The High Court has rejected a fisherman’s challenge to a law requiring forfeiture of fish aboard a vessel if he is convicted of failing to record part of its catch. The court found the sanction proportionate under Irish law and EU law, and refused the relief sought in his judicial review proceedings.
The applicant, a Spanish national, was master of the Irish registered fishing boat M.V. Ocean Enterprise when sea fishery protection officers boarded it on 8 December 2005. The vessel was detained and later released after a bank draft of €88,000 was provided as security. The judgment records that the catch was valued at €31,057, including about €600 worth of Greater Fork Beard. The logbook had no entry for that species, which had to be recorded above a specified weight.
The applicant was ultimately prosecuted on indictment for failing to record the true quantity of Greater Fork Beard. The judgment says he accepted the facts alleged in the book of evidence and would normally intend to plead guilty. The criminal trial had been adjourned pending the judicial review; the High Court did not determine his guilt.
If convicted, the applicant faced a fine of up to £100,000 and mandatory forfeiture of fish found aboard the vessel. His challenge argued that forfeiting the entire catch over an alleged recording failure concerning about €600 worth of fish would be disproportionate, and that the law breached constitutional and EU rights. He also challenged the requirement for trial on indictment.
The respondents argued that forfeiture was not a penalty and that any loss would fall on another person connected with the vessel. The court rejected both preliminary submissions. It held that forfeiture was a direct penalty and found that the respondents had not established that the applicant had no interest in the catch or would suffer no loss.
The court then held that forfeiture was rationally connected to the fisheries control system’s aim of ensuring accurate records and discouraging further offences. It concluded that the sanction was not disproportionate and did not invalidate the law under the Constitution or EU law. The applicant had also failed to establish that trial on indictment breached his right to trial in due course of law. His European Convention arguments were not made out; he had not sought a declaration of incompatibility.
The High Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to the declarations or prohibition sought. It also decided no reference to the European Court of Justice was necessary. The underlying criminal prosecution remained for trial; the judgment did not decide whether the applicant would be convicted or whether forfeiture would be ordered.