Committal is the stage where most time in custody is actually spent, and it is the stage people understand least. It is also where the Bail Act gives you two rights that are routinely left unused.
Committal is an inquiry, not a trial
Committal proceedings are conducted by the District Court under Part VI, Division 2 of the District Courts Act. The magistrate is not deciding guilt. As the National Court put it in Mika Michael Akia v Derrick Francis (2016) N6555, committal is an administrative process — an inquiry into whether the evidence against the defendant constitutes a prima facie case, or is sufficient.
Backley Yarume v Sylvester Euga puts the same point practically: the purpose is to gather the evidence and assess it “to see whether the evidence is sufficient to commit the accused for trial or sentence in the National Court”, which requires a proper and reasonable assessment of whether all the elements of the offence are present.
The two phases
Before the hearing — section 94. The informant serves the information, the statements to be tendered, and lists and copies of documents and exhibits. Section 94B allows a “paper committal” where the evidence is all written statements, the defendant is represented and sufficiency is not challenged.
Phase one — section 95. Once all the prosecution evidence has been heard or received, the Court “shall consider whether it is sufficient to put the defendant on trial.” If it is not sufficient, the Court “shall immediately order the defendant, if in custody, to be discharged.” If it is sufficient, the Court proceeds to the next phase.
Phase two — section 96. The charge is read and explained in ordinary language, and the magistrate administers the statutory question:
“Having heard the evidence for the prosecution, do you want to be sworn and give evidence on your behalf, or do you desire to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to be sworn and give evidence, nor are you obliged to say anything, unless you desire to do so; but whatever evidence you may give upon oath, or anything you may say, will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence upon your trial. You are clearly to understand that you have nothing to hope from any promise or favour and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been held out to you to induce you to make any admission or confession of your guilt; but whatever you now say may be given in evidence upon your trial, notwithstanding any promise or threat.”
The answer is recorded, signed by the magistrate and sent up with the depositions.
Section 100 applies the sufficiency test again after the whole examination — insufficient means immediate discharge; sufficient means committal. Under section 103, a defendant who says he is guilty when asked under section 96 is committed for sentence rather than trial.
Akia v Francis identifies committing without expressing the section 95 opinion, and committing “without asking him if he had anything to say or whether he wished to give evidence as stipulated under s. 96”, as classic irregularities — challengeable by judicial review, not appeal.
Right one: bail must be reconsidered at every adjournment
Section 7 of the Bail Act is short and mandatory:
“Subject to Section 4, where a person is in custody in connection with any proceedings, including proceedings for committal for trial or sentence in the National Court, the court shall, on each occasion that it adjourns the proceedings before conviction, consider and accordingly grant or refuse bail to that person in accordance with Section 9.”
Every adjournment. Not the first one. Not on request. This matters because committals adjourn a great deal: a study of 54 remandees at Bomana found 14 cases with six to ten adjournments, 28 with eleven to fifteen, eleven with sixteen to twenty, and one with more than twenty.
Circumstances change across that many returns to court. Police investigations complete. A guarantor becomes available. A dependant falls ill. Section 7 gives you a fresh opportunity to put that material forward each time — but the duty only produces a result if somebody raises it. Raise it.
Right two: bail must be considered again on committal
Section 8:
“Subject to Section 4, where a court commits a person who is in custody for trial or sentence in the National Court, the court shall consider and accordingly grant or refuse bail to that person in accordance with Section 9.”
Note the words “who is in custody” — section 8 is aimed at the remanded defendant, and it is a separate, mandatory consideration at the committal moment.
If bail is granted on committal, section 15(3) requires the Clerk of the committing court to forward a copy of the bail certificate to the Public Prosecutor and the Public Solicitor as soon as possible. That is how the two national legal offices learn you are at large — and, for an unrepresented person, it is one of the few automatic points of contact with the Public Solicitor’s office in the whole process.
What happens to your bail once you are committed
Bail granted by the District Court is not treated as evaporating at committal, but it is not meant to carry you indefinitely either. Rule 10 of the Bail Rules 2021 provides that where a District Court commits an accused for trial or sentence and the accused is on bail granted by the District Court or another bail authority, the accused shall make an application for National Court bail in Form 1, and should do so as soon as is practicable. Every National Court proceeding gets its own bail (BA) file.
There is a matching rule at the other end. Under Rule 23(a), where the National Court granted bail pending committal and the District Court then refuses to commit, the Court considers discharging the person from their bail obligations and closing the bail file — by order in Form 24, which is also the order that refunds cash bail. This is the situation of anyone charged with a section 4 offence, who must get bail from the National Court while the committal runs in the District Court. If the committal fails, ask for the Form 24 order. Nobody else will.
Why this stage deserves attention
Remandees were 6% of PNG’s prison population in 1974, 13% in 1984 and 38% by 2002; at Buimo in 2006 they were 50.3% of those held. A Visiting Justice in 2006 met a man in Kokopo who had been on remand two years for wilful murder and accepted that the system had let him down. Section 37(3) of the Constitution guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Sections 7 and 8 are the two provisions in the Bail Act designed to stop remand becoming a sentence served before trial. They only work when they are invoked.
If you or a relative is on remand awaiting committal, contact a lawyer or the Office of the Public Solicitor.