Belden Norman Namah MP, Leader of the Opposition v Rimbink Pato MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs & Immigration and The National Executive Council and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2013) N4990
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judgment Date | 14 February 2013 |
Docket Number | OS (HR) NO 9 of 2013 |
Year | 2013 |
Citation | (2013) N4990 |
Court | National Court |
Judgement Number | N4990 |
Full Title: OS (HR) NO 9 of 2013; Belden Norman Namah MP, Leader of the Opposition v Rimbink Pato MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs & Immigration and The National Executive Council and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2013) N4990
National Court: Cannings J
Judgment Delivered: 14 February 2013
N4990
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS (HR) NO 9 OF 2013
BELDEN NORMAN NAMAH MP,
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Plaintiff
V
RIMBINK PATO MP,
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS & IMMIGRATION
First Defendant
THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Second Defendant
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Third Defendant
Waigani: Cannings J
2013: 13, 14 February
INJUNCTIONS – interim injunctions – persons seeking asylum – whether to grant interim injunction to restrain defendants from receiving or transferring further asylum seekers to relocation centre pending determination of proceedings challenging arrangements for their detention.
HUMAN RIGHTS – Constitution Section 42(2) – rights of persons detained – right to communicate with lawyer of their choice.
The plaintiff, the Leader of the Opposition, commenced proceedings by originating summons seeking declarations that a memorandum of understanding between Papua New Guinea and Australia relating to the transfer to Papua New Guinea and assessment of persons seeking asylum and the continuous deprivation of their liberty at a place declared under the Migration Act to be a relocation centre are unconstitutional and that exemptions by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (the first defendant) under the Migration Act relating to those persons are void and of no effect and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from detaining those persons at the relocation centre. After commencement of the proceedings the plaintiff applied by motion for two interlocutory orders. First an interim injunction, pending determination of the substantive proceedings, that the defendants be restrained from receiving or transferring any further asylum seekers from Australia in the relocation centre. Secondly an order that the plaintiff’s lawyers be granted access to the relocation centre to get statements and affidavits from some of the persons.
Held:
(1) The primary considerations to be taken into account when the court decides how to exercise its discretion whether to grant an interim injunction are: (a) are there serious questions to be tried and does an arguable case exist? (b) has an undertaking as to damages been given? (c) would damages be an inadequate remedy if the interim order is not granted? (d) does the balance of convenience favour the granting of the interim order? (e) do the interests of justice require that the interim order be made?
(2) Here: (a) there are serious questions to be tried and the plaintiff has a serious not merely speculative case, however the prospects of ultimate success are tempered by question marks over whether the plaintiff actually has a sufficient interest in the matter, whether the proceedings have been properly commenced in the National Court and whether concerns about alleged human rights breaches would be better prosecuted by way of enforcement proceedings under Section 57 of the Constitution and whether the proceedings are an abuse of process; (b) an undertaking as to damages has been given; (c) damages would be an inadequate remedy. Only (b) and (c) really favour granting the interim injunction; (a) is the most significant factor and it is neutral.
(3) On the other hand: (d) the balance of convenience does not favour granting an injunction in the terms sought and (e) the interests of justice do not require that the injunction be granted. As two of the five considerations do not favour its granting, an interim injunction in the terms sought by the plaintiff will be refused.
(4) As to the application for an order allowing the plaintiff’s lawyers access to the relocation centre, despite lack of clarity as to the terms of the order sought and the grounds on which it was being sought, the information before the court suggests that the asylum seekers have been “detained” but have not been accorded their rights as detained persons under Section 42(2) of the Constitution including being permitted whenever practicable to communicate without delay and in private with a lawyer of their choice and given adequate opportunity to give instructions to a lawyer of their choice in the place in which they are detained.
(5) This serious concern on the part of the court is best remedied by granting the plaintiff’s lawyers access to the relocation centre, so an order to that effect was made.
Cases cited
The following cases are cited in the judgment:
Application of Jim Kas, Governor of Madang (2001) SC670
Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Ltd (2007) SC853
Ewasse Landowners Association Inc v Hargy Oil Palms Ltd (2005) N2878
In the Matter of the Right Honourable M T Somare [1981] PNGLR 265
Lowa v Akipe [1991] PNGLR 265
Marthinus Kambu v Sir Pita Lus (2010) N4437
Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd v Eddie Tarsie (2010) SC1075
SCR No 7 of 2008, Reference by Ken Norae Mondiai (2010) SC1087
SCR No 5 of 1985; Re Raz v Matane [1985] PNGLR 329
SCR No 6 of 1987; The State v Songke Mai & Gai Avi [1988] PNGLR 556
Tarsie v Ramu Nico (MCC) Ltd (2010) N3960
Telikom PNG Ltd v Newsat Ltd (2007) N3451
The State v Linus Rebo Dakoa (2009) N3586
The State v Paro Wampa [1987] PNGLR 120
Counsel
L R Henao & W Bigi, for the plaintiff
P Kuman & T Tanuvasa, for the defendants
14 February, 2013
1. CANNINGS J: This is a ruling on an application by the plaintiff, Belden Norman Namah MP, the Leader of the Opposition, for two interlocutory (pre-trial) orders:
(1) an interim injunction to stop any more asylum seekers being sent to the relocation centre at Lombrum Naval Base, Manus Province; and
(2) an order allowing his lawyers access to the relocation centre.
2. The application was filed following commencement by the plaintiff of proceedings which challenge amongst other things the constitutionality of arrangements made between the Governments of Papua New Guinea and Australia that have resulted in a number of people who had arrived in Australia seeking refugee status (known generally as ‘asylum seekers’) being transferred to the regional processing facility, also known as a relocation centre, at Lombrum.
THE FIRST ORDER SOUGHT: AN INTERIM INJUNCTION
3. The plaintiff seeks by paragraph 1 of the amended notice of motion filed on 8 February 2013 an interim injunction restraining the defendants (Rimbink Pato MP, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration; the National Executive Council and the State) from “receiving or transferring any further asylum seekers from Australia into the relocation centre in Manus Province under the terms of the [Memorandum of Understanding between Papua New Guinea and Australia] pending the determination of this proceeding”. The primary considerations to be taken into account when a person seeks an interim injunction were confirmed by the Supreme Court in Chief Collector of Taxes v Bougainville Copper Ltd (2007) SC853 as being:
(a) are there serious questions to be tried and does an arguable case exist?
(b) has an undertaking as to damages been given?
(c) would damages be an inadequate remedy if the interim order is not made?
(d) does the balance of convenience favour the granting of interim relief?
(e) do the interests of justice require that the interim injunction be granted?
4. Those considerations have been set out so that a ‘yes’ answer will be a factor weighing in favour of granting an interim injunction and a ‘no’ answer will work against making such an order.
(a) Are there serious questions to be tried and does the plaintiff have an arguable case?
5. This requires the Court to make an assessment of the prospects of success of the plaintiff’s substantive action by looking at the originating process (in this case, the originating summons) and the evidence that has been adduced to date. 6. The issue is not simply whether the plaintiff has raised serious allegations, but whether he appears to have a reasonable prospect of succeeding in the substantive case (Ewasse Landowners Association Inc v Hargy Oil Palms Ltd (2005) N2878). Put another way, the court assesses whether there are serious questions to be tried and the plaintiff has a serious, not merely speculative, case, with a real possibility of ultimate success.
7. The plaintiff wants this matter to go to trial so he can seek the following relief:
· A declaration that the memorandum of understanding between Papua New Guinea and Australia relating to the transfer to Papua New Guinea and assessment of persons seeking asylum, which was executed on 8 September 2012, is unconstitutional (paragraph 1 of the originating summons).
· A declaration that the continuous deprivation of the liberty of the asylum seekers at Lombrum is unconstitutional (paragraph 2 of the originating summons).
· Declarations that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helal Uddin v Solomon Kantha, Chief Migration Officer and PNG Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority and Petrus Thomas, Minister for Immigration & Border Security and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2020) N8267
...to death (2017) N6939 the accommodation of transferees on Manus was a very controversial issue. In February 2013, in Namah v Pato (2013) N4990, I refused an application by the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Belden Namah MP, for an interim injunction to restrain the National Government receiv......
-
Re Human Rights of prisoners sentenced to death
...N5651 Mathias Goma v Protect Security & Communication Ltd (2013) SC1300 Nail Lamon v Snr Const Zakang Bumai (2008) N3468 Namah v Pato (2013) N4990 Namah v Pato (2014) SC1304 Namah v Pato, National Executive Council and The State (2016) SC1497 Pratt & Morgan v The Attorney-General for Jamaic......
-
Application pursuant to Constitution, Section 18(1) Belden Norman Namah MP v Rimbink Pato MP, Minister For Foreign Affairs & Immigration and The National Executive Council and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2014) SC1304
...Gem (2010) SC1065 Application by Tom Ireeuw [1985] PNGLR 430 Application of Jim Kas (2001) SC670 Belden Norman Namah MP v Rimbink Pato MP (2013) N4990 Belden Norman Namah MP v Rimbink Pato MP (2013) SC1241 Bill Skate & Peter O’Neill v Jeffrey Nape (2004) SC754 Complaint by Michael Tambeng (......
-
SCA. No. 84 of 2013; Belden Norman Namah, MP Leader of the Opposition v Hon. Rimbink Pato, Minister for Foreign Affairs & Immigrations and National Executive Council and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2016) SC1497
...Association v. Civil Aviation Authority (2009) SC1031. Application of Ireeuw [1985] PNGLR 430. Belden Norman Namah MP v. Rimbink Pato MP (2013) N4990. Don Pomb Pullie Polye v. Jimson Sauk and Electoral Commission (1999) SC651. Kaseng v. Namaliu [1995] PNGLR 481. Korak Yasona v. Casten Maiba......
-
Helal Uddin v Solomon Kantha, Chief Migration Officer and PNG Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority and Petrus Thomas, Minister for Immigration & Border Security and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2020) N8267
...to death (2017) N6939 the accommodation of transferees on Manus was a very controversial issue. In February 2013, in Namah v Pato (2013) N4990, I refused an application by the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Belden Namah MP, for an interim injunction to restrain the National Government receiv......
-
Re Human Rights of prisoners sentenced to death
...N5651 Mathias Goma v Protect Security & Communication Ltd (2013) SC1300 Nail Lamon v Snr Const Zakang Bumai (2008) N3468 Namah v Pato (2013) N4990 Namah v Pato (2014) SC1304 Namah v Pato, National Executive Council and The State (2016) SC1497 Pratt & Morgan v The Attorney-General for Jamaic......
-
Application pursuant to Constitution, Section 18(1) Belden Norman Namah MP v Rimbink Pato MP, Minister For Foreign Affairs & Immigration and The National Executive Council and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2014) SC1304
...Gem (2010) SC1065 Application by Tom Ireeuw [1985] PNGLR 430 Application of Jim Kas (2001) SC670 Belden Norman Namah MP v Rimbink Pato MP (2013) N4990 Belden Norman Namah MP v Rimbink Pato MP (2013) SC1241 Bill Skate & Peter O’Neill v Jeffrey Nape (2004) SC754 Complaint by Michael Tambeng (......
-
SCA. No. 84 of 2013; Belden Norman Namah, MP Leader of the Opposition v Hon. Rimbink Pato, Minister for Foreign Affairs & Immigrations and National Executive Council and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2016) SC1497
...Association v. Civil Aviation Authority (2009) SC1031. Application of Ireeuw [1985] PNGLR 430. Belden Norman Namah MP v. Rimbink Pato MP (2013) N4990. Don Pomb Pullie Polye v. Jimson Sauk and Electoral Commission (1999) SC651. Kaseng v. Namaliu [1995] PNGLR 481. Korak Yasona v. Casten Maiba......