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

Meilei and Nomai v Eka [1985] PGNC 21; [1985] PNGLR 59 (15 February 1985)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1985

[1985] PNGLR 59 - Ivoro Meilei and Petrus Nomai v Paul Eka�

[1985] PNGLR 59

N498(M)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

IVORO MEILEI AND PETRUS NOMAI

V

PAUL EKA

Waigani

Woods J

15 February 1985

INFERIOR COURTS - Local courts - Jurisdiction - Strict limits on jurisdiction - No jurisdiction where minimum penalty greater than six months - Local Courts Act, 1963, s 19 - Summary Offences Act 1977, s 20.

Held

N1>(1)����� The local court is a creature of statute and its jurisdiction is strictly limited by the Act.

N1>(2)����� Accordingly, the limitation in the Local Courts Act 1963, s 19, on the power of the court to impose a fine not exceeding K100 or to order a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months precludes the court from exercising jurisdiction in respect of an offence of being unlawfully on premises contrary to the Summary Offences Act 1977, s 20, for which the minimum penalty is 12 months� imprisonment.

Appeal

This was an appeal from convictions and sentences of a local court for offences of damaging property and being unlawfully on premises.

Counsel

D Koeget, for the appellant.

K Towaluta, for the respondent.

15 February 1985

WOODS J: This is an appeal from a decision of the local court at Tapini given on 17 May 1984 whereby both appellants were convicted of damaging property and being unlawfully on premises and both were sentenced to six months imprisonment for damaging property and twelve months imprisonment for being unlawfully on premises.

The first ground of appeal is that the court had no jurisdiction to impose a term of imprisonment longer than six months. In this case the local court has purported to exercise jurisdiction in relation to an offence under s 20 of the Summary Offences Act 1977. This section carries a minimum penalty of twelve months imprisonment. This being higher than the limitation of the jurisdiction of the local court as set down in s 19 of the Local Courts Act the local court clearly had no jurisdiction. The local court is a creature of statute and the limitation of the jurisdiction of the local court is as laid down in the Act. It has not been increased beyond the limitation expressed clearly in s 19. Section 19 clearly limits the power of the local court to order the imposition of a fine not exceeding K100 or order a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. The respondent submitted before me that in s 1 of the Summary Offences Act the definition of court clearly gave jurisdiction to the local court over any matters in the Summary Offences Act. This is clearly erroneous as s 1 of the Summary Offences Act is merely a definition section and not a jurisdiction section.

Therefore on the offence of being unlawfully on premises I find that the local court had no jurisdiction.

In relation to the offence of damaging property the penalty given by the local court of six months imprisonment was quite within power. However, in this regard there is a further ground of appeal that the appellants were given no power of election to elect to have the matter dealt with by the District Court as against being dealt with by the local court. The notation in the depositions suggests that the matters prescribed by s 38(C) were followed so I therefore dismiss this ground of appeal.

There is a further ground of appeal that this sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and at this stage this would refer to the sentence of six months imprisonment for damaging property. On the facts of the case I find that the incident concerned was a very serious incident involving, as it did, damage to a schoolroom and I have no hesitation in agreeing that the penalty of six months imposed by the magistrate was within power and in the circumstances would have been an appropriate penalty.

The result is that I have upheld the appeal on jurisdiction in relation to the imprisonment of twelve months. However, I have dismissed the appeal in respect of the matters of election and of the sentence of six months for damaging property.

I confirm the convictions and sentences for the offence of damaging property. However, I quash the conviction and sentences for the offence of being unlawfully on premises.

Orders accordingly

Lawyer for appellant: The Public Solicitor.

Lawyer for respondent: The Public Prosecutor.