Bossom & Anor, R v

An exemption for fishing vessels under 10 metres from the formal EU logbook and landing-declaration regime does not prevent a Member State from imposing individual monthly catch limits through licence conditions. Such limits are lawful if they do not, in substance, impose the exempted record-keeping duties and comply with general EU principles.

A requirement to keep a practical tally of catches is not equivalent to the detailed prescribed records required for larger vessels. A restriction may be proportionate, enforceable and legally certain even though enforcement uses voluntary landing information, local intelligence and spot checks. On conviction on indictment, the court may impose one fine calculated by reference to the value of unlawfully landed fish and a separate punitive element.

The appellants were experienced commercial fishermen operating vessels under 10 metres from Hastings. Each pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to breaching a licence condition under Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, section 4(6), after landing cod substantially in excess of a 150kg monthly limit.

They appealed their convictions, contending that DEFRA's individual monthly limits were incompatible with the EU control regime because under-10-metre vessels were exempt from formal logbooks and landing declarations. They also advanced proportionality, discrimination and legal-certainty arguments. Their domestic-law challenge was not pursued.

They separately sought leave to appeal their fines, arguing that the sentencing judge had imposed two fines for one offence and that the financial penalties were manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The exemption for vessels under 10 metres in Council Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 was an exemption from the detailed EU logbook and landing-declaration requirements. It neither prohibited other national controls nor gave smaller-vessel operators a right to fish without regard to the amount caught.

2. The licence conditions did not, in law or in practice, impose the exempted formal recording duties. The appellants needed only to keep a practical tally of catches. Experienced fishermen could estimate catches from standard boxes and use merchants' records of landings. That was materially different from maintaining the prescribed EU log sheets and declarations.

3. The monthly limits were proportionate. All catches, including those of smaller vessels, had to be charged against the United Kingdom quota. Individual limits were a legitimate alternative to closing the fishery once the fleet quota was reached, an option which could itself cause caught cod to be discarded. DEFRA's sampling, voluntary merchant information, local intelligence and spot checks meant that enforcement was not unworkable merely because every landing could not be monitored.

4. The restriction was also clear and precise. It applied to a stated class of vessel, area, species, quantity and calendar month. The appellants knew of the limits and could have kept within them. The discrimination and legal-certainty challenges therefore failed.

5. The applications for leave to appeal sentence were refused. On conviction on indictment, section 11 permitted one fine. The judge ultimately imposed one total fine for each appellant, calculated from the value of the excess fish and a general punitive element. It was proper to assess the economic benefit by the total value of the excess fish, and neither fine was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against conviction and refused leave to appeal sentence.
• Lewes Crown Court: following a ruling that the licence conditions were not unlawful, the appellants pleaded guilty to offences under section 4(6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and were fined.