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

Narawan v State [2021] PGNC 389; N9075 (23 February 2021)

N9075
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

IN THE MATTER OF BAIL APPLICATION

CR (AP) NO. 788 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

OSCAR NARAWAN

AND

THE STATE

Wewak: Rei, AJ

2021: 23^rd February

BAIL - Right to bail – Constitution, Section 42(6) – Bail Act, Sections4, 6 and 9 – Exercise of discretion whether to grant bail – age of one of the applicants- public interest considerations.

Cases Cited

Re Thomas Markus (1999) N1931

Counsel

Ms. T. Aihi, for the State

Mr. S. Parihau, for the Defendant

JUDGEMENT

23^rd February, 2021

1. REI AJ: This is a ruling on application by the applicant for bail by the applicant Oscar Narawan made pursuant to Section 42(6) of the Constitution and Section 6 & 9 of the Bail Act Chapter 340.
   

Background

2. The Applicant is charged with sexual penetration contrary to Section 347 of the Criminal Code Act.

3. At the time the application for bail was made, the Applicant Oscar Narawen had been remanded in custody at Boram since 17^thNovember, 2020.

4. The Applicant relies on his affidavit sworn on 16^th December 2020 and filed 21^st December 2020. He also relies on the affidavits filed by two (2) guarantors.

5. In his affidavit he seeks to be admitted to bail for the following reasons:-

(i) he is a first time offender and the alleged offence happened between my wife and I;

(ii) he is the sole bread winner of his family, his detention will seriously affect the welfare of his 2 young daughters;

(iii) It is nearing the end of 2020 and the Courts’ vacation will result in prolong detention at the time;

(iv) he is not a flight risk as he has a permanent residence at Manglara Village, West Coast of Wewak town;

(v) he has paid a customary compensation of K500.0 to the biological family of his wife and they had accepted the compensation; and

(vi) he will not interfere with police witness and will not commit any serious offence whilst out on bail.

6. Although the State did not oppose the application, I intimated to Mrs. Maru that, as the offence complained of arose out of a matrimonial wedlock, I doubt whether the wife who is the victim in this matter will be safe should bail be granted.

7. Counsel for the Applicant did not quite enlighten me on this matter when I enquired.

8. As I alluded to earlier on, I do not think the victim, who is the wife of the applicant, will feel safe seeing the applicant released on bail and I am of the opinion that family problems will escalate.

9. At least I was not firmly assured of this.

10. Furthermore, the victim is the principal witness in this case as such I can safely conclude that there are real prospects of the accused interfering with State witnesses.

11. I am not satisfied that the Applicant be admitted to bail at this stage until such time he satisfies the requirements alluded to herein (see Re Thomas Markus (1999) N1931).

Conclusion and Orders

12. The application for bail is refused but the Applicant is at liberty to re-apply to be admitted to bail should circumstances change accordingly.

________________________________________________________________

Almana Lawyers: Lawyer for the Defendant

Public Prosecutor: Lawyers for The State