By PNG Echo
Cairns lawyer Mr Toby (I) Sciacca with the alleged consent and backing of Papua New Guinean lawyer Mr Robinson Namiliu has accused National and Supreme Court Judge, Derek Hartshorn, of misconduct in a case he is currently sitting on in the National Court. He writes:
The following allegations I make are not easy but both I (sic) and my PNG lawyer are convinced that they must be made.
The substantive case involves allegations of misappropriation, conspiracy to misappropriate, unlawful enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty with some of the accused being from the legal fraternity.
While the substantive case is still sub judice (ie it is still being heard in the court), the finer details of the case cannot be publicly discussed. However, Mr Sciacca, in a written communication has said:that the substantive case has…
…been superseded by our allegation that the current judge of the National Court [Hartshorn J] failure to decided after 14 weeks of a simple motion is protecting legal acquaintances and is allowing the defendants [including a senior lawyer and a retired National and Supreme Court Judge] to sell and remove and deal with their assets to avoid loss.
He goes on to say:
The Ex Pat lawyers and the Judges are a very select group in Port Moresby and are also referred to as “the Yacht Club Lawyers.” [both Hartshorn J and some of the defendants fall into his category according to Sciacca]. But Hartshorn J has not excused (sic) himself in this matter.
Of the alleged delaying tactics, Mr Sciacca sums up his concerns thus:
- Currently the Judge sitting on the latest Notice of Motion has delayed a decision of a simple matter for over 14 weeks
- The Judge is now going on leave on Friday [precise date not stipulated] for a period not known.
- If that Judge does decide against us on that Motion then we will surely win it in the Supreme Court. It is a matter that any young law Student (sic) would decide in our favour in a day.
- We now have serious concerns about the reasons for delay.
Just to be clear: the motion before the court does not form part of the substantive issues, which cannot go ahead until this particular side issue is dealt with satisfactorily.
