Why lesser charges not necessary on an indictment: Judges

By KARO JESSE
THE Waigani Supreme Court has ruled that the public prosecutor is not required to plead an alternative charge of murder or manslaughter over a charge of wilful murder on an indictment.
Justice David Cannings delivered the decision on Tuesday on behalf of five judges, including himself. The decision was regarding a special application filed by Attorney-General Davis Steven as the principal legal adviser seeking clarification whether it was necessary to plead an alternative charge on an indictment of wilful murder.
Steven, who is also the deputy prime minister referred to a point of law in the Supreme Court under section 26 of the Supreme Court Act that arose from a criminal trial in the National Court in 2011 in which an accused, charged with wilful murder, was acquitted despite court finding that the accused had killed the deceased with an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
The trial judge found it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed the deceased but there was no proof of intention to kill. The elements of the charge proved an offence of murder.
The trial judge held that the indictment had to contain an alternative charge of murder or manslaughter before an alternative verdict could be entered.
The judge ruled that because the indictment lacked an alternative charge, the accused was entitled to an acquittal. The court ruled that there were no general provisions in the criminal code that allowed for an alternative verdict.
That is, if a person has been charged with a specific offence and, though not all elements of the charge are proven, but elements of a lesser offence are proven, the court can enter conviction of the lesser offence.