Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC148

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th October 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff and Jurats Georgelin and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Hubert Joseph Lefilleul

Jean Bernard Barbelenet

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty plea to the following:

Hubert Joseph Lefilleul

 

1 count of:

Retaining in his possession Spider Crabs of a smaller size than prescribed, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Sea fisheries (Jersey) Law, 1994 (Count 1).

Age:  56.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

Fisheries Officers, whilst on routine patrol on the North Coast of the Island, checked a number of Kinghead marker buoys marked belonging to a registered French fishing vessel "Pere Jules".  They discovered two lines of whelk pots which contained undersized Spider crabs.  A total of 76 undersized Spider crabs were found on one line and a total of 68 undersized Spider crabs on another.  The line of whelk pots were seized by the Fisheries Officers.  In the early hours of the following morning Fisheries Officers were again on patrol and located the fishing vessel "Pere Jules" in the vicinity of the line of the whelk pots seized the previous day.  Upon boarding the "Pere Jules" vessel, they discovered 13 baskets containing 882 undersized Spider crabs.  The total of undersized Spider crabs seized over the period was, therefore, 1,026. 

The skipper of the "Pere Jules" was Lefilleul.  He was requested to report to Jersey with the Fisheries Officers where he was interviewed under caution.  He admitted that the crabs were undersized and that he had caught them with the intention of using them as bait as he had not received a delivery of bait for two days.  Lefilleul was released and was permitted to return to the vessel and to France.  A letter was sent to the owner of the vessel, Barbelenet as pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law, 1994.  Barbelenet was also responsible for offences under Article 6(1).

Details of Mitigation:

Lefilleul was co-operative at all times and both men had entered guilty pleas before the Magistrate's Court on the first appearance.  Both men were of previous good character and glowing references were provided for them from various individuals.  Very little financial information was provided by the Defendants in advance of the sentencing hearing to the Crown and in the absence of any information relating to the contractual relationship or financial circumstances the Crown treated both men as being equally responsible under the Law.  Defence Counsel provided the Court with details of the relationship between the two men.  Lefilleul acted as a skipper with two crew men and took a share of profits.  He took one sixth.  One sixth was shared between the two crew men and the remaining four sixths profit was taken by Barbelenet but he was responsible for all the expenses in running the vessel etcetera.  Lefilleul had acted entirely on his own behalf without any prior knowledge or approval from Barbelenet.  Because there had been no supply of bait from the normal supplier, Lefilleul had decided to act on his own initiative.  He had homemade callipers which were of the correct size and he knew the bait was undersized.  It was claimed that this was an isolated incident.  Apologies were offered to the Court.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

£8,000 fine or 8 months' imprisonment in default.

Confiscation of whelk pots seized by the Fisheries Officer.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  2 weeks to pay fine.  Confiscation Order granted.

These two Defendants had pleaded guilty to catching over 1,000 undersized crabs which is the largest quantity of undersized crabs so far detected by the Fisheries Officers.  The importance of observing conservation regulations is obvious.  The Court reiterated the comments of the Deputy Bailiff in the Attorney General-v-Grandmougin and Ferrantim saying that he could not put it any better (see Attorney General-v-Grandmougin and Ferrantim (2002).  Counsel for the Defendants advised that the skipper, Lefilleul was fully aware that he was breaking the law and he did so because he could not get the necessary bait from the usual supplier.  He took the risk of breaking the Law in order to go to sea.  The present law imposes strict liability on the owner.  Defence Counsel addressed this at some length on what was suggested to be the unfairness of the provision.  The law, however, provides that if the skipper breaks the Law, then the owner is also liable.  The reasons for this are no doubt one of public policy as the owner benefits from the enterprise.  He benefits from the illegal activities of the skipper.  It was contended that the owner knew nothing but we think the Law imposes the strict liability in order to ensure that owners themselves ensure that skippers do obey the conservation regulations for the benefit of the entire fishing community in the Bay of Granville.  In terms of mitigation, both men were of good character and had no previous convictions.  Both served the community of Pirou.  They had given valuable and courageous service as members of the French equivalent of the RNLI.  The Court had received and taken into account a number of excellent references.  However, taking all matters into account the Court concluded that the fines sought by the Crown were at the correct level.  The message must go out to all fishermen that if conservation regulations are broken very severe penalties will be imposed.

 

Jean Bernard Barbelenet

 

1 count of:

Retaining in his possession Spider Crabs of a smaller size than prescribed, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Sea fisheries (Jersey) Law, 1994 (Count 2).

Age:  41.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Filleul above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Filleul above.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 2:

£8,000 fine or 8 months' imprisonment in default.

Confiscation of whelk pots seized by the Fisheries Officer.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  2 weeks to pay fine.  Confiscation Order granted.

See Filleul above.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for both Defendants.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        These two defendants have pleaded guilty to offences involving the catching of over 1,000 undersized spider crabs.  This is, we are told, the largest quantity of undersized fish which has been detected by fishery officers.  The importance of observing the conservation regulations is obvious.

2.        The Deputy Bailiff expressed it in this way in the case of AG -v- Grandmougin and Ferrantim [2002/81]and we cannot put it any better -

"The fishing conservation rules are made so as to ensure that the fishing stocks survive and are preserved for future generations.  It is the height of selfishness for today's fishermen to put their own financial interests above those of fishermen to come in future generations.

The Court must ensure that the level of fines which it imposes is such that it is understood by fishermen that it is not financially worthwhile to break the fishing conservation regulations."

3.        The skipper in this case Monsieur Lefilleul, was fully aware that he was breaking the law.  His explanation was that he could not get the necessary bait from the merchant and he took the risk of breaking the law in order that his vessel could put to sea. 

4.        The provisions of the law impose strict liability upon the owner and counsel addressed us at some length upon what was suggested to be the unfairness of this provision.  The law provides that if the skipper commits an offence, so too does the owner.  The reason for this provision is no doubt one of public policy.  The owner benefits from the fishing enterprise and from the profits made by the illegal activity of the skipper.

5.        We have been told by counsel that the owner knew nothing of this illegal activity, but we think the law imposes this strict liability in order to ensure that owners ensure that skippers do obey the conservation regulations which are for the benefit of the entire fishing community in the Bay of Granville, both in Jersey, and in Normandy and Brittany.

6.        In mitigation we accept that both defendants have no previous convictions, they have served the community of Pirou and they have given valuable and courageous service as members of the French equivalent of the R.N.L.I.  We have received and we have taken into consideration a number of excellent references testifying to the good character of the defendants.  We have taken all that into account but we think that the fines moved for by the Crown Advocate are correct.  A message must go out to all fishermen that if the conservation regulations are broken very severe penalties will be imposed.

7.        We therefore impose upon Monsieur Barbelenet and Monsieur Lefilleul each a fine of £8,000 or in default of payment 8 months' imprisonment, and we order the confiscation of the whelk pots seized by the fisheries officers.  Both defendants may have two weeks to pay.

Authorities

AG -v- Grandmougin and Ferrantim [2002/81].