Law of Papua New Guinea - "Underlying Law"

"Underlying Law"

The Constitution declares the "underlying law" — that is, the separate common law of Papua New Guinea — to consist of the Constitution, "customary law" derived from the "custom" of the various peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the common law of England as it stood at the date of Papua New Guinea's independence on 16 September 1975. That is to say, decisions of the High Court of Australia, the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, not being part of the common law of England, and indeed of the pre-independence courts of Papua New Guinea itself are not part of Papua New Guinea law; but decisions of the House of Lords, the English Court of Appeal, the English Queen's Bench and other English courts up until Papua New Guinea's independence are. This reflected the fact that Papua New Guinea — at least, Papua, the former British New Guinea — was in law a British possession albeit administered by Australia as an External Territory.

The "customary law" portion of the "underlying law" was contemplated by the original framers of the Constitution as deriving from the regional customs of the country in the same way as the common law of England (that law which was "common" to the whole country) had done prior to 1189, deemed to be "time immemorial" in English law. In practice the courts have found great difficulty in applying traditional custom in a modern legal system and the development of the customary law according to indigenous Melanesian conceptions of justice and equity has been less thorough than may have been anticipated in 1975. In 2000 the National Parliament enacted the Underlying Law Act 2000 which purports to mandate greater attention by the courts to custom and the development of customary law as an important component of the underlying law. Thus far the statute appears not to have effected such a result.

Read more about this topic:  Law Of Papua New Guinea

Famous quotes containing the words underlying and/or law:

    The “female culture” has shifted more rapidly than the “male culture”; the image of the go-get ‘em woman has yet to be fully matched by the image of the let’s take-care-of-the-kids- together man. More important, over the last thirty years, men’s underlying feelings about taking responsibility at home have changed much less than women’s feelings have changed about forging some kind of identity at work.
    Arlie Hochschild (20th century)

    Who to himself is law, no law doth need, Offends no law, and is a king indeed.
    George Chapman (c. 1559–1634)