Court rejects contempt case against top cop

The National Main Stories

By BOURA GORU KILA
THE National Court on Saturday closed the matter seeking to have police commissioner David Manning charged with contempt of court because the plaintiffs failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action.
The proceedings were initiated by shadow police minister Johnson Wapunai and Senior Sergeant Tinol Pakiapon, of the Boroko Police Station.
The plaintiffs had sought to have Manning charged with contempt for issuing special orders on March 20 which, they claimed, were done after the police commissioner became aware of a warrant of arrest against him for an alleged incident in Talasea, West New Briatin, on June 9, 2000.
After lecturing the plaintiffs’ counsel on facts and court processes, judge Carey dismissed the matter in its entirety, saying it was an abuse of the proceedings of the court, and that Order 8, Rule 27 of the National Court Rules (NCR) applied.
“Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 9(a), sub-Rule 15 of the NCR, the court summarily determines this matter on its own initiative,” Carey said.
“The court summarily disposes off this matter under the grounds settled in Order 12, Rule 14; there is no reasonable cause of action as disclosed.
“Costs are awarded on an indemnity basis against the plaintiffs in favor of the first, second and third defendants.”
On Wapunai’s affidavit, he said: “When affidavits are drafted and deposed, they are supposed to be statements of fact which will be cross-examined.
“But the drafter of that document is likely a lawyer. The duty of every lawyer, under the professional conduct rules 1989, is:

  • NOT to engage in conduct whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise, which is unprofessional, is prejudicial to the administration of justice, may otherwise frame the legal profession into disrepute and to be competent in all of its professional activities; and
  • NOT attempt to foil the claims by unclear or dishonest means.

“This court finds that the submissions by the plaintiff’s counsel is dishonest in trying to connect the formation of a board with a decision that is to come and call that contempt.”
He said had he rushed to judgment when the matter was first entertained, he said no.
“(The) plaintiff was trying to push me to, but I said no. We are going to give the State a chance to have the hearing here.
“Had I rushed to judgment, an erroneous judgment could have been made which will call for an appeal using the correct information that there is an arrest warrant for the defendant, when there is, in fact, none.”
Meanwhile, Manning acknowledged the court’s decision and the efforts of his lawyers Randolph Lains, and lawyer Donald Nale, representing the State.
“The breakdown of the force over many decades has been a result of politicisation of the rank and file,” he said.