1998/42 - AG v Groult [1998] UR 42 (27 February 1998)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1 count of fishing in territorial waters, contrary to Article 9(1) of the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994. (count 1);

1 count of using unmarked fishing gear, contrary to Article 8A(1) of the Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1995. (count 2).

On 18 December 1997 two lines of fully baited whelk pots were found inside the exclusive three mile fishery limits of Jersey with unmarked buoys. It was eventually ascertained that they belonged to the defendant. The defendant said that he had actually jettisoned the pots and buoys in order to go to the speedy assistance of a casualty vessel. Discrepancies between the defendant’s statement and a local fisherman fishing nearby, Mr Christopher Le Masurier, were such that the Crown refused to accept that the defendant had dropped his pots because of the emergency and led evidence suggesting that the defendant could not have been in the position five miles off the coast of France where he alleged he was. Defendant conceded he had intended to fish.

Defendant co-operative and came to Jersey in January and then for the February Court date by agreement. He was apparently in serious financial difficulties and produced various exhibits to the Court to substantiate his claim. He was separated from his wife but supporting her and his four year old daughter. He had been deprived of the 110 whelk pots since their seizure on 18 December and this had increased his financial difficulties.

If the defendant was unable to pay then the Crown asked that the seized pots be retained under Article 9(3) of the 1994 Law until the fine was paid in full, failing which one month’s imprisonment. The Crown sought £100 reimbursement of Interpreters costs.

It was accepted by the Court that the pots were new and the defendant presented documentary evidence that the markers for the Kingshead buoys had been ordered and were in fact delivered the day after the pots were seized. It was noted that the defendant had co-operated but the Court observed that it did not wish the defendant to go back to France to give the impression that the authorities did not consider this a serious offence. The Court allowed the defendant to take his pots back to France providing he paid a substantial amount towards the fine. Counsel had already indicated that he had £1,000 with him. Defendant was given 6 months to pay the balance. It was noted that there had been co-operation and genuine help between the French and Jersey fisherman in this case. One month imprisonment in default of each count.

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The penalties for fishing inside territorial waters must be severe. If they were not we would be failing those whose livelihood depends on fishing. It is hard enough work without finding that those not entitled to fish are effectively taking stock that cannot lawfully be theirs and we say that particularly in an industry which is growing in Jersey.

We must give consideration to a fine which is a deterrent and, if we may say so, pour encourager les autres. However, there is something to be said in mitigation. The accused has lost the use of his pots since 18 December; he was - and we do not doubt it - going to the assistance of another vessel; he has co-operated; and on the information before us, has some serious financial difficulties not entirely connected with his business; and we recall that he has to maintain a four year old child.

On count 2 we are quite prepared to accept, on what Mr. Landick has told us, that he was not fishing with unmarked gear for any other reason than that his new markings had not yet been delivered to him by the printers.

Will you stand up, please, Monsieur Groult. We are going to reduce the fine but we do not want you to go back to France to give the impression that this Court will not be more severe when the justice of the case demands. We are going to fine you £1,000 on count 1 and £200 on count 2. You must pay the costs of an interpreter of £100 but we are going to allow you to take your gear back to France with you and, on the basis that you pay a substantial part of the fine today, you can have 6 months to pay the balance. And, could I just say in passing, that we are pleased to record there has been co-operation and genuine help between Jersey and French fishermen in this case.

Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations, 1995: Regulation 8A

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/42 - AG v Groult [1998] UR 42 (27 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/42.html Cite as: [1998] UR 42

Jersey Unreported Judgments