Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1976
[1976] PNGLR 337
N53
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
KARAFA UARI AND AERO EVERA
V
HAROHARO TAURAKE
Waigani
Prentice DCJ
16 August 1976
CRIMINAL LAW - Particular offences - Sorcery - False accusations of sorcery - Elements of offence - Accusation of sorcery must be made to a third person about another - Sorcery Act, 1972, s. 14 (1)[cccxciii]1.
Section 14(1) of the Sorcery Act 1972 which provides that “A person who ... (a) falsely accuses to a third person or (b) threatens to accuse another person of being or having been a sorcerer or of performing or having performed an act of sorcery, or having been concerned in or a party to an act of sorcery, is guilty of an offence”, requires that an accusation of sorcery must be made to a third person about another.
Held
Accordingly that where it was alleged that the accused (appellants) had spoken to the complainant (respondent) himself only, in terms which might be thought to indicate that they regarded him as a sorcerer, a complaint under s. 14 (a) of the Sorcery Act 1972 had not been made out.
Appeal
These were appeals against convictions (both on pleas of guilty), of charges laid under s. 14 (a) of the Sorcery Act, 1972 and heard in the Local Court at Lelefiru.
Counsel
GC Lalor for the appellants
BTJ Sharp for the respondent
16 August 1976
PRENTICE DCJ:  This appeal was by consent heard in Port Moresby on transfer from the Kerema list. Counsel for the respondent concurring, I allowed the addition of the name of the second-named appellant to the appeal. The matter had originally been heard as a complaint against both appellants, in the Local Court at Lelefiru in the Gulf Province, on 14th November, 1975.
To the ground of appeal set in the notice of appeal viz., “that the Local Court Magistrate erred in entering a plea of guilty”, I allowed the addition by consent, of further grounds, viz.:
(a)      that the conviction was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence;
(b)      that the information did not disclose an offence.
A reading of the deposition discloses a great number of irregularities in the proceedings.
The court record enters the case as a charge against each appellant in terms “did false accused another person an offence against section 14 (a) of the Sorcery Act 1972”. It notes that “both each and severally admitted the charge”. Each was fined K20, and an amount of K40 paid by Karafa to the complainant was forfeited to the Papua New Guinea Government.
The record later shows that on plea the defendants said “Yes both of us came to his house with K40 because of my wife got sick”. A plea of “guilty each and severally” was entered. It is noted that Karafa also stated “I did not pay this money K40.00 for sorcery. I paid this money because of my daughter’s bride payment.”
It is obvious that in view of what was said by the appellants, pleas of not guilty should have been entered, and sworn evidence taken from both sides and investigated.
Apparently the complainant gave evidence on oath and stated “on 27th October, 1975 I and my wife was at our house. At that time I was sleep and Karafa Uari came to me and awaked me up after he told me that I made a sorcery to his wife (Laeka Morahori). I said I have nothing about the sorcery. After he left me and went away to his wife. After at midnight I was fast asleep again, then Aero Evera came to my house again and said you made a sorcery to Laeka Morahori. I said I had nothing about said the sorcery, then after he went away again. Next day in the morning Karafa Uari bought K40.00 to me for sorcery bride, but my wife was indoubting of this money, so both of us thought this man brought this money K40.00 for sorcery payment. Later I and my wife brought this money to Councillor Maesea Levao”.
Section 14 (1) of the Sorcery Act 1972 is as follows:
“A person who ... (a) falsely accuses to a third person or (b) threatens to accuse another person of being or having been a sorcerer or of performing or having performed an act of sorcery, or of having been concerned in or a party to an act of sorcery, is guilty of an offence.”
The Act makes it an offence to make such an accusation to A about another person B. It was alleged here that the appellants each spoke to the complainant himself only in terms which might be thought to indicate they regarded him as a sorcerer. There is no suggestion that they made an accusation about the complainant to a third person.
The complaint therefore disclosed no offence. The appeal therefore on this as well as the other grounds must be upheld. I allow the appeals by both appellants. I quash the convictions and fines imposed on each appellant. I direct the repayment to each appellant of the fines of K20 taken as fines. I quash the order of forfeiture of the sum of K40 and order this sum be repaid to the appellant Karafa Uari.
Appeal allowed.
Convictions and fines quashed.
Solicitor for the appellants: N. H. Pratt, Acting Public Solicitor.
Solicitor for the respondent: L. W. Roberts-Smith, Public Prosecutor.

[cccxciii]Infra p. 338.