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

Mathew v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [2025] PGNC 517; N11657 (30 December 2025)

-N11657

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

HRC NO 6 OF 2025

JACK MATHEW
Applicant

V

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Respondent

WAIGANI: CANNINGS J
23, 30 DECEMBER 2025

HUMAN RIGHTS – right of prisoners to full protection of the law, Constitution, s 37(1) – whether pre-sentence custody ought to be deducted from head sentence – Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act 1986.

The applicant was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment with a deduction of four months three weeks for pre-sentence period in custody. He applied to the Supreme Court for review of his conviction but his application was refused. He then filed a human rights complaint, arguing that as a prisoner he was entitled to the full protection of the law and that his actual pre-sentence period in custody was three years and one month and that the whole of that period should be deducted from the head sentence. He sought an order that his due date of release be recalculated.

Held:

(1) The question of what, if any, part of a pre-sentence period in custody is to be deducted from a head sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the sentencing judge under s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act.

(2) It is only where the sentencing judge has not exercised the discretion that another Judge in the National Court’s human rights jurisdiction should intervene.

(3) Here the sentencing Judge exercised the discretion and decided that the period to be deducted from the head sentence was four months three weeks.

(4) Furthermore there was no independent evidence to verify the claim that the applicant spent a longer period in pre-sentence custody.

(5) The application to amend the terms of the sentence was refused.

Cases cited

Agua v Commissioner of Correctional Service (2024) N11122
Application by Karulaka (2025) N11475
Complaint by Umauma (2024) N10876
Evore v Commissioner of Correctional Service (2024) N10950
Louha v The State (2025) N11604
Moses v Commissioner of Correctional Service (2025) N11271

Counsel

J Mathew, the applicant, in person

1. CANNINGS J: Jack Mathew is a prisoner at Bomana Correctional Institution serving a sentence of 18 years imprisonment for persistent sexual abuse of a child. He was sentenced by the National Court at Waigani on 3 June 2020. The warrant of commitment states:
   

Length of sentence 18 years imprisonment IHL

Length suspended Nil

Length of period deducted 4 months 3 weeks

Length of sentence to be served 17 years 7 months 1 week IHL

2. He applied to the Supreme Court for review of his conviction but his application was refused.
   
3. He then filed a human rights complaint, arguing that as a prisoner he was entitled to the full protection of the law and that his actual pre-sentence period in custody was three years and one month and that the whole of that period should be deducted from the head sentence. He seeks an order that his due date of release be recalculated.
   
4. He has given evidence that in 2017 he was arrested and detained at Boroko Police lock-up for four months three weeks, then detained for another four days at Bomana correctional institution before being granted bail; and that he was later rearrested for allegedly breaching bail conditions and detained at Boroko Police lock-up for nine months and then discharged from custody but after being outside for two weeks he was rearrested and detained at Bomana until his trial in 2020.
   
5. He claims that he gave his lawyer a full account of the period of three years one month that he had spent in custody but his lawyer failed to pass those details to the sentencing judge. He says that his lawyer only informed the judge of the initial period of four months three weeks spent at Boroko Police lock-up.
   
6. According to the Correctional Service his due date of release with remission is 9 January 2032. The applicant claims that that date is incorrect as it fails to take account of his actual pre-sentence period in custody of three years one month. He seeks an order from the Court that his due date of release is 27 June 2028.
   
7. I have carefully considered this application and decided that it must be refused, for three reasons.
   
8. First, the question of what, if any, part of a pre-sentence period in custody is to be deducted from a head sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the sentencing judge under s 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act which states:
   

There may be deducted from the length or any term of imprisonment imposed by the sentence of any court any period before the sentence was imposed during which the offender was in custody in connection with the offence for which the sentence was imposed.

9. It is only where the sentencing judge has not exercised the discretion that another Judge in the National Court’s human rights jurisdiction should intervene (Application by Karulaka (2025) N11475, Louha v The State (2025) N11604).
   
10. I have intervened in that way in several cases in recent times, including Complaint by Umauma (2024) N10876, Evore v Commissioner of Correctional Service (2024) N10950, Agua v Commissioner of Correctional Service (2024) N11122 and Moses v Commissioner of Correctional Service (2025) N11271. In those cases it was clearly the intention of the sentencing Judge that the prisoner’s pre-sentence period in custody be deducted from the head sentence, however the Judge had simply indicated that the deduction be made and not specified the period.
    
11. I find that the sentencing Judge in the present case exercised the discretion and decided to deduct the specific pre-sentence period of four months three weeks from the head sentence. I have no jurisdiction as another Judge of the National Court to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
    
12. Secondly, the applicant’s claim of a total pre-sentence period in custody of three years one month is rather vague, lacking in detail and uncorroborated by any independent evidence.
    
13. Thirdly, the human rights application has been delayed for an inordinate period without explanation. The applicant was sentenced on 3 June 2020. He filed his human rights application more than five years later on 7 October 2025. If prisoners have a grievance about such issues, they need to act promptly.
    
14. The applicant has been given the full protection of the law. His human rights have not been breached.
    

ORDER

(1) The application for enforcement of human rights is refused.

(2) The file is closed.

Lawyer for the respondent: Solicitor-General