South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee v Saunders

Criminal fisheries byelaws must be construed strictly. Where their language is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the defendant. Conduct undertaken within a fisheries district to break open nets and release debris, rocks and fish is not necessarily a fishing operation or the use of a method of fishing. Nets are not being used as instruments of fishing merely because they are in the water, if they are being handled for a purpose unrelated to catching sea fish. Crossing the fisheries boundary or carrying out incidental tasks within the vessel does not, without more, constitute fishing in breach of the byelaws.

The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee appealed by case stated from the acquittal of Malcolm Saunders by the Dyfed-Powys justices. Mr Saunders, the skipper of the Admiral Blake, had entered the fisheries district to break open nets and release debris, rocks and fish, and then to stream the nets. The central issue was whether that conduct constituted using a method or instrument of fishing, or using a mechanically powered boat in a fishing operation, contrary to byelaws 38 and 41.

1. Appeal dismissed. The case-stated question was answered wholly in favour of the defendant.
2. Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 empowered the local fisheries committee to make byelaws regulating fishing methods and instruments. Byelaw 38 prohibited using a method or instrument of fishing from or in conjunction with an oversized vessel. Byelaw 41 prohibited using a mechanically powered boat in a fishing operation without the required permit.
3. The phrase “using a method of fishing” did not cover entering the district to break open nets and release their contents. The natural meaning adopted by the justices was correct.
4. The phrase “using an instrument of fishing” was, at least from the prosecutor’s perspective, ambiguous. Although nets can be instruments used in fishing, they were not being so used at the material time. Criminal ambiguity therefore required the issue to be resolved for the defendant.
5. Similarly, handling nets for a safety operation, or carrying out tasks entirely within the vessel connected with the expedition, did not clearly constitute using a boat “in any fishing operation”. Merely crossing the six-mile boundary while travelling to or from fishing outside the limit would not be enough.
6. The court obtained assistance from Alexander v Tonkin [1979] 1 W.L.R. 629, where fishing continued while a catch was being pumped aboard because further labour was required to remove the fish from the sea and reduce them to possession. That reasoning did not make the present safety operation fishing.
7. Mr Saunders was entitled to an order for costs from central funds under section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act.

High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court heard the prosecutor’s appeal by case stated from the acquittal of the defendant by the justices for the Dyfed-Powys Commission Area sitting at Tenby. The appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered from central funds.