The Supreme Court has ruled that a fisheries law gives a sentencing judge discretion over how much fish or fishing gear to forfeit after a relevant conviction. The Court refused the specific relief sought in an appeal by Juan M. Montemuino, while proposing to hear further submissions on whether any alternative relief should be granted.
Mr Montemuino was facing criminal proceedings on indictment over an allegation that he failed to record the true quantity of forkbeard caught and kept on board his vessel. The alleged breach concerned Irish regulations implementing European Union fisheries rules. The judgment does not decide whether he committed the alleged offence.
His constitutional challenge to section 224B(3) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 had failed in the High Court. In the Supreme Court appeal, a question arose about the section’s meaning: did it require forfeiture of all fish and fishing gear found on the vessel, or allow a sentencing judge to choose what should be forfeited? That interpretation issue had not been raised before the High Court.
The original constitutional argument assumed that forfeiture was mandatory. The judgment records that the fish on board on the relevant occasion were worth more than €30,000, while the forkbeard involved in the alleged recording failure was valued at €600. The Court also noted that the penalty regime had since been amended, but that about 60 cases involving alleged earlier offences might be affected by its decision.
Justice Clarke said the wording “a statutory consequence” could suggest an automatic result, while “all or any” suggested a choice. Because the provision imposed a criminal penalty and was ambiguous, it had to be interpreted in the way more favourable to the accused. The Court therefore construed it as giving the sentencing judge discretion to order forfeiture of any amount up to all the fish or gear found on the vessel.
The Court said that interpretation removed the constitutional issue raised in the appeal. It therefore refused the specific relief sought. The judgment did not decide the underlying criminal allegation or impose a forfeiture order; it left open whether alternative relief should be granted after further submissions.