The National Court has dismissed a case brought by former prisoner, David Pokarup, who claimed that he was unlawfully detained for more than three years after his due date for release. Pokarup (plaintiff) had filed a human rights case against the Commissioner of the Correctional Service and the State (defendants), seeking damages for his alleged unlawful detention from March 21st, 2020, to December 28th, 2023. Pokarup argued that his continued detention violated sections 37, 41, and 42 of the Papua New Guinea Constitution, which cover the right to full protection under the law, protection from unjust acts, and the right to liberty, against the alleged continuous period of detention from 21st March 2020 to 28th December 2023. By way of background, Pokarup was originally sentenced in 2007 to eight years in prison for armed robbery. While serving his sentence, he escaped from custody at some point, which delayed his release date. In 2016, a court ruled that his due date for release should be March 21st, 2020, accounting for the time he was at large after his escape. However, Pokarup was still in custody after his supposed release date in 2020. He later filed multiple legal actions to clarify his release date, and in a 2023 case, it was determined that he had been unlawfully detained past his due date. Despite this, the court in the present case could not establish whether Pokarup had been continuously detained from March 2020 to December 2023, leading to the dismissal of his claim for damages. The uncertainty stemmed from conflicting evidence about whether Pokarup had escaped again in 2016, an issue he did not address in this case, which ultimately weakened his claims. The defendants, however, argued that the case should be thrown out, stating there was a lack of proper evidence and that the claim was an abuse of the court process. The State’s lawyer, Ms. Kajoka, argued that the case was similar to two previous ones Pokarup had filed, both of which dealt with his due date of release. These earlier cases, however, did not include claims for damages, which was the focus of this recent case. Despite the similarities, the court ruled that there was no abuse of process and allowed the case to continue. However, the case was eventually dismissed because Pokarup failed to provide enough evidence to prove that he was unlawfully detained for the entire three years as he claimed. Justice David Cannings said, "I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has proven on the balance of probabilities that he was detained continuously in the period from 21st March 2020 to the date of his release, 28th December 2023." The judge explained that Pokarup did not address key issues raised in a previous case, including allegations of a second prison escape in 2016 and being at large for a period of time, which raised doubts about his detention claim. "The plaintiff should have expressly addressed it in this case, but he hasn’t," Justice Cannings noted. As a result, the court found no proper factual basis for Pokarup's claims, leading to the dismissal of the case. Both parties will bear their own legal costs.