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 clor damages foes for the enforcement of breaches of the plaintiff’s human rights. The applon was made under nder s. 57 of the Constitution.

The applicant claims that his right from inhuman treatment, right to prion of the law, liberty to his person, freedom from arbitrary search and entry, freedom of m 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:

(2) The plaintifintiff was to&file his submissions by close sf business on 13 March 1998.

None of the parties complied with the directions. On 6 Apr98 during the Apri April call over, the court reminded Mrs Mogish that the defendants and taintiff have not complied wied with the directions. Consequently I gurther dirr directives that the defendant was to file its written submission by close of business on 17 April 1998. This has non done. O60; Only the plaintifffils filed written subons. Thisfiled oled on 16 AprilApril 1998. Together with his written submissions, are copies of newspapports e160; are are evant aant and I do not consider them as part of t of the submissions. &#1/p>

>

The uncontesontested evidence from the plaf is clear. On ; On or about 20 December 1995, the plaintlaintiff was in the house, when a number of policemen numbering 15 to 20 wo his house, called him outm out and ordered him to go into one of the police vehicles. Once he got the vehicle hele he was beaten up all the way to Goroka in the police station where he was further beaten up. He was locked up e police lice cells for aboree (3) hours. He was released aftere (3)e (3) hours ours and without being charged.

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

As I said earlier, there is overwhelminontested evidence that the plaintiff’s various constionstitutional rights and freedoms were breached by the several policemen, ervants and agents of the Sthe State. I am satisfied on the balonce of probabilities that the plaintiff has proved his case. Iefore find the defendantsdants liable.

The next issue is what is the amount of damages tught to be awardewarde the hes that was comm committed. In his ssions he has claimclaimed a total of K107,730.0030.00.

In my view this amount is notainable on the evidences. There is ubt that he t he t 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 ament, basedbased 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. More importantly there was no evidence of any economic loss. It follows that that the claim under this heading is without any merit. This part of the claimismidismissed. This would apply to the claim for defr defamation.

In sum I award the fing damages.

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

Lawyers for the Applicanlicant: Applicant in Person

Lawyers for the Defendants: Soli General

9 June June 1998

Mr Himon Songi

P O Box 632

GOROKA EHP

Re0;>Re0;&#1P No. 163 of 1996 - Your Claim against the Policeolice and the State

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

Yours faithfully

J. RUPAAssociate to Sawongawong J

cc: Solicitor General