DC522

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

DCCr 471 OF 2007

BETWEEN

TOBBY NEBARE
Informant

AND

ROBERT SEGI
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2007: May 23; June 14

CRIMINAL- Section 7 (b) Summary Offences Act – Threatening words whereby breach of peace was likely to take place – whether words are threatening likely to cause breach of peace.

Held – words were threatening – where words are threatening the effect is fear or running for safety or cover – not violent reaction in contrast to insulting or abusive words.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Section 7 (b) Summary Offences Act

Counsel
First Constable Asi - For The State
In Person - Defendant

14 June 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: This is a Summary Offence which arose on the 03 of May 2007 at Zokozoi, which is on the Okuk Highway in the outskirts of Goroka town. The defendant has been charged that he:-

‘Did use threatening words namely, “not tomorrow or following day and just this afternoon your life will sleep onto the ground and die” towards another person namely Miss Salome Leo whereby a breach of peace was likely to take place.’

Contrary to Section 7 (b) of the Summary Offences Act.

2. The issue is whether there was any violent reaction to the threatening words used from Miss Salome Leo or any interested person.

3. The facts which I summarize are from the prosecution witnesses evidence. This is because the defence did not counter the prosecution evidence by contrast evidence. The defendant effectively admitted to what took place then, after being given his rights under Section 96 of the District Court Act.

4. The prosecution called two witnesses. The first witness, Salome Leo is a Grade 8 student at Gama Lutheran Primary School. She said on that date she was walking to school from Ato Market along Okuk Highway, where resides on her way, at the junction of the road leading into Assembly of God (AOG) church which is beside Zokozoi river, when Robert Segi (defendant) ran after her and called her. When she turned to look, the defendant swung a bush knife at her narrowly missing her. He then stated “ino nau na ino tomorrow, just this afternoon life bilong yu bai slip igo long graun”.

5. When she heard that, she ran for her life crying. She attended school, and retuned home, where she told her parents at 7:30 pm. The next morning, she reported to police in the company of her father. The second witness is Mr. Leo Mu who is the father of the first witness. He stated that when he returned from his security guard duties, in the evening his daughter reported to him of what had occurred to her in the morning and as given in evidence by her. And because it was dark they slept. The next morning he reported to police who picked the defendant at the very spot where he had made the threat words.

6. The defendant gave evidence on his own behalf. He stated that although he and the victim do not come from the same village, he and his wife look after the victim by providing her with food and money. He said he gives K2.00 to the victim every day. He expressed that it would have been desirable to have had the matter resolved out of court. In cross examination he admitted threatening the victim by words as alleged.

7. Section 7 of the Summary Offences Act creates a number of offences but the …………… differ from one to another. Section 7 (b) under which Robert Segi has been charged is in these terms:- QUOTE SECTION 7 (b)

8. The Section basically had three elements. Firstly words of either threat, abuse or insults must have been offered or made. 

9. Secondly such words offered or made were directly to a particular person or any member of the public.

10. And thirdly, that the recipient of such words taken them to be provocative to cause a breach of the peace or that the person intended to create a disharmony or harm. The recipient of such words.

11. There is no dispute that the threatening words were used and directed at Miss Salome Leo. There are no explanation and the motive behind the manner in which Robert Segi behaved, in that he did attempt to use a knife on the victim, which narrowly missed her. Thereafter she was threatened with the words.

12. It is said that, in order for this charge to be sustained the recipients of insults or abusive words used must then react violently to the words which then would likely cause a breach of the peace.

13. Such conclusion cannot be said to be the same to an offence where the recipient is being threatened. The effect of threat words is not the same as insulting or abusive words.

14. In the case for her scenario, the effect of the threat words create a fear and is such that one is more likely to flee for safety or run from the threat of violence. In the later scenario, one would react to counter the insult or abuse in order to be defensive. In the former, the reaction would be one of fear while in the later the reaction would be one of being defensive.

15. In the present matter, the victim was threatened not only by words but also by the conduct of the defendant prior to the threat words being used. This is a clear scenario of the victim reacting to the threats by fleeing the scene of the crime.

16. The victim had to react not violently but by running for cover to escape being harmed.

17. It amounts to reacting to the threat but for safety purpose and not for defensive reasons.

18. I have considered that the defendant is a first time offender and has two (2) wives, who are friendly to the victim.

19. I have also taken into consideration that the victim is a young student. She was on her way to school. Such behaviour of the defendant should not hinder her right of Education.

20. The defendant could have been charged also for unlawful assault which the police declined to do.

21. I propose to give a suspended sentence.

22. Orders accordingly.

For the State - First Constable Asi of Goroka Police Station
For the Defendant - In Person