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

Langford v The State [1990] PGSC 3; SC383 (30 May 1990)

Unreported Supreme Court Decisions

SC383

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]
S.C. APPEAL 25 OF 1990
IAN THOMAS LANGFORD
V
THE STATE

Waigani

Kidu CJ Hinchliffe Brown JJ
30 May 1990

Counsel

Mr Langford in person

Mr Yagi for the State

KIDU CJ HINCHLIFFE BROWN JJ: Of the preliminary points raised the one of consequence is the question of whether the learned trial judge could have formed a view regarding contempt on the evidence before him on the 17th of April 1990.

The record shows the following:

“Mr Langford: No cases are ready. I have received no written notice from Your Honour. Case not ready.

I have just been advised you are here. “Mr Langford: You are to show cause why you are not in contempt of the court at 9 am tomorrow morning.”

We are of the view that the trial judge could not have come to a prima facie finding of contempt on the material set out above.

It is our view that for a trial judge to consider whether a person ought to be referred to the Registrar for contempt proceedings there must be materials properly put before the Court on which such reference should be based. And this material, in our view, would include the trial judge’s personal knowledge of the facts constituting the alleged contempt. For instance we would consider it proper for a trial judge to take cognizance of the fact that he himself had made arrangements for circuits and fix cases for hearing on certain dates. However we consider that information provided to the learned trial judge by other persons outside the court should not be acted upon by the trial judge unless they are put before the court in admissible form.

It is clear to us from the judgement dated the 18th of April that material not properly before the court was taken into account by the learned trial judge in ordering the Registrar to institute contempt proceedings.

For those reasons we consider that the order made by the learned trial judge is invalid. We allow the appeal and quash this order. We further order that the appellant’s taxed costs be paid by the State.

Lawyers for the Appellant: Appellant in person.

Lawyers for the State: State Solicitor