Elias Padura v Stephanie Valakvi (2012) N4830

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 23 October 2012
• Citation: (2012) N4830
• Docket Number: OS NO 256 of 2012
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2012

Full Title: OS NO 256 of 2012; Elias Padura v Stephanie Valakvi (2012) N4830

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 23 October 2012

CONTEMPT—disobedience contempt—alleged disobedience by defendant of court order restraining parties to civil proceedings from threatening, harassing or instigating violence against each other—two charges of contempt of court—elements of offence.

The National Court ordered that both the plaintiff and the defendant to civil proceedings were restrained from threatening, harassing or instigating violence against each other pending determination of the proceedings. After the order was made the defendant was involved in two incidents in which she, firstly, assaulted a female employee of the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s business premises and, secondly, assaulted the plaintiff’s girlfriend in the presence of the plaintiff in a public place. The plaintiff then filed a notice of motion seeking punishment of the defendant on two counts of contempt of court. The defendant (referred to in the judgment as ‘the contemnor’, being a person charged with contempt) pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial.

Held:

(1) Proceedings for contempt are criminal in nature and the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the three elements of the offence:

• the order was clear;

• it was properly served; and

• there was a deliberate failure to comply.

(2) As to count 1, the order was clear and unambiguous, however it had been made only four days before the assault and not entered (reduced to writing and stamped with the official seal of the National Court) until the day of the assault and not served on the contemnor until the following day. The second element of the offence was not proven and the contemnor was found not guilty of count 1.

(3) As to count 2, the order remained clear and unambiguous and it was served four weeks prior to the incident at the centre of the charge, thus the first two elements were proven.

(4) It was proven that the contemnor harassed and instigated violence against the plaintiff, in addition to assaulting the plaintiff’s girlfriend; thus the contemnor failed to comply with the restraining order and her failure was deliberate. The third element was proven.

(5) Accordingly the defendant was found guilty of count 2.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Gregory Kasen v The State (2001) N2133; Martin Kenehe v Michael Pearson (2009) N3763; Moses Vua v Francis Mavu (2008) N3294; Newsat Ltd v Telikom PNG Ltd (2007) N3447; Peter Luga v Richard Sikani (2002) N2286; Sr Dianne Liriope v Dr Jethro Usurup (2009) N3572; The State v Alois Dick (2007) N3219

NOTICE OF MOTION

This is a ruling on a motion under which a party to civil proceedings was charged with two counts of contempt of court.

1. CANNINGS J: The plaintiff, Elias Padura, has charged the defendant, Stephanie Valakvi, with two counts of contempt of court and this is the court’s ruling—the verdict—on whether the defendant (hereafter referred to as ‘the contemnor’, being a person charged with contempt) is guilty.

2. The contempt charges arise out of civil proceedings the plaintiff commenced against the defendant in which the plaintiff was seeking a permanent order restraining the contemnor from interfering with his businesses and from threatening, harassing or instigating violence against him or his staff. The plaintiff and the contemnor had a de facto marital relationship since 2000. They also became business partners, operating two successful businesses in Madang town: Summit Video and Variety Shop and Summit Secretarial Services...