The State v Michael Nama, Kenneth Bago, Aaron Fenni, Sei Mamato, Peter Memeto and Sobi Fenni (1999) N1884

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kirriwom J
• Judgment Date: 10 May 1999
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (1999) N1884
• Year: 1999
• Judgement Number: N1884

National Court: Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 10 May 1999

N1884

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(In the National Court of Justice)

CR No. 859 of 1998

STATE

Vs

MICHAEL NAMA, KENNETH BAGO, AARON FENNI,

SEI MAMATO, PETER MEMETO & SOBI FENNI

GOROKA: KIRRIWOM J

1999: 10 May

Case cited:

Charles Ombusu v The State

Counsels:

Mrs C. Ashton-Lewis for the State

Mr Apie’e for the Accused

RULING

10 May 1999

KIRRIWOM J: The State presented an indictment charging these men with four counts of wilful murder and indicated laying two additional charges against them for murder and grevious bodily harm. All counts relate to separate victims but the incidents are connected in place and time. They arise from one single transaction. At least that is the impression I get from the State’s submission. I have not read the file and I don’t propose to read the file if the matter is eventually going to proceed as a trial. The indictment was presented in relation to the four wilful murder counts for the purpose of the Court giving a ruling on the appropriateness of joining four wilful murder counts in the one indictment. In other words the presentation of indictment was a mere necessity for the purpose of enabling the defence to lodge their application for the indictment to be quashed under s. 558.

Defence has taken objection to the indictment presented and applied to have the indictment quashed on the grounds:

1. That the accused were charged and brought before the Committal Court on two counts of wilful murder. These are the only two charges that the accused were facing and were committed to stand trial in the National Court, and not for four counts as contained in the indictment. They were not charged and processed in the Committal Court with respect to the other two counts.

2. That the accused would be prejudiced in their defences by the joinder of the additional offences that they were not initially charged with nor committed for to appear in the National Court. The wording in section 558 is that the indictment is calculated to prejudice or embarrass the accused in the defence to the charge.

I have read the submissions filed by both counsel in this matter. And regrettably I find myself in agreement with my brother Sawong J. I think it is premature to...