The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to an order detaining the fishing vessel Carvida, ruling that the District Court had power to make the order even though it was issued about four hours after an earlier 48-hour detention period expired.
In a judgment delivered on 3 March 2005, Mr Justice O’Neill held that sections 233A and 234 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 provided separate powers. The expiry of an order under section 233A did not prevent a later detention order under section 234, provided that section’s requirements were met.
Claude Michel Joseph Lavole, the vessel’s captain, and its owner, Carvida Limited, brought the proceedings against District Judge John O’Donnell, Ireland and the Attorney General. They challenged the order made on 7 December 2004, which detained the vessel and its master pending the adjudication of criminal proceedings. At the hearing, they abandoned their challenge to an earlier order made on 5 December.
The vessel had been arrested at Killybegs on 3 December 2004 over alleged logbook offences. A District Court order made on 5 December authorised detention for 48 hours from 11.45am. On 7 December, the captain was charged and brought before Letterkenny District Court. A detention order under section 234 was made at 4.25pm, after the 48-hour period had expired. The judgment said the vessel could lawfully have been removed during the gap, but that this did not invalidate the later order.
The applicants argued that the vessel had to be released at the end of the 48 hours and that the later order was outside the District Court’s powers. They also argued that section 234 referred to section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, which had been repealed, and could not be read as referring to the newer section 4A.
The judge rejected both arguments. He said the statutory time limit could not be extended because the District Court proceedings had begun before it expired. He also held that section 4A preserved the essential step of sending an accused forward for trial, and was a modified re-enactment of section 8 for the purposes of the Interpretation Act 1937.
The court concluded that the section 234 order was valid and lawful and refused the application for judicial review. The judgment does not state that the vessel was released or specify any later outcome of the criminal proceedings.