William Chilen v The State (2011) SC1099

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 04 March 2011
• Citation: (2011) SC1099
• Docket Number: SCRA 21 OF 2008
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2011

Full Title: SCRA 21 OF 2008; William Chilen v The State (2011) SC1099

Supreme Court: Injia CJ, Hartshorn J and Sawong J

Judgment Delivered: 4 March 2011

Application to admit fresh evidence—s6 (1)(a) and s8(1)(b) Supreme Court Act

Facts:

The appellant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with hard labour, after pleading guilty to the charge of misappropriation of property. The appeal is against both his conviction and sentence. The appellant now applies for leave to file further affidavit evidence pursuant to s6(1)(a) and s8(1)(b) Supreme Court Act.

Held:

1. The further evidence is not fresh evidence. One of the two mandatory requirements of s6(1) (a) Supreme Court Act, that the proposed evidence to be adduced be fresh and that the justice of the case warrants it, have not been met.

2. Further, as it is settled law that s8 Supreme Court Act is merely a machinery provision which is supplemental to s6 Supreme Court Act, there is no basis upon which this court can grant the orders sought. Consequently the relief sought in the notice of motion of the appellant dated and filed 30th June 2010 is refused.

Cases

John Peng v The State [1982] PNGLR 331

Abiari v The State [1990] PNGLR 250

James Pari v The State [1993] PNGLR 173

Rawson Construction Ltd v Department of Works (2005) SC777

Ben Kairu v The State (2005) SC782

1. BY THE COURT: The appellant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with hard labour, after pleading guilty to the charge of misappropriation of property. He appeals against his conviction and sentence.

2. The appellant now applies for leave to file further affidavit evidence (further evidence) pursuant to...