The District Courts Act was drafted for a bench that might have two or three magistrates sitting together, as English magistrates’ courts do. Papua New Guinea’s magistrates are professional and sit alone, so the provisions are seldom used. They still answer some practical questions.
One or more magistrates
(1) A Court may be constituted by one or more Magistrates. (2) Where a Court is constituted of two or more Magistrates, the Magistrate senior by date of appointment shall be the Chairman of the Court.
Jurisdiction depends on the grade of the magistrate constituting the Court, under section 20: a Principal Magistrate or a Magistrate Grade V exercises the full jurisdiction; lower grades are limited. Where two magistrates sit, the Court has the jurisdiction of the higher grade present. Section 22B, inserted by the 2009 amendment and not yet in operation, will require the Court to be constituted by a magistrate of the grade the Chief Magistrate directs for particular classes of case. See magistrates and their grades.
When they disagree
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, where two or more Magistrates are present in Court and acting at the hearing of a matter and do not agree, the decision of the majority shall be the decision of the Court, and if they are equally divided in opinion (a) in the case of an information, the matter shall be reheard before another Magistrate or other Magistrates at a time to be appointed by the Court; and (b) in the case of a complaint, the Chairman of the Court shall have a second or casting vote.
| Bench | Split | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Three magistrates | 2 to 1 | Majority decision, criminal or civil |
| Two magistrates, information | 1 to 1 | Rehearing before a different bench; the defendant is not convicted and not acquitted |
| Two magistrates, complaint | 1 to 1 | Chairman’s casting vote decides |
| One magistrate | None possible | The decision of that magistrate |
The distinction reflects the presumption of innocence. A defendant should not be convicted on a divided bench, so a divided criminal bench produces no decision and the case starts again before others. A civil dispute needs an answer, so the senior magistrate gives it. A rehearing under section 26(a) is a fresh hearing: the evidence is taken again, and the depositions from the first hearing are not the record. It is not a second prosecution for the purposes of section 162 or the autrefois rules, because no order of dismissal was made.
When the magistrate is replaced
The commoner situation is a single magistrate who is transferred, falls ill or dies part-way through a case. Section 12 provides that the death or removal of a magistrate does not avoid a summons, warrant or recognizance he issued, so the process stands. But a magistrate who did not hear the evidence cannot decide on it; the hearing recommences before the new magistrate, unless the parties consent to the new magistrate deciding on the depositions, which in a civil case is permissible and in a criminal case is not. Section 24 allows the Court to transfer proceedings to another Court where the defendant resides or the cause arose, and section 15 preserves proceedings where a Court is abolished. On a committal, the new magistrate may adopt the served statements under section 94 because they were never oral evidence.
What the Chairman does
Beyond the casting vote, the Chairman presides: calls the list under regulation 11, controls the courtroom under section 277, and signs the minute under section 160 and any formal order. Section 162 allows a certificate of dismissal to be signed by “one or more of the adjudicating Magistrates or the Clerk”, contemplating the multi-magistrate bench. The Chairman’s seniority is by date of appointment as a magistrate, not by grade, so a Grade IV magistrate appointed earlier chairs a bench that includes a later-appointed Grade V, though the Court’s jurisdiction is that of the Grade V.
On appeal
A decision by majority is the decision of the Court and is appealed like any other under section 219. The dissenting magistrate’s view forms no part of the record unless reasons were given, and the National Court on appeal considers the evidence and the majority’s reasons under section 230. Where a divided criminal bench ordered a rehearing, there is no decision to appeal; a defendant who objects to being retried has no remedy in the Act, because section 26(a) is mandatory. See appeals.
In practice
Multi-magistrate benches appear mainly where a senior magistrate sits with a junior for training, or in a Family Court or juvenile matter where a second magistrate is thought useful. Parties who find two magistrates on the bench should assume the Act’s ordinary rules apply, address the Chairman, and, if the case is an information, understand that a divided bench means a fresh start rather than an acquittal. The 2009 amendment’s renaming of magistrates as District Court Judges does not alter section 26. See the 2009 amendment and the money limit.
The District Courts Act and Regulation are not on PacLII; both are on vLex (Act, Regulation).
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.