Lawrence Bokele v The Police Commissioner and The State (2001) N2105

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2001) N2105
• Date: 22 June 2001
• Year: 2001

Full Title: Lawrence Bokele v The Police Commissioner and The State (2001) N2105

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2001

1 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Application for Leave for judicial review—Defendants consenting to leave being granted—Consent of parties no bar to the Courts power to consider and determine case on its merits—If the pre–requisites and requirements for leave are not met an application for leave even by consent should be refused.

2 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—Application for Leave for judicial review—Termination of employment—Charges leading to termination served on Plaintiff and opportunity given for response—No response to the charges—Purported responses given after decision to terminate—Applicant conceding to the decision sought to be review being fairly arrived at and seeking only to explain his failure to respond to charges—No arguable case for leave for review demonstrated—Leave refused—O16 r3 National Court Rules (Ch38).

3 Ex parte Application of Eric Gurupa (1990) N856, Re Alleged Misconduct in Office by Honourable Peter Ipu Peipul: Peipul v Sheehan (2001) N2096, Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self–Employed and Small Businesses Ltd (1982] AC 617, Ila Geno, Paul Lawton and Florien Mambu v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1993] PNGLR 22, Leto Darius v The Commissioner of Police (2001) N2046, Application of Demas Gigimat (1992] PNGLR 322, Application of Christopher Haiveta (1998) N1783 and John Joe Nemambo v Peter Peipul and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1994) SC475 referred to

___________________________

Kandakasi J: The Plaintiff is applying under O16 r3 of the National Court Rules (Ch38) (NCRs) for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Defendants terminating his employment as a policeman. He claims that, he was not charged with any disciplinary offence but was found guilty of misconduct and terminated without any evidence. The Defendants consent to leave being granted.

Issue

There are two issues for me to determine. First, whether the Court is precluded from assessing and determining an application for leave for judicial review where the Defendants consent to leave being granted? Secondly, subject to a determination of the first issue, whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable case for grant of leave for judicial review?

Background

The Plaintiff issued these proceedings on 8 December 2000. Then on 18 May 2001, a notice of motion seeking leave of this court to proceed to judicial review of the decision of the First Defendant terminating his employment was filed. At that time, he also filed a...