SOME PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTERING CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA (FROM UNAFEI - REPORT FOR 1977 AND RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO 15, 1978 - SEE NCJ-58438)

• NCJ Number: 58446
• Author(s): M KAPI
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 4 pages
• Corporate Author: United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: Japan

Annotation

AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPUA NEW GUINEA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IN TERMS OF ITS ORIGINS, COURT STRUCTURE, AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROVIDES AN UNDERSTANDING OF PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN ENCOUNTERED.

Abstract

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA CAME UNDER BRITISH COMMON LAW AT DIFFERENT TIMES, AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT AND WITH QUITE DISTINCT ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUNDS. MANY OF THESE DIFFERENCES ARE STILL PRESENT EVEN THOUGH THE TWO TERRITORIES WERE MERGED UNDER AUSTRALIAN JURISDICTION IN 1949 AND BECAME INDEPENDENT IN 1975. THE COURT SYSTEM IS BASED ON BRITISH AND AUSTRALIAN SYSTEMS EXCEPT THAT THERE IS NO JURY SYSTEM. JUDGES SIT AS DECIDERS OF FACT AND LAW. FIVE LEVELS OF COURTS ARE THE SUPREME COURT, THE NATIONAL COURT, DISTRICT COURT, LOCAL COURT, AND VILLAGE COURTS. POLICE ARE CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPREHENDING CRIMINALS, ASSISTING PROSECUTORS IN INVESTIGATIONS, AND IN PROSECUTING LOWER COURT CASES. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS CONTROL THE EXERCISE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROSECUTION FUNCTION INCLUDING APPEALS AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND NATIONAL COURT. PUBLIC SOLICITORS ARE PROVIDED TO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT THE ACCUSED BE INFORMED OF THE REASONS FOR ARREST OR DETENTION; BE PERMITTED TO CONTACT A FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND, AND BE ALLOWED TO COMMUNICATE WITH A LAWYER. INFRINGEMENT OF THESE RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. CERTAIN PROBLEMS HAVE EMERGED INCLUDING FAILURE OF THE POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BRANCH TO COORDINATE ITS INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES WITH EITHER THE POLICE PROSECUTION SECTION OR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS. COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS ARE TIME CONSUMING, INCONVENIENT AND CAUSE DELAY IN GETTING THE CASES READY FOR TRIAL. THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT RESULTS IN A BACKLOG OF APPEALS IN THE NATIONAL COURT. THERE IS A SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF BOTH JUDGES AND LAWYERS. PROPOSED REFORMS FOR EACH OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE EXAMINED. NO REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (KCP)