The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by fishing vessel captain Claude Michael Joseph Lavole and its owner, Carvida Limited, against an order detaining the vessel Carvida at Killybegs while fishery offence proceedings against Lavole were pending.
The appeal challenged a District Court order made on 7 December 2004. It required the vessel’s detention until the proceedings were adjudicated under section 4A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, or otherwise adjudicated. The vessel could be released against a cash surety or bond of €165,000.
The case arose after the Carvida was arrested in the early hours of 3 December 2004 over a suspected logbook offence. A sea fisheries protection officer detained the vessel and those aboard. On 5 December, a District Court judge authorised 48 hours’ detention under section 233A of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. Lavole was arrested and charged with logbook fishery offences on 7 December. After submissions against a further detention order, the District Court made the order under section 234.
The appellants argued that section 234’s reference to section 8 of the 1967 Act did not allow the District Court to rely on section 4A, which replaced section 8. They also argued that the 48-hour detention period had expired before the section 234 order was made, removing the court’s power to detain the vessel.
The Supreme Court rejected both grounds. It held that section 4A was a re-enactment, with modifications, of section 8 for the purpose of the Interpretation Act 1937. The District Court could therefore treat section 234’s reference to section 8 as a reference to section 4A. The court also held that the section 234 detention power was autonomous and did not depend on a section 233A detention order remaining in force. After the 48 hours expired, the vessel was no longer detained under section 233A, but section 234 could still provide a basis for a later detention order.
The appellants also argued that Lavole had not been brought before the District Court “as soon as may be.” The Supreme Court declined to decide that point: it had not been included in the grounds for judicial review or argued in the High Court, and the court considered it inappropriate to address it for the first time on appeal.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Murray on 27 July 2007, dismissed the appeal. It concerned the detention order for the vessel; the judgment states that only that aspect of the 7 December order was being challenged.