The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the master of the fishing vessel Wiron 5 against his conviction for carrying prohibited automatic fish-grading equipment within the State’s exclusive fishery limits.
The court’s judgment, delivered on 11 October 2018, concerned a conviction entered after a three-day trial on 18 June 2015. The trial court imposed a €500 fine and ordered the confiscation of fish valued at €344,960 and fishing gear valued at €55,000. The appeal addressed the conviction; the judgment says the court would dismiss that appeal.
The case arose from an inspection on 11 February 2015 by a boarding party from the LE Samuel Beckett. The party observed a grading machine and a chute aboard the vessel. A lieutenant commander formed the view that the vessel was engaged in “high grading”, described in the judgment as selecting the best fish from a catch and returning certain fish to the sea.
The appeal focused on the relationship between Article 32 of an EU regulation, which prohibited carrying or using certain automatic grading equipment, and exceptions allowing it in specified circumstances. The appellant argued that the law’s treatment of returning undersized fish to the sea created a conflict or uncertainty, and that the trial judge had not adequately explained the relevant law to the jury. The appellant had abandoned a separate appeal ground at the hearing and did not pursue an argument about mesh size and purse seines.
The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that the exception applied only if all its conditions were met. These included storing the catch frozen, freezing graded fish immediately, and having the equipment installed so it ensured immediate freezing and did not allow marine organisms to be returned to the sea. The Director argued that the exception did not apply because the equipment could allow such returns and because manual grading occurred before freezing.
The Court of Appeal said it was neither necessary nor appropriate to resolve the broader legal questions in this appeal, which had not been raised with the trial judge. It accepted that there appeared to be possible tension between the provisions and said the issues might need resolution in a future case, or legislative clarification.
The court concluded that there was evidence on which the jury could find that the equipment was of the prohibited type and that it was not installed or located to meet the exception’s requirements. It acknowledged that the trial judge’s directions were terse, but said the appeal did not establish that the trial was unsatisfactory or the verdict unsafe. The conviction appeal was dismissed.