The District Court is not always the right forum even for a case it could hear. The Act gives it, and the National Court, ways of moving a case up or sideways.
Abstaining in favour of the National Court
Where (a) a Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the National Court with respect to an offence; or (b) complaint is made to a Court with respect to a claim for debt or damages, if the Court is of opinion that in all the circumstances of the case the matter is a fit subject for determination by the National Court the Court shall (c) abstain from adjudication; and (d) in the case of an indictable offence, direct the person charged to be tried and commit him to custody or admit him to bail for trial.
The section has a criminal and a civil limb. The criminal limb is aimed at Schedule 2 offences, over which section 20(1B) gives the National Court concurrent jurisdiction. A Principal Magistrate who hears the facts and concludes that the ten-year cap in section 420(2) of the Criminal Code is inadequate, or that the case raises issues better dealt with by a judge, must stop and commit. The civil limb lets the Court decline a debt or damages claim that, although within the money limit, is better suited to the National Court, for example because it turns on a difficult point of law.
Once the magistrate forms the opinion, abstention is mandatory. But the opinion is the magistrate’s, and a party cannot demand a transfer. A defendant who wants a jury-less trial before a judge rather than a magistrate has no right to one; a complainant who has chosen the District Court cannot later insist on the National Court under this section.
Transfer orders
(1) Where proceedings have been commenced in a Court, the Court may, at any time before judgment, with or without an application, for reasons that shall be recorded, make an order staying the proceedings and, on such terms as seem just, transferring the proceedings for hearing and determination by some other District Court or, if the proceedings are such that they could have been instituted before the National Court in the first instance, by the National Court.
(2) The National Court may at any time before verdict or judgment, with or without an application, make an order staying proceedings before a District Court and ordering that the proceedings be taken before the National Court, if the proceedings could have been instituted before the National Court in the first instance.
The difference from section 23 is that section 24 is discretionary, applies to any proceeding and not just those within concurrent jurisdiction, can move a case to another District Court, and can be initiated by the National Court. The requirement that reasons be recorded is the safeguard.
Which cases can go up
| Proceeding | Transfer to the National Court? |
|---|---|
| Summary trial of a Schedule 2 offence | Yes: concurrent jurisdiction under s 20(1B); abstention under s 23 or transfer under s 24 |
| Simple offence | Generally no: a simple offence is tried summarily and could not have been “instituted before the National Court in the first instance” |
| Committal proceedings | Not a transfer in this sense; the committal itself sends the case up. In R v McEachern [1967–68] PNGLR 48 the predecessor of s 24(1) was held to allow part-heard committal proceedings to be transferred to another District Court |
| Civil claim for debt or damages | Yes: the National Court has unlimited jurisdiction, so any civil claim could have been started there |
| Civil claim to another District Court | Yes under s 24(1); and under s 150 a defendant brought to the wrong Court can have the complaint adjourned to the right one |
What happens to the defendant meanwhile
Where a criminal case goes up, the defendant does not walk free. Section 23(d) requires the Court to commit to custody or admit to bail for trial. Section 20(1D) does the same where a Schedule 2 charge is joined with a non-scheduled one and both must go on indictment. Bail is then governed by Part VI Division 2 and the Bail Act; see bail after committal.
Civil claims above the limit
A complainant with a claim above K10,000 has two lawful choices: sue in the National Court, or abandon the excess under section 38 and sue in the District Court for the capped amount. Section 24 is not a device for starting in the cheaper Court and then asking for a transfer once the size of the claim becomes clear. A magistrate asked to transfer such a case may do so, but the recorded reasons will need to explain why the complainant did not start in the right Court, and costs thrown away may be ordered. See the money limit.
Cases coming back down
Traffic runs the other way too. On an appeal the National Court may under section 230(1)(d) remit the case for hearing or further hearing before the Court that decided it or any other competent Court, and on judicial review it may quash a committal and send the matter back for rehearing before another magistrate, as it did in Maladina v Poloh (2004) N2568.
The District Courts Act is not on PacLII; it is available on vLex.
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) and check for later amendments. The Act is not on PacLII; the figures and time limits quoted in this series come from the consolidation to No 8 of 2000, and the District Courts (Amendment) Act 2009 changes some of them once it is brought into operation. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.