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

Wemin v Guawi [1987] PNGLR 346 (21 October 1987)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1987

[1987] PNGLR 346 - Park Wemin v Henry Guawi 

[1987] PNGLR 346

N630(M)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

PARK WEMIN AND 84 OTHERS

V

HENRY GUAWI

Kundiawa

Woods J

21 October 1987

POLICE OFFENCES - Taking part in inter-group fight - Declaration of application of Act - Notice of declaration signed by Police Commander - Validity off declaration - Declaration effective from making of - Notice not essential to validity - Signature of any member of declaring committee sufficient - Inter-Group Fighting Act (Ch No 344), s 4.

The Inter-Group Fighting Act (Ch No 344), s 4, provides that the Peace and Good Order Committee of a Province may meet and declare that the Act shall have full force and effect in a particular district and makes provision for the giving of public Notice of the Declaration. Section 4(3) states that the Declaration shall come into effect immediately it is made.

On appeal from conviction for taking part in an inter-group fight, it was argued that the relevant Notice of Declaration was invalid for want of a proper signature, it having been signed by the Police Commander as a member of the Committee.

Held

So long as a Declaration is supported by the fact of a meeting of the Peace and Good Order Committee it is an effective declaration and the subsequent publication by writing and gazettal notification is a procedural step not relevant to the validity of the Declaration. Whilst there is no statutory requirement as to signature of the Notice of Declaration it is desirable that the Notice be signed and a signature of any member of the Committee would suffice.

Appeal

These were appeals against convictions on 85 charges of taking part in inter-group fighting contrary to the Inter-Group Fighting Act (Ch No 344).

Counsel

K Kara, for the appellants.

W Akuani, for the respondent.

21 October 1987

WOODS J: The appellants in this case were arrested and charged under the Inter-Group Fighting Act (Ch No 344) for taking part in an inter-group fight. The facts are that on 19 March, after some days of tribal fighting, the Peace and Good Order Committee for the Chimbu Province met and declared that the Inter-Group Fighting Act should have full force and effect in the Chuave District and part of the Kamtai District in the Simbu Province. Following this declaration, police arrested the appellants and they were subsequently found guilty and imprisoned. The ground of appeal is that the declaration was not signed properly. Although it was made following a meeting of the Peace and Good Order Committee, it was not signed by the Premier as Chairman or even the whole of the Committee, but by the Police Commander as a member of the committee. The Inter-Group Fighting Act does not state who must sign the Notice of the Declaration and note here that I use the words “Notice of the Declaration”, that is what this is. The Declaration is made by the committee as it meets, the written Notice is merely a written form of the Declaration. This Declaration is not the type of Declaration or Notice which is required to be done by Notice, signed by a certain person and published in the Gazette and which does not have any force and effect until it is so signed by the designated person and actually published. If one looks at the Inter-Group Fighting Act, s 4(3) states that a Declaration shall come into effect immediately it is made. Therefore the oral making of the Declaration at the meeting brings it into effect. The subsequent publication by writing and gazettal is a follow-up requirement in s 4(3), and note here s 4(4):

“Failure to comply with certain requirements of Section (3) or with those requirements within a particular time, does not make the declaration or renewal invalid.”

It is therefore quite clear that the notice is merely evidence that a declaration has been made and is satisfying the requirement for publicising of the Declaration. So long as a Declaration is supported by the fact of a meeting of the Peace and Good Order Committee, it is an effective Declaration. Of course a signature on the notice is highly desirable and with respect to who should sign, the signature of any member of the committee would be merely verification or confirmation that a declaration had been made. I use the analogy of an order made by the National Court. A court order is often not signed by the Judge who makes the order. A court order is made by a Judge and it has effect at that stage, however, it is only endorsed later by the Registrar or some other court official as evidence that it is the order of the court. Of course there is some legislation which states something does not take place until it is actually signed by the Governor-General, for example, or the Prime Minister or a particular Minister and published in the Gazette. That act does not take effect until that is done. The Notices of Declarations made by the Peace and Good Order Committee do not appear to be of that category and as I have already said, s 4 of the Act clearly states that a Declaration takes effect the moment it is made and that would mean orally made. The subsequent requirements of notice are merely requirements to bring it to the notice of the public and I can find no strict requirement in the legislation as to who should sign this Notice or how this Notice should be signed. So long as a notice is backed up by the meeting of the Committee then the Declaration is valid and the signing of the later Notice is not relevant.

I therefore dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed

Lawyer for the appellants: Konze Kara.

Lawyer for the respondent: Public Prosecutor.