Bulage Maule v Meama [1969–70] PNGLR 280

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Raine J
• Judgment Date: 21 October 1970
• Citation: [1969–70] PNGLR 280
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1970
• Judgement Number: No599

Full Title: Bulage Maule v Meama [1969–70] PNGLR 280

Supreme Court: Raine J

Judgment Delivered: 21 October 1970

1 Motor vehicles—traffic offences; Defences—consent

2 Conviction for use of employer's vehicle without consent upheld; no reasonable belief employer would have consented to joy ride if asked; did not have full legal possession

CRIMINAL LAW—Driving or using motor vehicle without consent of owner—Use inconsistent with consent—Motor Traffic Act 1950–1967, s14.

B, in the course of his employment, was permitted to use his employer's vehicle. He was required to leave the vehicle overnight at a certain place. After visiting a place on his employer's business, he drove in a direction away from the place where he was to leave the vehicle and was found some distance away from that place with a female passenger in the vehicle. B was charged under s14(1) of the Motor Traffic Act 1950–1967 with using a motor vehicle without first obtaining the consent of the owner and pleaded guilty in the local court. He appealed against conviction on the ground that the plea was wrongly entered.

Held:

Affirming the conviction, that the consent given by the owner when B. took possession of the vehicle did not extend to the use which the appellant made of the vehicle and immediately the vehicle was put to a use which was B's, and not that of the employer, the use of the vehicle became unlawful.

Bollmeyer v Daly [1933] SASR 295, referred to.

Ex parte Johnstone; Re Turnbull (1935), 52 WN (NSW) 194, distinguished.

R v McGill [1970] Crim LR 290, applied.

Appeal.

Bulage Maule appealed against his conviction for an offence under s14(1) of the Motor Traffic Act 1950–1967 on the ground that his plea of guilty was wrongly entered. The facts and arguments are set out sufficiently in the judgment of Raine J.

___________________________

Raine J: This is an appeal by an employee who is charged under s14(1) of the Motor Traffic Act 1950–1967 with using his employer's vehicle without consent. S14 reads:

"14(1) A person who drives or uses a motor vehicle without first obtaining the consent of the owner of the vehicle shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: One hundred pounds or imprisonment for six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the last preceding subsection shall not apply to a member of the Police Force in the execution of his duty."

I imagine that subsection (2) is inserted so that police, who probably normally have to be issued with some sort of document before using departmental vehicles, if only as a record of mileage to check on petrol consumption, in cases of urgency and when duty demands it, will be free to use vehicles without express permission.

The appellant apparently called at a coffee factory in the course of his work, and left it at 5.30 pm and proceeded down a road that would lead him to the turnoff to Koge where he would have left the...