The Court of Appeal has reimposed a €500 fine and confiscation orders totalling €400,460 against fishing vessel master Klass Dirk Meijvogel, after reconsidering whether the penalty was proportionate under European Union law.
The court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 26 April 2024, followed its 2023 decision to quash the original sentence because the sentencing judge had wrongly understood that confiscation was mandatory and left no discretion. The Court of Appeal then heard further evidence and submissions before resentencing Meijvogel.
Meijvogel was convicted by a jury in Cork Circuit Criminal Court in 2015 of carrying prohibited automatic fish-grading equipment aboard the UK-registered vessel Wiron 5 within Ireland’s exclusive fishery limits. The charge concerned equipment capable of automatically grading herring, mackerel or horse mackerel, installed in a way that did not ensure immediate freezing or prevent fish returning to the sea. The prosecution did not charge him with actual high-grading.
At the original sentencing, the court imposed a €500 fine and ordered confiscation of the catch, valued at €344,960, and fishing gear valued at €55,000. The appeal court had found that the sentencing judge should have considered whether confiscating all the catch and gear was proportionate. It invited evidence on the offence’s effects, the appellant’s circumstances and the fisheries policy behind the penalty.
The Court of Appeal said the prosecution had not proved significant actual economic benefit to Meijvogel from the offence, although the equipment could have offered a potential benefit if used for high-grading. It also accepted evidence that the grading equipment itself was not technically “fishing gear” under the relevant Act, and noted its estimated value was €70,000.
The court nevertheless found that the equipment’s capacity to return broken, undersized or non-target fish to the sea created potential for serious harm to fish-stock assessment and fisheries management. It considered effective deterrence necessary. The judges rejected as unconvincing evidence that only a negligible quantity of fish had entered the chute, preferring the account of a naval boarding party member described in the trial transcript. They found Meijvogel bore at least moderate culpability as the vessel’s master, responsible for regulatory compliance.
The court said there was no evidence that the confiscation would prevent Meijvogel from continuing his profession or earning a livelihood. He had since taken employment as master of another fishing vessel. It concluded that the confiscation did not exceed what was necessary in this case and declined to disapply the statutory provision requiring forfeiture. The court specified that its assessment proceeded on the basis that the infringement fell under Article 89 of the EU Control Regulation, rather than Article 90.
It therefore reimposed the original sentence: a €500 fine, confiscation of the catch valued at €344,960, and confiscation of fishing gear valued at €55,000.