Fine of $750 for crayfish breach

Press, 3 November 1984, Page 4

Fine of $750 for crayfish breach

A Bluff fisherman was fined $758 in the District Court yesterday on a charge arising from his being seen by a fisheries officer in the car-park of the Carlton Hotel, Christchurch, last December 14 with 644 under-sized crayfish tails in sacks in a utility vehicle. The defendant, Garth Ronald Low, .had pleaded guilty to a charge of committing a breach of the Rock Lobster Regulations by possessing 644 crayfish tails which were less than 152 mm in length. His counsel (Mr E. Bedo) submitted in mitigation of penalty that the conviction would result in the defendant’s losing his commercial fishing licence and livelihood. Mr Bedo also said he “would not like to put money” on the defendant’s brother’s retaining his utility vehicle which had been used by the defendant and was subject to forfeiture to the Crown. This was at the discretion of the Minister of

Fisheries. However, Judge Paterson said when imposing the fine that the taking of undersized crayfish, and other such illegal activities, struck at the base of the Rock Lobster Regulations, both privately and commercially, and to some extent struck at the economy of the country. The Judge said that this was the defendant’s second conviction for a similar offence, and a lot of tails were involved. The tails were obviously not for the defendant’s personal use, although a charge of selling had not been proceeded with.

The defendant had put his career as a commercial fisherman in jeopardy and his brother’s vehicle, which he was using, was “prima facie” forfeited to the Crown, subject to the Minister’s discretion.

Mr A. M. Mclntosh, for the Crown, had sought the withdrawal of a charge of

selling the tails. He said in relation to the charge of possessing them that 78 of the tails had measured 135 mm.

The defendant had been convicted of a similar offence in the District Court at Lumsden in 1979 and fined $3OO. Mr Bedo said that “on the face of it” the conviction would bar the defendant from following his livelihood. “At one stroke” he had lost his income, and his brother’s utility. vehicle might well.be forfeited. He said he was led to believe it would be forfeited because of the close relationship of the two, as brothers, so that the brother might be held to have known, or ought to have known, the purpose to which his vehicle was being put :

The conviction would have a very severe effect on the defendant Mr Bedo said. He asked that these factors be taken into account in fixing the penalty.