The State v Tau Ted Lahui, George Gadiva Hetau, Maraki Pati Noho all of Barakau Village Central Province and Jeffrey Airi Eki of Poe Village [1992] PNGLR 325

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Hinchliffe J
• Judgment Date: 03 August 1992
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1992] PNGLR 325
• Year: 1992
• Judgement Number: N1111

Full Title: The State v Tau Ted Lahui, George Gadiva Hetau, Maraki Pati Noho all of Barakau Village Central Province and Jeffrey Airi Eki of Poe Village [1992] PNGLR 325

National Court: Hinchliffe J

Judgment Delivered: 3 August 1992

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

MARING KATAKA

V

PETER KUMAN

Waigani

Williams J

30 September 1977

19 October 1977

APPEAL — Wrongly admitted hearsay evidence — Test to be applied — Whether reasonably probable that hearsay evidence influenced the decision.

APPEAL — Inferior Courts — District Courts — Traffic offence — Order for suspension of driver's licence expiring before hearing of appeal — Inability of court on appeal to make effective order in respect thereof — Recommendation made by magistrate under s. 94 (2) of the Police Force (Interim Arrangements) Act 1973 — Recommendation cannot be subject of appeal — District Courts Act 1953 s. 225 (1) — Police Force (Interim Arrangements) Act 1973 s. 94 (2) Infra p. 360.1.

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC — Licensing of drivers — Person convicted of traffic offence — Fine and suspension of licence imposed — Appeal heard after expiration period of suspension — Inability of court on appeal to make effective order in respect thereof.

The appellant, a commissioned police officer, was convicted of the offence of driving a motor vehicle upon a public street, whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor contrary to s. 9 (1) (a) of the Motor Traffic Act, 1950; he was fined K50, his driver's licence was suspended for 6 months and the magistrate further recommended to the Commissioner of Police pursuant to s. 94 (2) of the Police Force (Interim Arrangements) Act 1973, that the appellant be relieved of his commission and "be reduced to lower ranks of the police force".

On appeal against conviction and sentence, which came on for hearing after the expiration of the period of 6 months suspension, on the ground inter alia, that hearsay evidence had been wrongly admitted;

Held

(1) The admission of hearsay evidence does not itself vitiate a conviction: the test to be applied is whether or not it is reasonably probable that the evidence wrongly admitted influenced the decision.

Armat v. Little, Ex parte Little, [1909] St.R.Qd. 83, and Anide v. Denehy [1973] P.N.G.L.R. 215 followed.

(2) The admission of hearsay evidence viz., "your wife said you had been drinking with friends", when the fact that the appellant had been drinking with friends was not really in issue, could have had no prejudicial effect on the appellant's case nor any bearing on the ultimate result.

(3) The order for suspension of licence, being an order which the magistrate had jurisdiction to make and having legal effect until it was stayed or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, having run its course, no effective order could be made on appeal with respect to it even if the court were of the opinion that the period of suspension was excessive.

Eastwood v. Kaspar Bernar Samar [1976] P.N.G.L.R....