National Court of Papua New Guinea

The plaintiff claims general, exemplary and special damages for the injuries he sustained and for breach of his constitutional rights. He also claims interest and costs.

The claim is based on a similar claim made in the National Court in the leading case of David Wari Kofowei v Augustine Siviri and Others [1983] PNGLR 449. The plaintiff reli the rithority of that case case to press his claim. For some unknowson Paol Paol Palik has not been named as a defendant in thproceedings. This is another of thoses ases where a citizen has fallen prey to a bunc bunch of “thugs”, who time anin appear to think they arey are above the law. Nobody is above the ncludicluding members of the police force who should instead be upholding and enforcing the law in an objective manner. Sadly t, the citizens and and the community at large are sufferinthe hands of a poorly discidisciplined police force. The members of olice forceforce have no authority under the law to assaultperson when he is arrested.sted. The to effect arrest in a in a firm but humane manner. If for someons the person rson berrested resists arrest the the arresting officer may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. That is nly exception when when somce may be used. They have no right tse a pe a person rson and talk to him in a rough, angry and heanded manner.&#160m awar aware they are often provoked and being human beings go t go through trying situations. However that isthey are trre trained, to kheir cool and have a level head. Thee is paying ying huge auge amounts of money each year because of instances of this nature.& The people of this country are fed up with the attitude ande and the illegal acts of their so called law enforcing agency.

The Commissioner of Police is being sued because he is the person directly responsible and answerable for all official activities either collectively or individually of the police personnel throughout the country. The State ing sued becausecause members of the Police force are servants or agents of the State and is being sued on vicarious liability.

In David Wari Kofowei v Aune Siviri and Others [1983] PNGLR 449 (Supra) the trial judl judge assessed damages for assault at K3,800. The assaults in that were were that he was forced to stand on one leg with his arms raised in the air by long periods, kicked in the knee, being hithe back of his neck, being burnt on the lips with a lit cigarette, being slapped on the face face, punched in the chest and being hit with a stick on his penis. The assaults here are similar in that he was kicked and punched. As a result of that assault he lost his two teeth.

The Plaintiff also claims general damages under the Arrest Act. Tnner and the circnces whs which the plaintlaintiff was arrested in my view is a breach of s. 18 of the Arrest Act.&#ct. Whiledamage is awarded sepd sepay in the Kofowei case I am of the view that it be lume lumped togeth the the general damages category.

The plaintiff fu claims general damages for breach of his Constitutional rial rights under S. 42, 36 and 37 of the constitution. The Constitutirightindividdividuals are fare fundamental to each person and those rights should be rigidly and zealously guarded by the States law cing agencies like the police force. The police force is empowered under the Constitustitution to preserve peace and good order and to enforce the law in an impartial and objective manner. Sthough that is not happenappening in this country. Eaar the Stays thousandssandssands of Kina because the Constitutional Rights of people are breached. Nothinms to be deterrin mein membf the police forc force from continually repeating the same mistakes. The plaintiff iiff in this case was entitled to be humaneeated as provided for under the Constitution. If he w he was to be aed ated and charged, there is no need for the policeman inv to cause grievous body harm to him.

In this case hise his finger was broken and two of his teeth were knocked out. His and bas swollen from trom trom the assaults be received. Having saide things I inte intend to have this head of damages includeer the general damages category. I a general damages to be o be K14,000.00

Thep>The plaintiff further claims exemplary ds. Eary damages ages are awar awarded at the discretion of the Court. In this case taking into account the circumstances of the, I am minded to award K1,000.00 in exemplary damages. There was abely nothing hing hing the plaintiff did to warrant such an k on this person.

No special damages have been proveproved.

In summary the following damages are awarded:

I further award him interest and costs.

Lawyer for Plaintiff: Joe Wal Lawyers

Lawyer for Defendant: Solicitor General