Verdict based on wrong law

By BEVERLY PETER
THE Waigani Supreme Court has freed a man who was serving a seven-year jail term due to errors of law during his conviction.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice David Cannings, Justice Jeffrey Shepherd and Justice Ravunama Auka, in freeing Robin Kane, 55, of Yameyame village in Ialibu, Southern Highlands, described the decision of the National Court to convict Kane as a miscarriage of law. Justice Cannings, who read the judgement on behalf of the other judges, said: “The mistakes that occurred during Kane’s conviction were unsafe, unsatisfactory and shows that the decision was based on the wrong decision of law.”
“We consider that the errors of law involved in Kane’s conviction are significant,” he said.
Justice Cannings discharged the charge of forgery against Kane, quashed the National Court’s decision on sentencing and ordered his release from jail. Kane was convicted and sentenced on three counts of forgery after a National Court trial on Dec 13, 2018.
He spent more than three years in prison.
Kane was charged for allegedly forging Moitaka Development Corporation Ltd company documents to include himself as the company’s shareholder and director.
He filed an appeal in the Supreme Court from jail to review his conviction on the grounds that the elements of his charge were not set out and that the evidence provided during the trial did not meet the elements of forgery.
Kane’s other ground for review was that the documents alleged to have been forged were not tendered as evidence and the conviction was based on secondary evidence.
Justice Cannings upheld Kane’s application and said they were satisfied that the National Court conviction was as an error in law due to insufficient evidence.
Justice Cannings said the National Court judge had failed to set out the elements of the charge.
He added that the State had not proven the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Cannings said the National Court judge had erred in overlooking the evidence and convicting Kane based on the secondary evidence.
He said there was no principle to convict a person based on secondary evidence.