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

Dimuda v Commissioner of the Correctional Service [2025] PGNC 41; N11165 (5 March 2025)

N11165

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

HRA NOS 99, 116 & 120 OF 2024

MORRIS DIMUDA & JUNIOR PETER
Applicants

V

COMMISSIONER OF THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE
First Respondent

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Respondent

WAIGANI: CANNINGS J
19 FEBRUARY, 4, 5 MARCH 2025

HUMAN RIGHTS – right to full protection of the law, Constitution, s 37(1) – prisoners serving sentences imposed by the District Court seek clarification of their due date of release.

The applicants were convicted in the District Court of offences under the Firearms Act and each fined K7,500.00, in default two years and four months imprisonment. They did not pay the fines and they are in custody. They sought clarification of their due dates of release from custody, which was calculated by the Correctional Service to be 1 January 2026. They claimed that that date did not take into account their pre-sentence period in custody of nine months.

Held:

(1) Though the reasoning of the District Court was quite complex, the warrants of commitment were clear: their sentences were two years and eight months imprisonment with no pre-sentence period in custody to be deducted.

(2) Their due date of release from custody (DDR) was confirmed to be the date calculated by the Correctional Service: 1 January 2026.

(3) The application for amendment of the DDR was declined.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment.

Application by Bona Umauma (2024) N10876
Application by John Varimai (2024) N11117
Application by Wendol Agua (2024) N11122
Applications by Hobai Haro & Lolo Bellamy (2024) N11096
Complaint by John Irekau (2013) N4958

Counsel

S Kuli for the applicant
J Murian for the respondents

1. CANNINGS J: Morris Dimuda and Junior Peter are prisoners at Bomana Correctional Institution serving sentences imposed by the District Court for offences under the Firearms Act. They seek clarification of their due dates of release from custody, which were calculated by the Correctional Service to be 1 January 2026. They claimed that that date did not take into account their pre-sentence period in custody of nine months.

SENTENCES

2. The reasoning of the learned District Court Magistrate, Mr Tatakali PM, as to the sentences was quite complex. His Worship indicated in his written judgment of 12 June 2004 that the applicants were:

• sentenced to a fine of K10,000.00 in default three years imprisonment for the offence of possession of a pistol without a licence under s 27(1)(a) of the Firearms Act; and
  
• sentenced to a fine of K10,000.00 in default three years imprisonment for the offence of possession of live ammunition without a licence under s 65A of the Firearms Act; and
  
• both sentences were to be served concurrently; and
  
• the pre-sentence period in custody of nine months would be deducted from the head sentence; and
  
• the pre-sentence period in custody of nine months “is equivalent to K2,500.00”; and
  
• the “remaining term of two years three months will be served ... unless a fine of K7,500.00 is sooner paid”.
  

3. Despite the complexity of that reasoning, the terms of the sentences actually passed were quite simple, and expressed in the warrant of commitment for each applicant as follows:

The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of K7,500.00 in default of payment of court fine, be imprisoned for two years and four months in hard labour.

4. It appears that there is an error in the length of the sentence. The warrant of commitment should have stated the default sentence is two years three months, not two years four months. It is a minor error only and no application is before me to correct it, so it must be accepted that the sentence for each applicant – neither of them having paid the fine of K7,500.00 – is two years four months imprisonment.

DUE DATE OF RELEASE

5. I have set out a two-step approach to determination of the due date of release (DDR) in many cases, starting with Complaint by John Irekau (2013) N4958. Recent cases in which that approach has been applied include Application by Bona Umauma (2024) N10876, Applications by Hobai Haro & Lolo Bellamy (2024) N11096, Application by John Varimai (2024) N11117 and Application by Wendol Agua (2024) N11122.

Step 1: Identify the date of the first sentence and add to it:

(a) the total length of all sentences; and
(b) the total length of all periods, if any, the applicant was at large,

to arrive at a “gross” DDR.

Step 2: Deduct from the “gross” DDR the periods that the applicant is entitled to have deducted, namely:

(a) any pre-sentence period in custody that a court has ordered under the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act be deducted; and
(b) remission of sentence under s 120 of the Correctional Service Act; and
(c) any period of suspension of the sentence,

to arrive at the “net” DDR.

Step 1: the “gross” DDR

6. The date of sentence is 12 June 2024. To that date is added:

(a) the total length of all sentences – here there is only one sentence: 2 years 4 months; and
(b) any period the applicant was at large: here that is zero.

7. The “gross” due date of release is 12 June 2024 + 2 years 4 months = 12 October 2026.

Step 2: the “net” DDR

8. From the gross DDR is deducted:

(a) the pre-sentence period in custody: here it is, according to the warrants of commitment, zero; and
(b) remission of sentence, 1/3 x 2 years 4 months = 9 months 10 days; and
(c) suspension: zero.

9. The “net” DDR is 12 October 2026 minus 9 months 10 days = 2 January 2026.

10. The date calculated by the Correctional Service is actually one day earlier, 1 January 2026. The DDR for both applicants does not require correction.

ORDER

1. The applicants’ due date of release from custody (DDR) is confirmed to be the date calculated by the Correctional Service, 1 January 2026, and does not require correction.
   
2. The applications for amendment of the DDR are declined.
   
3. The files are closed.

__________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the applicant : Public Solicitor
Lawyer for the respondents : Solicitor-General