Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Purre v State [2015] PGNC 22; N5887 (4 March 2015)

N5887

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR (APP) NO. 39 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

SIMON PURRE
Applicant

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Mendi: Kassman, J
2015: 2nd & 4th March

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail pending committal – charge of Rape or Sexual Penetration - serious assault - threats of violence to the victim - possession of an offensive weapon – likelihood of interference with the victim who is the only State witness – bail refused

Legislation cited

Bail Act c.340 Sections 4, 6 and 9(1)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) and (f)
Criminal Code Sections 347 and 229A

Cases cited - No cases cited

Counsel:

S Luben, for the State
P Sapu, for the Applicant/Accused

2nd & 4th March, 2015

DECISION ON BAIL

1. KASSMAN J: Simon Purre ("Purre") applies for bail pending determination of committal proceedings in the Mendi District Court. Purre's application was filed on the 12th of February 2015 and was heard on the 2nd of March 2015. The application was opposed. My oral decision was delivered on 4 March 2015 and, as promised, this is my written decision with reasons.

2. Purre is charged with one count of rape under section 347 of the Criminal Code. I understand the State is considering the alternative charge of sexual penetration under section 229A of the Criminal Code.

3. The State alleges that Purre was employed as a driver with the Mendi School of Nursing. In the course of his duty on 25 November 2014, Purre was driving a bus and seated in the bus was the victim on her own. He drove the bus to a house at Kumin, a suburb in Mendi Town. The State alleges Purre led the victim from the bus to a house where he then threatened the victim with a butcher knife and he forcefully had sex with her. The State also alleges Purre threatened the victim not to reveal to her parents or anyone else what he had done to her. The victim is said to be fifteen (15) years old.

4. Purre was arrested and detained in the Mendi Police Station Cells on 2nd February 2015 and the charge laid on the 5th of February 2015. He is currently before the committal court here in the Mendi District Court and the application for bail is before this court as required by law.

5. Simon Purre denies the charge. Purre has not sworn an affidavit in support of his own application for bail. Purre relies on two affidavits. The first affidavit is sworn by a Serah Otma who says she is the second wife of Purre. Otma claims the charges are a conspiracy concocted by the first wife of Purre and she goes on to say quite a number of things in her affidavit, all of which I find are just suspicions and without any factual foundation. I reject Otma's affidavit out right. This court will not allow this proceeding to be an avenue or to be a venue for attacks between two women for their own personal goals.

6. The second affidavit relied on by Purre is sworn by Peter Sapu, the lawyer for Purre. What is significant in the affidavit is that Sapu swears to having received instructions that Purre admits the sexual encounter or the sexual act as claimed by the State did occur on the 24th of November 2014. On instructions, Mr. Sapu says Purre denies using a butcher knife, he denies using force and he also denies using threats in the encounter or the sexual act and he says the sexual encounter occurred between him and the victim with the consent of the victim. Mr. Sapu also buys into the conspiracy theory. He points out that this matter, or the complaint was not reported for some two months. Sapu makes more statements that suggest there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the laying of the charges by police against Purre. Once again, I say all of these statements by Sapu about the conspiracy are based on assumptions with no factual foundation. These statements are rejected outright. As I said, this court is not a venue for people to pose conspiracies and innuendo to attack other people who are not present to respond and defend themselves. This court will not condone such irresponsible conduct.

7. If Purre has anything to say about the incident or the conspiracy, he should take that up with the police and demonstrate honesty and genuine innocence of wrong-doing. Instead he has demonstrated that he is a coward by hiding behind his lawyer and another woman who foolishly succumbed to his devious conduct.

8. The State opposes bail and refers to circumstances as set out under Section 9 of the Bail Act c.340 which provides this Court shall not refuse bail unless satisfied on reasonable grounds as to one or more circumstances as set out in that section. The State claims this was a serious assault [sub-section (1)(c)(i)], there was a threat of violence to the victim [sub-section (1)(c)(ii)], Purre was in possession of an offensive weapon [sub-section (1)(c)(iii)] and Purre is likely to interfere with the State witness who is the victim [sub-section (1)(f)].

9. State also submits, and I tend to agree, that Purre demonstrates that he is not serious with his application. He has not sworn an affidavit to reassure this court and commit to provide personal particulars or information as to his job, his place of residence, his ability to pay bail and his commitment to honor all bail conditions. These are serious and important details that can only come from an applicant for bail. If he does not file an affidavit, he demonstrates that he will not commit to any facts that are essential to consideration of bail.

10. I also agree with the counsel for the State that Mendi has a long list of outstanding bench warrants and the police have proven ineffective in enforcing bench warrants. The public complains that many people who are out on bench warrants are regularly seen around Mendi town walking around freely and casually roaming the streets and shops. This includes both men and women and among them are some people in responsible positions of authority. The issue of bench warrants has proven to be an ineffective method of securing the arrest and detention of persons who have been granted bail and awaiting trial and who have absconded and failed to return to face their charges in court.

11. I also agree with Counsel for the State that, there is a real and strong risk that Purre may interfere with the victim and other possible state witnesses. The applicant has not personally assured this court through an affidavit that he will follow conditions of bail and refrain from contacting the victim and returning for his committal court proceedings.

12. Purre, through his lawyer, concedes to having a sexual relationship with this fifteen (15) year old girl, the victim. Purre also admits, through his lawyer, that he has been in contact with the victim by mobile phone and in person. Being more than twice her age and I note this from his lawyer's affidavit, he says, the applicant is thirty eight (38) years old, I have no doubt that Purre has a major influence over the victim.

13. This is a serious charge and the victim deserves the full protection of the law. The grant of bail will expose the victim to more threats and psychological trauma knowing the accused is out on bail.

14. The application for bail is refused.
    

Judgment accordingly:

_________________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused