National Court of Papua New Guinea

ii. ҈& T60;pene penalty wlty was too excessiv>

#160;;ټ The ion o CommiCommissionesioner was contrarytrary to n to naturaatural jusl justice:

(a) &##1160t panied nied by my y my offi officer of the Section when I was called to parade before the Officer whor who read read and explained the charge to me and ame tor plea. I was deprived that rig stas stipultipulated ated under the Constabulary Standing Order (SCO 304) (2) when I was dealt with a serious disciplinary offence.

(b) ټ Inhad ig original inal intent when I did the act. I reported my releaof the the Defendant in the Occurrence Book for the attention of my Supervisors. When I did th, I hadntentotento inte with the cthe courseourse of justice.

What I did was in the belief that the Defendant want was being deprived of the right to edun and employment.

(c) ҈ 160; I 0; I was not affor ed a fair hearing when I pleaded guilty to the charge but explained in writing the reasons for the release. In my case, my expion shou should have been considered and that the plead havn amended to one one of Noof Not guilty and evidence called.

(d) Section 42 (3t of one Ctustitustates:

A person whon who is arrested or detained:

SHALL, UNLESS HE IS RELEASED be brought without delay before a court judiofficp>

(e) Consideration was not given to my written reports and for my plea for mercy and leniency. After all, the matters against the Deft thaeleasve aln find with convictions.

(f) ;d< 160; 160; The CTheisommissmmissioner did not obtain statement from itnesses in accordance with Standing Orders No. 304 4(a) ofa) of the Police Force.

(g) ـ There wss insufficifficividence to find me guilty olty of the charge.

The Applicant’s counsel has made submissions on the finding of guilt basedhe weof thdence. These submissions relate tate to groo ground (und (iii) (d) and in part (iii) (e) and (iii) (g). However, I am satisfiet that the Respondent properly found the Applicant guilty of the charge based on her admission of the charge. I dismiss alse gr.

>

The grounds (iii) (a) and (iii) (e) in part, and (iii) (f) relate to deno denial of natural justice. These wot pu in the Applicpplicant’s affidavits and in her counsel’s submission. #160; I take it they are nore not pursued.; In any case, I see no impropriety in the disciplinary procedures employed by the Respondepondent. miss these grounds.

On principle, I can only interfere with the punishmnishment on the grounds, inter alia, that on the facts, no reasonable tribunal or authority would have imposed the punishment it imposed: Kekedo v Burns Philp (PNG) Ltd & Anor [1988-89] PNGLR 122.

In my view, the penalty was warranted. I have no douat the Applicpplicant is a very dedicated and long serving member of the Police Force. However,allowed her long hong history of service and dedication to her job to be compromised by hermmodating the interest of h of her husband’s relative. She sto be reminded that that the judicial process of law and police law-enforcement cannot be compromised by policemen and policewomen under any circumstance. A demoin rank was considersideredppropriate penalty by the Rthe Respondent. I do not see any reason ftr interfering with his decision on punishment.

The cant relies on a lesser punishment of a fine substituted byed by the National Court presided over by Akuram, J. I agree with thponde217;s 17;s lawyer that that this case can be distinguished from that case on the following grounds:

1. &ـ That application wion was not contested by the Respondent whereas the present one ione is.

2. &##160; &&#160 Honod nnod not haverthe reasons for decision from the Respondent before him wher whereas Ieas I have have those reasons.

It is submitte the cant that Joseph Sangam was a principal offender nder who has now received a lesser punishmnishment substituted by the Court whereas the Applicant was not a principal offender.

However, I am of the view that the Applicant was the main offender as well in the sense that without her role, Joseph Sangam would have had no reason to compromise his job and release the Defendant. h Sangam did not stand to d to benefit from this exercise whereas the Applicant did.

The other grounds relied on by the Aant are of no consequence. For reasons, I dismiss thss the application and confirm tirm the decision of the Respondent. I makorder as to costs.

Lawyer for the Applicant: DL O’Connor Lawyers

Lawyer for the Respondent: Solicitor General