National Fisheries Authority v Momona [2017] PGDC 63; DC4093 (9 November 2017)

DC4093

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL (GRADE 5 COURT) JURISDICTION]

GFC: 14 of 2017

BETWEEN

National Fisheries Authority

Informant

AND

Peter B. Momona

Defendant

KOKOPO: SLavutul

2017: 30^th May, 06^th, 22^nd June, 20^th, 21^st July, 28^th August, 09^th November

CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Breach of the Fisheries Management Act – Contravening Section 58 (1) (h) - and Section 46 (1) Acted as an agent without a valid and applicable bech-de-mer Fishery -Plea of Not Guilty – Trial Submissions on Sentence.

Cases Cited

References

Fisheries Management Act of 1998

Counsel

Mr. Bill Poheu Mohe for NFA

Defendant Appeared In Person

Ruling on Verdict

Samuel Lavutul, SPM; The defendant Peter Momona was charge under section 58 (1) (b) of the Fisheries Management Act 1998 for being a person who acted as an agent, did buy 26.4 kilograms of bech-de-mer fishery products without a valid and applicable bech-de-mer buyers license contrary to section 46 (1) (a) of the Fisheries Management Act of 1998, on the 10^th of April 2017 in Kokopo, East New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea.

2. The defendant denied the allegations and the charge. He added he denied purchasing or selling the bech-de-mers and he stated the chef at Ralum Restaurant had bought it for their restaurant in which a not guilty plea was entered and the matter was set for trial giving the opportunity to both prosecutions and the defendant to call evidence. Both prosecution and the defendant called three witnesses each.

Issues

3. These are the following issues;

1. Whether the defendant had acted as an agent or not
2. Whether the defendant had bought or sold the bech-de- mer fishery products or not?

4. In answering the first issue the defendant despite his denial of whether or not he was acting as an agent or not. There is evidence to show the defendant and the NFA’s first witness Mano Mesulam had known each other for some time prior to the incident of the 10^th of April 2017. I believe they must have been talking to each regarding bech-de-mer that is why the evidence shows the defendant then met and picked up the BDMS with Mesulam from Vunapope beach front upon arrival by boat from Karawara Island.

5. The evidence shows Mesulam had harvested the bech-de-mer at his Karawara Island. It also appears the Defendant knew exactly where to sell and knew of the potential buyers that is why he easily sold the bech-de-mer to the Ralum Restaurant without any difficulty and collected a total of K768.00; of which he gave K364.00 to Mesulam and he pocketed the remainder of K422.00 for himself.

6. There is strong circumstantial evidence the defendant knew the owners of the restaurant, that is why in the evidence of Luke Edward the defendant’s second witness told the court and I quote, “We were at home and they came with the bech-de-mer and the people from Ralum came weighed it and took it away”. The defendant did not sell directly at the door of the restaurant but at his home at Kinabot stage 2, Kokopo Town. I conclude from the evidence, the defendant’s actions amounts to acting as an agent, a broker, negotiator, and/or a dealer in successfully selling the bech-de-mer.

7. In answering the second issue on whether the defendant had bought or sold the bech-de-mer or not. I would first discuss the definition of the word “buy” as stipulated under FMACT 1998, It says; Buy includes –

(a) Barter or attempt to barter; and

(b) purchase or attempt to purchase

(c )...

(d) receive in order to send, forward or deliver for sale and (e) broker a sale

So the actions of the defendant from the evidence fall under the above definition

8. I find the defendant was trading without a valid license as per the requirement of the FMACT of 1998.

9. I therefore find NFA have proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt and I find the defendant guilty as charged for the allege offence.

Orders be entered accordingly