Wang Tang Teong v Komagin [1997] PGNC 137; N1632 (22 October 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1632

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

AP. 89 OF 1992
WANG TANG TEONG - Appellant
GISA KOMAGIN - Respondent

Waigani

Jalina J
21-22 October 1997

APPEAL - District Court - Fishing Licence - Letter from Minister authorising fishing - whether Letter sufficient authority to fish - Letter is sufficient authority pending grant of Licence - Fisheries Act Ch. 214 s. 10 (2).

Counsel:

D Stevens for Appellant

No appearance for Respondent

22 October 1997

JALINA J: ppellant was convicted by d by the Boroko District Court on 2nd April 1992 for transhipping fish between two boats namely JIA SHINE No. 12 and JIA WIN No. 1 without a licence and in doing so cvened s. 10 (2) (b) of the the Fisheries Act Ch. 214. He was fK800.00 in defaultfault 5 months imprisonment in hard labour. Tat, JIA SHINE No. 12, was, was forfeited to the State. Section ) provides:

“(2) E withconsent of the Mihe Minister and subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks proper, per, or by virtue of an endorsement under (4) ( perso, in any area of waters, tranships fish to or from a boat for which there iere is no s no licenlicence in force under s.6(2)(b) is guilty of an offence.”

During the hearing a letter of authorisation dated 6 March 1991 from the Minister for Fisheries and Marine Resources was produced in evidence.

The letter is in the following terms:

“The Managing Director

PNG Fish and Cannery

PO Box 66

BOROKO NCD

Dear Mr Chan

SUBJECT: L TTERUTF AITYORO OPTRATE RATE DOMESTIC FISHING VESSELS.

This letter is to advise and authorize you to operate two vesselse nampear undernderthese fishing activities respectively:

(1)&#11) < &#160 &#160 JIA JIA WIN No.1 - SHRAWLTRAWLING

(2) &##160;; JIA SHIA SHINE No.E No.12 - PRAWN TRAWLING

(3) &##160;; MAO HUAO HUA 606 R606 RK FI

is authority is grann the basis that granting of g of formaformal licences has been delayed due to lato lack ofck of quorum to endorse recommendations.&#This rity will expire pire upon upon receipt of granting of formal licence.

Yours Sincerely,

HON. AKOKA DOI, CMG. MP.

Minister for Fisheries & Marine Resources”

The appellants grounds of appeal are as follows:

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

“1. &##160; The leae learned Maaistrrre erred in law and or in fact in holding that the Appellant did not have the fishing licence to tranship fish under Section 6(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act.

2. ټ&#That ehe ld rned Mned MagisMagistrate erred in law and or in fact in holding that Ministerial Authority in a form of letter did not a to aal foension of time for the Appellant to fish pending formal renewal of fish fishing ling licencicence.

3. & That the learaed Magistratstrate erred in law and or in fact in holding that the Appellant transhipped fish from Jia Shin 12 t Win undetion b) and Contrary to Section 10(2) of the Fisheries Aies Act.

4.&#>4. &160; ;ټ That that the learned tratstrate erred in law and in fact in finding the Appellant guilty on the insufficient evidence before him for transht of from hine No. 12 to Jia Win No. 1 under Sect Section 6ion 6 (2) (b) of the Fisheries Act, which hich the evidence clearly showed offence under Section 6 (2) (a) which was not the subject of the charge.

5. ـ That tar learned Magistratstrate erred in law or in fact in holding that the fishing vessel Jia Shine No. 12 was a foreign fishing vessel thereby warra the scatider Sns 15 and 16 of Fisheries Acts Act resp respectivectively.

6. ټ That the sentence once of Eight Hundred Kina (K800.00) fine in default five (5) months imprisonment was unreasonable and excessive.”

GROUND

e appt subthat the learned magistrate eate erred rred in lain law andw and in fact in failing to find that the appellant had a licence or authority to fish. He submits the letter of a of authorisation from the Minister constitutes consent from the minister and as such falls within the ambit of the exception of s. 10 (2) in the Act.

I accept the appellant’s submissions. The twoels, namely JIA WINA WIN No.1 and JIA SHINE No.12 being (expressly) specified in the letter of authorisation, meant that they coish. There are no conditions imposed by such letter. Pending tant of a fora fora formal licence, I am of the opinion that the letter served the purpose of a licence which gave the appellant, though his employer, legal authority to fish and tranship fish.

I find therefore that that the learned magistrate erred in law in convicting the appellant. sh the conviction and orde order that the boat together with its equipment be returned to its owners.

In view of my decision is respect of the first grout is not necessary for me to deal with the other grounds.

Lawyer for Appellant: Maladinas Lawyers

Lawyer for Respondent: Solicitor General