Review Pursuant to Constitution s155(2)(b); Application by Lawrence Bokele to Review the Decision of The National Court Refusing Leave to Review Decision of Police Commissioner (2002) SC682

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2002) SC682
• Date: 05 April 2002
• Docket Number: SCR No 41 of 2001
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2002

Full Title: SCR No 41 of 2001; Review Pursuant to Constitution s155(2)(b); Application by Lawrence Bokele to Review the Decision of The National Court Refusing Leave to Review Decision of Police Commissioner (2002) SC682

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Gavara–Nanu J, Davani J

Judgment Delivered: 5 April 2002

1 Application for Judicial Review under s155(2)(b) of the Constitution—proper principles considered.

2 Application for leave for judicial review under O16 r3 of the National Court Rules—whether consent of parties to grant leave is in itself a valid ground to grant leave?

3 Avia Aihi v The State (No 2) [1982] PNGLR 44, Avia Aihi v The State (No 1) [1981] PNGLR 81, Independent State of Papua New Guinea v Colbert [1988] PNGLR 138 and Ila Geno v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1993] PNGLR 22 referred to

___________________________

By the Court: This is an application for review under s155(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The circumstances giving rise to the review are these. The Police Commissioner terminated the applicant's employment as a policeman for misconduct. He applied for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision under O16 of the National Court Rules (Rules). The matter came before the National Court on 8 June 2001 to determine leave for judicial review under O16 r3 of the National Court Rules. At the hearing, counsel for the respondents consented to the grant of leave. However, the National Court after considering the merits of the application, refused leave and dismissed the application on 22 June 2001.

The applicant was not notified of the date of the delivery of judgment and was not made aware of the judgment until 30 July 2001 when he discovered upon his own enquiry at the registry. The applicant instructed his lawyers to file an appeal on the same day. This gave the lawyers only two days within which to file an appeal or an application for extension of time within the 40 days. The lawyers did not file the appeal within time but purported to do so on 14 August 2001 and the registry rightly...