Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea Law Reports

Lucas v English [1977] PNGLR 15 (31 January 1977)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1977

[1977] PNGLR 15 - Paul Lucas v Agnes English 

[1977] PNGLR 15

N77

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

PAUL LUCAS

V

AGNES ENGLISH

Waigani

Williams J

26 January 1977

31 January 1977

INFERIOR COURTS - Local Courts - Jurisdiction - No inherent jurisdiction - Extent of jurisdiction considered - Appeal against order made on complaint in substance alleging abduction - No jurisdiction in Local Court - Local Courts Act 1963, s. 13, s. 16(1)(d).

On appeal against an order made by a Local Court Magistrate on a complaint against the appellant in the following terms:

“That you did take away the said complainant’s daughter, namely Elizabeth English, without the consent of the said complainant. The complainant has tried hard to get back the daughter but you had hidden the daughter from the complainant. The complainant now prays the court to order you to return the complainant’s daughter under Section 16(1)(d) of the Local Court Act.”

Held

(1)      Inferior courts have jurisdiction only in matters where jurisdiction is conferred by Statute.

(2)      The general jurisdiction of a Local Court is to be found in s. 13 of the Local Courts Act 1963, and for a Local Court to have jurisdiction the matter must be shown to be within one or other of the categories listed in s. 13(1).

(3)      Where a matter is within the jurisdiction of the Local Court and is a criminal matter, the jurisdiction is limited under s. 13(1)(a) to offences which may be dealt with summarily.

(4)      Section 16(1)(d) of the Local Courts Act 1963, which empowers the Court to make an order which “the justice of the situation requires”, does not confer jurisdiction on the Local Court; it merely empowers the Local Court to make awards and orders of the kind enumerated in cases in which the Local Court is otherwise given jurisdiction to hear and determine matters.

(5)      The substance of the complaint against the appellant being an allegation of abduction (an indictable offence under ss. 221 and 223 of the Criminal Code) the Local Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.

(6)      If the matter was dealt with either as an application for custody or habeas corpus (both matters within the original jurisdiction of the National Court) the Local Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.

(7)      The order made by the Local Court should be quashed.

Appeal

This was an appeal against an order made by a Local Court magistrate upon a complaint against the appellant in the following terms.

“That you did take away the said complainant’s daughter namely Elizabeth English without the consent of the said complainant. The complainant has tried hard to get back the daughter but you had hidden the daughter from the complainant. The complainant now prays the court to order you to return the complainant’s daughter under Section 16(1)(d) of the Local Court Act.”

Counsel

D. C. Anderson, for the appellant.

C. Narokobi, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

31 January 1977

WILLIAMS J: The respondent on the 27th August, 1976 made a complaint against the appellant in the Local Court at Port Moresby in the following terms:

“That you did take away the said complainant’s daughter namely Elizabeth English without the consent of the said complainant. The complainant has tried hard to get back the daughter but you had hidden the daughter from the complainant. The complainant now prays the court to order you to return the complainant’s daughter under Section 16(1)(d) of the Local Court Act.”

After hearing evidence the Local Court magistrate on the 2nd September, 1976 gave the following decision:

“Defendant return the complainant’s daughter, Miss Elizabeth English back before twelve noon on the 2nd September, 1976. I further ordered defendant will keep away from Miss Elizabeth English and do not annoy the complainant or parents. If both defendant and complainant daughter want each other would approach parents and talk over it.” The appellant appeals against this decision on the following grounds:

(1)      That the complaint was defective in that the facts as alleged showed no or any sufficient cause of complaint.

(2)      That the magistrate did not make an order which “the justice of the situation required”. (See s. 16(1)(d) of the Local Courts Act.)

For the respondent it was contended that s. 16(1)(d) of the Local Courts Act empowered the Court to make the order which it did make.

At the outset I should say that I consider it clear that s. 16(1) of the Local Courts Act is not a section which confers jurisdiction on a Local Court, rather it is, in my view, a section which confers powers on the Local Court to make awards and orders of the kind enumerated in cases in which the Local Court is otherwise given jurisdiction to hear and determine.

The general jurisdiction of a Local Court is to be found in s. 13 of the Act and for a Local Court to have power to entertain a proceeding the matter must be shown to be within one or other of the categories listed in s. 13(1).

It appears from the Court papers that the substance of the matter raised by the complainant was that her daughter Elizabeth went to work on the 24th August, 1976 and failed to return home after work. The complainant said that she became concerned and went looking for her daughter. She went with her husband and son to the defendant’s house. She said that she called out to her daughter who did not answer but hid herself. She asked the defendant to hand over her daughter but he refused to do so. She also said that on the following day she told the defendant’s mother to return her daughter. This, however was refused whereupon the complainant instituted the proceedings in the Local Court.

The basis upon which the Local Court dealt with the matter is not clear from the papers. There is amongst the papers a document headed “Court record of a civil case” although in this document a statement that “the defendant admits complaint guilty as charged” appears. If the magistrate was dealing with the matter as a criminal charge then under s. 13(1)(a) his jurisdiction was limited to offences which may be dealt with summarily. In effect what was alleged before him was that the girl Elizabeth had been abducted. In this respect ss. 221 and 223 of the Criminal Code are relevant. However, the offences created by those sections are indictable offences and not offences punished summarily. It follows that the Local Court could derive no jurisdiction from s. 13(1)(a).

Further I do not see that jurisdiction to make the order made can be derived from any other provision of s. 13(1). If the Local Court purported to deal with the matter as an application for custody then (putting aside the age of the girl as to which there is some issue) jurisdiction under the Infants Act is conferred on the National Court. Similarly if the Local Court was purporting to deal with the matter as an application for habeas corpus then this also was a matter for the National Court.

Section 18 of the Local Courts Act confers certain limited jurisdiction upon a Local Court. Plainly, in the circumstances of this case, that section can have no application.

In my view it is clear that the Local Court had no jurisdiction to make the order it purported to make. There is much authority for the proposition that inferior Courts have jurisdiction only in matters where jurisdiction is conferred by statute. They have no inherent jurisdiction.

I accordingly must quash the order made.

Appeal allowed.

Order quashed.

Solicitor for the appellant: W. J. Andrew, Acting Public Solicitor.

Solicitor for the respondent: W. J. Andrew, Acting Public Solicitor.