The High Court has refused two fishermen’s judicial review challenge to the method used to estimate Dublin Bay prawn catches in Functional Area 16, a fishing ground off Ireland’s west coast. The court held that the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority could use a “time spent” method to estimate the catch after it had reasonable grounds to doubt the accuracy of electronic logbook figures. It also rejected the challenge to the Minister’s reliance on the Authority’s information when issuing closure notices.
The dispute concerned the 2017 catch of Nephrops norvegicus, commonly known as Dublin Bay prawns. The Authority calculated a catch of 1,991 tonnes, compared with 733 tonnes recorded in fishermen’s logbooks. It used the reported time vessels spent inside and outside the fishing area, applying the proportion of time spent in the area to each vessel’s total catch. The estimate was later revised to 1,979 tonnes after additional landing declarations were received, and that figure was sent to the European Commission in February 2018.
The Authority said logbook figures were unreliable because of widespread under-reporting. Its evidence included large disparities between reported catches and time spent in the area, as well as changes in reported catches from surrounding areas after the closure. A Marine Institute scientist described the method as scientifically valid and likely more reliable than relying blindly on the logbook declarations.
The fishermen argued that the EU control regime made logbook figures central and did not permit the Authority to replace them with its own estimate. They criticised the method as flawed and said differences in fishing grounds, equipment, weather and other conditions could explain the catch patterns. They also argued that the method unfairly treated fishermen as having misreported without giving individuals a chance to respond.
Justice Ní Raifeartaigh found that the disparities were extraordinary and could not be explained by the factors raised by the applicants. The court held that the Authority was not required to transmit figures it reasonably believed to be grossly inaccurate and could use another reasonable method to report a reasonably accurate estimate. The judge also found that the method was a general calculation for quota management, not a finding that any particular fisherman had committed unlawful or criminal conduct. Individual fair-hearing rights of the kind claimed did not apply to that general decision.
The court found that the Minister had not acted outside his powers by accepting the Authority’s figures and issuing the relevant fisheries management notices. It also held that the timing of the Commission notification did not make the communication unlawful. The two applicants had sufficient standing to bring the case, and their application was within the judicial review time limit. The court refused the reliefs sought. It did not decide whether any individual fisherman had misreported catches or whether the estimate would prove any offence in a separate criminal proceeding.