The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Bates’s appeal against his conviction for dangerous operation of a vessel, rejecting arguments that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that its directions to the jury were unfair.
Bates was convicted by a jury in Wexford Circuit Criminal Court on 31 January 2020 of navigating or operating a vessel dangerously, contrary to section 24 of the Maritime Safety Act 2005. He was sentenced on 16 June 2020 to five months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and fined €2,000. The appeal judgment, delivered on 16 December 2024, leaves that conviction and sentence undisturbed.
The charge arose from a near collision in Kilmore Quay Harbour on 24 June 2016. Declan Bates, who was operating a passenger boat with 12 people aboard, told the trial that James Bates’s trawler moved towards his vessel as it entered the harbour. He said he sounded the horn and took evasive action, avoiding a collision by an estimated six inches. The Court of Appeal recounted competing trial evidence about the vessels’ movements and whether the trawler had attempted to reverse. The boats did not collide, and the jury found James Bates guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
On appeal, Bates argued that the Circuit Court could not try the summary offence because the prosecution had not presented evidence that he had first been charged with it in the District Court. The Court of Appeal said that prior charge was a condition for adding a summary offence to an indictment under section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951. But it found that, during an earlier trial argument about removing the endangerment count, Bates’s counsel had expressly acknowledged the section 24 District Court charge and relied on its existence. That on-record concession was enough for the trial judge to be satisfied the jurisdictional requirement was met; no further evidence was needed. The appeal court found no error in refusing to strike out the count.
Bates also challenged the trial judge’s decision to provide jurors with copies of sections 23(1) and 24(1), covering careless and dangerous vessel operation, after they requested the provisions. He argued that jurors were being invited to interpret the law and that they should also have received section 26, which sets out statutory defences. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had already explained the law orally and could use the statutory wording to help jurors recall that explanation. It also upheld the decision not to provide section 26 when the jury had not asked for it; the judge had said he would consider doing so if they made a further request.
The court rejected both grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal against conviction.