Agaria Bani v Commissioner of Police and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1999) N1853

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (1999) N1853
• Date: 20 April 1999
• Year: 1999

Full Title: Agaria Bani v Commissioner of Police and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1999) N1853

National Court: Sevua J

Judgment Delivered: 20 April 1999

1 Administrative Law—Judicial Review—Police Disciplinary proceedings—Natural Justice—Whether Police Commissioner required to serve statements and reports on plaintiff—Whether failure to serve amounts to breach of audi alteram partem rule of natural justice—Whether failure to give plaintiff opportunity to address on penalty constitutes an error of law—Whether Police Commissioner entitled to accept evidence against plaintiff and reject plaintiff's evidence—Police Force Act (Ch65) s46.

2 Sede Kure v Commissioner of Police [1998] PNGLR 44 referred to

___________________________

Sevua J: The plaintiff seeks a judicial review in respect of his demotion from Sergeant to Constable.

The plaintiff was a Sergeant of Police and the NCO in charge of security personnel assigned to the Leader of the Opposition, Honourable Bernard Narokobi. He was charged with four serious disciplinary offences under s46 of the Police Force Act, found guilty and demoted to the rank of Senior Constable.

It is not intended to set out the four charges, suffice it to say, the first two relate to the plaintiff's failure to carry out his duty to meet the Opposition Leader at Jacksons Airport, pick him up and drop him at his residence. The last two charges relate to consumption of alcohol.

In seeking the remedy of certoriorari to quash the decision of the first defendant, the plaintiff relied on the following grounds.

That the first defendant erred in law in that he:

Sustained the four disciplinary charges against the plaintiff upon no evidence or insufficient evidence.

Was in breach of the principle of natural justice, the rule audi alteram partem, in that the plaintiff was not given a fair opportunity to answer the case against him and put his own case in that he was not allowed the opportunity to:

respond to the prejudiced materials against him; and

the adverse inferences, views and reports made against him.

Did not give an opportunity to the plaintiff or invite him to address on penalty before making his decision which resulted in the plaintiff's demotion.

The defendants have filed an affidavit sworn on 13 July 1998; by Inspector John Waira, 2IC, Disciplinary Section, Police Internal Affairs Directorate.

In my view, the evidence in that affidavit adequately...