The State v Napilye Kuri

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [1994] PNGLR 371
• Date: 09 September 1994
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1994

National Court: Woods J

Judgment Delivered: 9 September 1994

1 Criminal law—misappropriation—provincial government minister—use of a discretionary vote—mismanagement of public monies amounting to criminal misappropriation

___________________________

Woods J: The accused Napilye Kuri is charged with two counts of misappropriation contrary to Criminal Code s383A. They both relate to applications and dealings with monies from certain Funds available to Ministers and Members of the Provincial Assembly and at the time the accused was the Minister for Finance in the Western Highlands Provincial Government. The matters occurred in 1992 before the Provincial Government was suspended.

The first count is that on the 24th November 1992 he dishonestly applied to his own use the sum of K2,000 the property of the State.

The second count is that on the 2nd December 1992 he dishonestly applied to his own use the sum of K2,431.62 the property of the State.

On the first count the evidence is that a Jack Karali who holds the position of Assistant Secretary in the Department of the Western Highlands went to the accused and requested some financial help from him as a friend. Apparently Mr Karali was going on a holiday overseas at the time. The accused did not help him before he went on the holiday but after he returned the accused gave him a cheque for K2,000 as the result of some application to the Western Highlands Economic Development Fund Committee. So there is a suggestion that Mr Karali had applied to the Fund for assistance for the development of a chicken project. Mr Karali then went and cashed the cheque but after cashing the cheque he was approached by the accused and another person whose claim was stated to be in the same cheque so Mr Karali handed over K1,000 to the other person a Mr Kopa Mara. There is evidence of an earlier statement to the police in which Mr Karali seemed to say that the request for financial assistance was to help with his holiday overseas in Singapore but after he came back the accused gave him the cheque and asked him to cash it and give K1,000 back to him which he did. In the statement Mr Karali says that he did not apply for a Grant but the money was given to him as a friend and was not related to any specific project.

There is a Minutes of the WHEDF meeting held on 26 October 1992 which notes an application by Jack Karali for K2,000 for a building. The accused himself in his evidence states that the application by Jack Karali was for money for the building for a chicken project, although in the same breath he suggests that the original request was as a friend to help him on his trip to Singapore. But when he came back and repeated a request he wanted it from the Economic Development Fund and the accused got the grant for him. However when the cheque was being cashed the accused admitted that the cheque was to cover a number of applications as it was often normal policy to raise one cheque for different applications and then the money has to be distributed. The accused did not really answer the obvious question that as the Committee had approved the whole amount for the applicant Jack Karali how could it be properly acquitted if it went to...