be used in any other circumstances. Moreover, the provision recognises the possibility that evidence may be taken in such a manner.
    
26. It is also my view that no jurisdictional issue arises. This Court is not taking evidence in another jurisdiction. The National Court is sitting and taking evidence here in Papua New Guinea in a gazetted location. The parties appear before me at the trial in the National Court. The intended witness will also appear and give sworn evidence at the trial before this Court albeit that he will do so via video link.
    
27. As such, whilst s 555 of the Criminal Code expressly allows for evidence to be taken outside a gazetted location, such that the Court may “direct that the trial be continued at a different place, whether or not the place is a place appointed under the National Court Act 1975 for sittings of the National Court”, it is my view that it has no application here.
    
28. I have also had regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in William Powi v Pastor Bernard Kaku, unreported 29 July 2022, which has come to my attention. In that decision the Supreme Court held by majority that the delivery of a decision by a trial judge via video link whilst sitting in a foreign country outside of Papua New Guinea was an unlawful exercise of judicial power.
    
29. Kandakasi DCJ recognised that the PNG judiciary has embraced the use of technology to expedite the delivery of judicial services to its people, like much of the rest of the world. He found, however, that what transpired in that case went clearly against the established practice and procedure for the delivery of decisions within PNG by the National Court. He held that the trial judge erred because he acted against the dictates of s. 163 of the Constitution, 166 (1) and (5) and s. 2 of the Constitution and the Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections by delivering his decision from outside the territorial limits of PNG; exercising his judicial powers when he was on leave; delivering his decision from outside a designated court room and without being properly attired as a Judge; and not considering the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumagai Gumi v. NPF (2006) SC837 to refrain from acting unilaterally: [7] to [19].
    
30. Yagi J expressed the view that the use of video link technology is now frequently used by the National Court in hearing cases: [99], and that its use to deliver a decision was neither irregular nor improper. He found that the delivery of the decision by video link from Australia in that case was improper and unlawful, however, because it was delivered outside the territorial boundary or geographical jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea and in a place which was not a gazetted sitting place: [94] to [114].
    
31. Makail J, dissenting, observed that the use of video-link facilities in this jurisdiction is not a new phenomenon and expressed the view that for a virtual hearing to be effective and without controversy parties must be present and participate in it with appropriate notice: [136] to [143]. He concluded that the venue where the trial judge was presiding at the time of delivery of the decision was uncontroversial.
    
32. As the case makes clear the hearing of proceedings via video link has become established practice in Papua New Guinea. A dedicated court room exists for this purpose. It operated throughout the pandemic to hear matters before both the National and Supreme Court and continues to do so.
    
33. For the reasons outlined above this case will not be heard outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the State. Nor will any directions given for the evidence to be taken in this case via video link unilaterally contravene legislation or established practice and procedure.
    
34. It is the case that the taking of video link in criminal proceedings is less common than in civil proceedings. As observed by Makail J above, however, video link was first used in criminal matters some 15 to 20 years ago, although primarily for mentions, directions hearing and listings: [137]. During the pandemic the Registrar of the National and Supreme Courts directed that “Where possible and where Correctional Services has the capability, hearing of short applications in criminal cases must be conducted online”: NJSS Covid 19 Protocol No 5 of 2021 dated 12^th April 2021: [142].
    
35. Whilst I am aware only of the case of Merimba in which evidence has been taken via video link in a criminal trial, it is perhaps not unexpected in general terms that the witnesses in criminal cases are more likely to be located in Papua New Guinea.
    
36. The paramount concern in any criminal trial, however, is to ensure fairness to the accused.
    
37. Section 37(1) of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to full protection of the law. Section 37(4)(f) is particularly relevant:
    

37. Protection of the law.

(1) Every person has the right to the full protection of the law, and the succeeding provisions of this section are intended to ensure that that right is fully available, especially to persons in custody or charged with offences...

(3) A person charged with an offence shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court..

(4) A person charged with an offence—...

(f) shall be afforded facilities to examine in person or by his legal representative the witnesses called before the court by the prosecution, and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses and to testify before the court on his own behalf, on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution.

(5) Except with his own consent, the trial shall not take place in his absence unless he so conducts himself as to render the continuance of the proceedings in his presence impracticable and the court orders him to be removed and the trial to proceed in his absence,...

38. It has long been accepted at common law as a general rule that an accused person has a right to face his accusers, to challenge them through cross-examination, and to do so in a manner which enables the parties and the court to assess their evidence and observe demeanour. In R v Davis [2008] 1 AC 1128 at [5] Lord Bingham said:
    

“It is a long-established principle of the English common law that, subject to certain exceptions and statutory qualifications, the defendant in a criminal trial should be confronted by his accusers in order that he may cross-examine them and challenge their evidence.^”

39. In my view, the use of video link facilities is consistent with that right. Similarly, video link is a facility which allows an accused to examine the witnesses called before the court for the purpose of s.37(4)(f) of the Constitution, and indeed, to call witnesses to testify before the court on his/her behalf.
    
40. It enables the Court and the parties to hear and observe a witness whilst giving evidence under oath and form a view as to demeanour. It enables an accused, usually through his or her counsel, to confront the witness and challenge them through cross-examination.
    
41. For the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the trial takes place in the absence of the accused.
    
42. It appears that the use of video link has become largely accepted in similar jurisdictions as “simply another tool for securing effective access to justice”: Polanski v Conde Naste Publications [2005] UKHL 10.
    
43. This is to be expected given the developments in technology and the increasing globalisation of the world. It is particularly relevant in the context of this country given its close ties with countries across the Asia- Pacific region.
    
44. Whilst the use of video link in this jurisdiction has been driven largely in response to travel restrictions associated with the Covid pandemic, other considerations may also be relevant when determining the interests of justice, including cost. State resources to fund the travel and accommodation of witnesses are increasingly strained, and the cost of funding the appearance of a witness otherwise may be prohibitive for an accused.
    
45. The Court should not close its mind to the availability of technology to facilitate access to, and the efficient administration of, justice in appropriate cases.
    
46. In summary, it appears to me that the National Court has power to take evidence via video link in criminal proceedings. Unlike some other jurisdictions there are no legislative provisions or rules expressly governing the taking of evidence via video link. In the absence of such provision s 185 of the Constitution is applicable. It enables a judge of the National Court in a particular case to give ad hoc directions to remedy the lack or inadequacy of provision.
    
47. In determining whether or not to grant leave to call evidence via video link the essential question is whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. The question is one of discretion to be determined by the trial judge in the circumstances of the particular case having regard to the importance of having all available and relevant evidence before the court whilst ensuring the accused’s right to a fair hearing under the Constitution. The ability of a witness to appear in person, the costs involved, and questions of efficient judicial administration will be relevant considerations.
    
48. In determining the issue of fairness, consideration might also be given to the following factors, which are not intended to be exhaustive: the availability and quality of equipment and video-link facilities at the relevant locations; whether the witness will give evidence in a controlled environment, such that they are subject to neither influence nor inhibition; the ability of all parties, counsel and the court to see and hear each other and the witness in the remote location; and the extent of documentation which might need to be viewed by the witness, the court and parties.
    
49. Returning to the present case, it is alleged that between 2007 and 2011 the accused misappropriated K163m in State monies paid to his law firm through other law firms for legal bills which were not due or owing. Mr Devete was the Solicitor General of Papua New Guinea between 2008 and 2012 whose primary function it was to appear as an advocate for the State in matters coming before the courts in Papua New Guinea. It was his complaint to police about payments of judgement debts in 2012, Exhibit D3, that ultimately led to the investigation and charging of the accused in relation to the matter now before the Court.
    
50. It does not appear to be in dispute that Mr Devete is a material witness. It is reasonable to conclude that he will be able to give direct evidence about matters relevant to the alleged offences, including the approval or otherwise of the briefing out of State matters to external lawyers, and the payment of State legal bills and judgement debts during the relevant period.
    
51. Mr Devete’s affidavits have been sworn in Australia. It would have been preferable for an officer of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to swear an affidavit regarding the officer’s dealings with Mr Devete and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and produce the affidavits provided to them.
    
52. Nevertheless, I am satisfied on the material that Mr Devete is willing to testify in this trial but is unable to travel to Papua New Guinea to do so under the conditions of his visa in Australia, in which it appears he has been resident with his family since 2014. Documents produced by him show that he and his family applied for a protection visa on 3 November 2014. It appears that the application was refused and that a Bridging Visa was issued on 3 January 2018 pending the outcome of a judicial review application. According to the Bridging Visa Grant Notice the visa provides for “No Travel”. It expressly states that “This bridging visa lets you temporarily stay in Australia. It will end when you leave Australia. If you travel outside Australia, you will need a visa to return to Australia.”. It also appears from correspondence with his lawyers earlier this month that there have been no updates from the Tribunal in Australia in relation to his application. Given that his current application for a visa has been pending for several years it is unlikely that a visa allowing him to return to Australia and his family would be forthcoming within any reasonable period in the event he was to leave the country for any reason. I also accept that any travel outside Australia may affect the outcome of his application, and that of his family, to remain in Australia.
    
53. The circumstances upon which the protection visa were granted are not set out. I will not speculate about what they might be. Whether or not the basis for Mr Devete’s application for protection in Australia is valid is a matter for the Australian authorities.
    
54. I am further satisfied that the taking of evidence via video link will not prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. The evidence will be given under oath and the witness will be subject to prosecution in this country for perjury. Arguably, the potential sanction for perjury is greater in his case than for a person normally resident in the country because it would mean extradition, prosecution and incarceration in this country, away from his family. In the event there is no extradition the accused will be unable to return to his country of birth without facing prosecution.
    
55. The witness will give evidence under oath, in this Court, in a manner which will enable the Court and the parties to hear and observe the witness whilst giving evidence. The accused will have the opportunity to confront the witness and challenge him under cross-examination.
    
56. The accused has failed to demonstrate any prejudice in the conduct of his defence in the circumstances.
    
57. Whilst it is not necessary to my decision, I note here that the accused would have no objection to the use of evidence taken under s 12 of the Mutual Assistance in Legal Matters Act which would also involve the cross-examination of the witness by the accused via video link.
    
58. I am satisfied that the facilities are available and are of sufficient quality. The technology is that used by the National and Supreme Court in a dedicated court room for such purposes. It will be possible for documentation to be shown to the witness through the use of the technology. The evidence will be recorded for the purposes of the transcript in the usual manner by this Court’s Court Reporting Service. Whilst logistical assistance may be provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the video link will be administered by the officers and information technology staff of this court.
    
59. I am also satisfied that the witness will give evidence in a controlled environment, with the logistical assistance of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Australia’s Federal Prosecution Service. I see no basis for any objection to that course. The witness will be in a place where he is able to give evidence without influence or inhibition.
    
60. In conclusion, the accused is charged with a serious offence. Mr Devete is a material witness, who is unable to travel to Papua New Guinea. The taking of the evidence via video link will permit the admission of relevant evidence in this trial in the interests of justice, that is in the interests of both the State and the accused. It will not prejudice the accused in his defence and will facilitate the completion of the trial in a timely manner in the interests of efficient judicial administration.
    
61. Accordingly, it is my view that it is the interests of justice to allow the witness to appear and give evidence in this trial via video link.
    
62. The trial will proceed upon Court Room 9 becoming available.
    
63. I give the following directions:
    
    • (1) The evidence of Mr Neville Devete will be taken in this trial via video-link.
    • (2) The State will make the necessary arrangements with the Court’s IT section, through my associate.
    • (3) The parties are to provide any documents to be viewed by the witness to the Court’s IT section, through my associate, on or before 5 October 2022 for scanning purposes.
    • (4) The parties will be advised of the date the trial will continue in Court Room 9.
    • (5) Bail is extended.

_______________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
The Accused appearing in person.