In the District Court a person is not “indicted”; that is the National Court’s word. A person is charged by information, and Division 2 of Part IV of the Act sets out what that document must be.
The definition
“Information” includes a complaint for an offence but not any other complaint and does not include a Traffic Infringement Summons.
“Complainant” includes informant. “Defendant” means a person against whom an information is laid or a complaint is made.
The person who lays the information is the informant, usually the arresting or investigating police officer, whose name appears on the charge. The information is in Form 16 of the Regulation. It records the defendant’s name, the date and place of the alleged offence, the section contravened, and a short statement of the facts constituting the offence.
What it must contain
An information shall be for one matter only, except that in the case of indictable offences matters that may be charged in one indictment, and in other cases matters substantially of the same act or omission, may be joined (s 29).
Such description of persons or things as would be sufficient in an indictment is sufficient in an information, and the description of an offence in the words of the Act creating the offence, or in similar words, is sufficient in law (s 30).
The one-matter rule is the rule against duplicity, discussed in can one information charge more than one offence. Section 30(2) is the rule that lets the police describe the offence by tracking the statutory words. Constitution section 37(4)(b) sits behind both: a person charged must be informed promptly, in a language he understands and in detail, of the nature of the offence.
Tracking the statutory words is a minimum, not a formality. In Ganta v Nandi [1973] PNGLR 61 a complaint alleged only that the appellant “was found in possession of an offensive weapon, namely a Katapel”, omitting the other elements of the offence, which required possession in a public place without lawful excuse. Frost SPJ held that the conviction could not stand because the charge disclosed no offence, and that the power of amendment could not cure a charge that conferred no jurisdiction in the first place. The Magistrates’ Manual draws the same lesson for the District Court: if an information does not disclose an offence, the Court has no jurisdiction and should decline to proceed.
Written or verbal, sworn or unsworn
(1) Where it is intended to issue a warrant in the first instance against the party charged, the information shall be in writing and on oath either by the informant or some other person.
(2) Where it is intended to issue a summons instead of a warrant, the information need not be in writing or on oath, but may be verbal only and without oath, whether the law under which the information is laid requires it to be in writing or not.
In practice every police information is written and most are sworn, but the distinction explains why a magistrate asked for a warrant will insist on an oath, and why section 50 requires oath “substantiating the matter of the information” before a warrant issues for a simple offence.
Particulars
Section 31 allows the Court or a magistrate to direct that particulars of a matter alleged in an information be delivered to the defendant, and to adjourn the hearing for that purpose. This is the mechanism for a defendant who genuinely cannot tell from the charge what is alleged. In committal proceedings the need is met differently, by service of the witness statements under section 94.
Defects and variances
Section 32 provides that no objection is allowed to an information, or to the summons or warrant issued on it, for a defect in substance or form or for a variance between the information and the evidence, and that a variance may be amended at the hearing. Section 33 requires an adjournment if the variance has misled the defendant. The limits of this are explained in what if the charge has a mistake in it.
Time limit
An information for a simple offence must be laid within six months of the matter arising, or within the period fixed by the Act creating the offence; there is no limit for indictable offences. See the time limit for laying a charge.
What the information leads to
| Offence | Path |
|---|---|
| Simple offence | Summons or warrant; plea and hearing under Part VII |
| Schedule 2 indictable offence, Public Prosecutor elects summary trial | Transfer to a Principal Magistrate; hearing under Part VII |
| Any other indictable offence | Committal proceedings under Part VI; if committed, the Public Prosecutor decides under Criminal Code s 525 whether to indict |
The informant may withdraw the information at any time under section 61A, subject to the Public Prosecutor’s consent for section 420 offences, and the defendant is then discharged. A defendant who wants a copy of the charge is entitled to it: section 40 gives a defendant a copy of a complaint free of charge, and a person facing committal must be served with the information under section 94(1)(c).
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.