Police v Pangepea [2021] PGDC 43; DC6001 (25 May 2021)

Papua New Guinea

[In the Criminal Jurisdictions of the District Court Held at Waigani]

SITTING IN ITS TRAFFIC JURISDICTION

WTC NO 69 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
[Informant]

AND:

LEORNAD PANGEPEA
[Defendant]

His worship Paul P Nii
25^th May 2021

TRAFFIC OFFENCE: - Unregistered Motor Vehicle - s 22(1)(a) - Road Traffic Rules -Road User Rules 2017

TRAFFIC OFFENCE- Arraignment- Defendant pleaded Guilty-Reading of Charges, No summary of facts comprising the Antecedent Report.

PNG Cases cited:
Police-v-Seki [2021] PGDC 36; DC092
Police v Waimen [2010] PGDC 4; DC957

Overseas cases cited:
Ni

References

Legislation
Road Traffic Rules-Road User Rules 2017

Counsel
Police Prosecutor: J Wamuru For the Informant
In person For the Defendant

RULING ON SENTENCE

25th May 2021

INTRODUCTION

NII, P Magistrate: The Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of driving an

Unregistered Motor Vehicle Pursuant to Section 22(1)(a) of the Road Traffic

Rules-Road User Rules 2017.

1. On the 24^th May 2021, Defendant was arraigned by the court and afterward decided to plead guilty and remorseful for the charge and this is my ruling on sentence.
   

FACTS

2. Defendant was arrested on 26^th February 2021 for the allegation of driving a vehicle that was not registered to be a road worthy vehicle to be on a public road. Police say on 26^rd February 2021, at Gordons in National Capital District, Papua New Guinea:
   

“Did drive upon a public street towit Gordon’s Industrial area, a motor vehicle towit a Hino dump truck white in color registration no BEE 379 that was not registered”

3. Defendant’s case was first mentioned on 17th March 2021 but he was not present and thus adjourned to 23^th March 2021, but again adjourned as Prosecutor was out of the Jurisdiction. On the 24^th May 2021, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of driving an unregistered motor vehicle after being arraigned. Defendant’s statement of facts and his antecedent report could not be administered as they were not before the court. Upon taking the plea of guilty by the Defendant the Defendant is found guilty by the court and thus my ruling on sentence.
   

ISSUE

4. The issue of appropriate penalty in the circumstance is pertinent.
   

RELEVANT LAWS

5. The offending laws is in the following terms:
   

22 DRIVING AN UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE
(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this Section, a person must not–

(a) drive an unregistered motor vehicle on a public street.

EVIDENCE

6. Trial was not conducted since Defendant pleaded guilty to the allegation of driving an unregistered vehicle.
   

ANTECEDENT REPORT

7. Prosecution’s summary of facts and Defendant’s antecedent report could not be overseen as they were not before the court. Upon taking the plea of guilty by the Defendant on his own, the Defendant is now found guilty by the court and consequently my ruling on sentence.
   

RULING

8. I will adapt my own ruling in the matter of Police-v-Seki^[1]that the offence subject to the Defendant’s arrest and its subsequent charge is governed by Traffic Jurisdiction where its penalties are lesser or summary in nature. Before I proceed to the ruling on sentence I should be carefully guided by the principles in the above case and that is:
   

“Different offences attract different penalties under the Summary Offences Act, Road Traffic Act, Criminal Code Act and any other Laws that administers Criminal conducts and happenings. A penalty or sentence awarded by the court parallels to the nature and aggravating factors before the court. Before I proceed to the sentencing I must be cautiously guided by the Antecedent report. I must decide on the particulars concerning the defendant's personality, upbringing, and circumstances in which the crime is established by the confirmation of evidence”

9. While sentence is a matter of Law, the length of sentence should be steered by circumstances including mitigating factors and Defendant’s own statement after plea of guilty. In the absence of an antecedent report, I will consider the Defendant’s own statement. Defendant informed the court that he had been driving on the public road for the past 37 years but never breached any of the traffic offences or came into conflict with the traffic Laws. He said the offence subject of this proceeding was his first traffic offence.
   
10. Defendant also admitted that he knew the vehicle which he was driving was unregistered but while the progress to have the registration renewed was pending, he was driving the vehicle only from point A to B for the vehicle to be stationed and claimed the distance he was driving was too shot before police arrested him. Defendant has provided to the court after he pleaded guilty a copy of the renewed registration sticker. I accept the Defendant’s honesty and genuineness regarding the offence against him.
    
11. The degree of sentence is determined by mitigation and aggravating factors presented to the court. Since there was no antecedent report presented to the court, I will assess the Defendant’s own statement in line with the principle in Police v Waimen^[2], and come up with a conclusion which best suit the Defendant. The Police v Waimen case affords that mitigating factors should out weight the aggravating factors if a lesser penalty is to be given against the Defendant.
    
12. When applying the principles in my case of Police-v-Seki and in the case of Police-v- Waimen, I accept that the Defendant is a first time offender and he was honest to the court and his allegation appears to be a genuine and honest conflict of the traffic laws. Therefore in the circumstance, I accept that there is overwhelming mitigating factors favoring the Defendant’s for a lesser sentence.
    
13. The penalty of driving an Unregistered Motor vehicle contravening Section 22(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Rules is an infringement fine between K500 – K2500. K500 would be the minimum followed by K2, 500 the maximum. The ranges of penalties are provided by Schedule 3 of the Offences and Penalties part of the Road Traffic Rules. The difference in the range of penalties is determined by the extenuating and provoking factors. I am therefore convinced that the Defendant has established his grounds to warrant a penalty under the minimum range.
    

CONCLUSSION

14. The Defendant has demonstrated enough factors to attract the minimum penalty under which he is charged.
    

COURT ORDERS

1. The Defendant is guilty, fined and discharged with no new penalties.
   
2. In exercising of my sentencing discretion, I order that Defendant’s bail of K500 is converted to court fine.
   

Police Prosecutor: J Wamuru For the Informant
In person For the Defendant

---

^[1] [2021] PGDC 36; DC092
^[2] [2010] PGDC 4; DC957