Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Tep v State [2001] PGDC 49; DC351 (13 December 2001)

DC351

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 45 OF 2001

BETWEEN

Joe Tep
Complainant

V

The Independent State of Papua New Guinea
Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2001: 11th, 13th December

JUDGMENT

This is a Police assault case. Complainant claims that on 31st December 1999 he was at a party when certain Hagen based Policemen arrived in a police vehicle, pulled aside, got out and opened gun fire at him and others and as the result one of the bullets penetrated his right hand shoulder and he collapsed onto the ground. He was bleeding heavily and was taken to Mt. Hagen Hospital for treatment and was admitted for two days. He was advised that he would undergo an operation to remove pellets which were still in his arm at a later stage. He was checked by a private doctor and found upon examination that the pellets were imbedded on the left side of the chest and arm causing his movement difficult and assessed disability at 40%.

The Solicitor General’s office had written to complainant’s lawyers on 18th April 2001 acknowledging service of the process on them but to date no defence was filed. Five adjournments were granted but there were no appearances for the defendants so case proceeded ex parte.

Court considered the affidavits of the complainant and the medical reports. In the absence of any defence to the contrary, I find that liability was established.

On the quantum, complainant claims K9,500.00 in general damages, legal cost and exemplary damages.

It was an aggravated assault by the fact that the Policemen used guns and fired indiscriminately at the direction of the complainant who was not aimed. There was no justification shown for the action of the Policemen. There was no mitigating factors shown. Complainant is now having or suffering 40% permanent disability as the result of the injury caused by the policemen. I have no reason to make any deduction to the claim.

I enter judgment for the complainant for a sum of K9,500.00 plus 8% interest to run from date of summons to date of settlement and cost of the proceeding. The judgment debt be settled by the state on the principle of vagarious liability.

Messr Simon Norum& Co. Lawyers: Complainant
Solicitor General: Defendant