Fisherman Caught In Legal Net
Early one morning last October, a fisheries officer from the Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Association (SIFCA) on patrol at Rock-a-Nore spotted two fishermen taking fish from a net and putting them in a bag. The officer identified himself and asked to inspect the catch. One of the men moved swiftly out of sight round a building and deposited the contents of his bag in a waste bin. On inspection it turned out to contain under-size bass.
The absconding fisherman was identified as 47-year-old local man Simon Coglan. He was interviewed under caution on 16th November in respect of two breaches of fishing regulations under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA) – illegal commercial fishing for bass with nets from the shore, and the retention of bass below the legal minimum size – but also for “obstruction” of a fisheries officer in the course of his duty. Coglan admitted that he had recognised the officer but “didn’t want to be caught”. He also admitted that the catch had included some under-size fish. According to Coglan the interviewing officer told him: “I’m going to continue with my investigation. You’ll be informed”.
On 7th December he received two “administrative penalty” notices from the SIFCA, each requiring him to pay £125 in respect of infringement of regulations. Coglan paid up, and assumed that the matter was disposed of. On 30th January he received a summons to Hastings Magistrates on a charge of obstruction under section 292 of the MCCA.
When the case came before them last week Coglan’s barrister John Hatton (instructed by solicitors Holden & Co) argued that the prosecution was unfair. His client had held a “legitimate expectation” that his payment of the administrative notices would suffice to clear the incident. He had received no warning that a later charge might be issued on the same facts.
For the prosecution it was argued that the offence of obstruction was an “entirely distinct process” from the breaches of regulations. The enforcement scheme undertaken by the SIFCA depended upon co-operation which the accused had failed to give. In any event, the argument that the proceedings were unfairly brought was not one which the Magistrates had power to determine; if the defence wished to pursue this, they would have to do so in a higher court.
After further argument from Mr Hatton, the Magistrates conferred. They saw a way out. Taking the view that the issue of “legitimate expectation” was not one that they could resolve, they were ready to adjourn the case while it was reviewed above, with whatever delay and further legal costs that might entail. However, as an alternative, it was indicated that, if the defence argument was dropped and the case proceeded forthwith on a guilty plea, no substantial further penalty (i.e. on top of the £250 already paid) would be imposed. Coglan pleaded accordingly to the obstruction offence, and the Magistrates proceeded to order a conditional discharge.
That wasn’t quite the end of it, though. The prosecution claimed to have incurred over 34 hours of time preparing the case for a full trial, including reviewing the legal authorities on the question of unfairness, and attending previous hearings. Counsel’s time was charged at £150 per hour – a modest rate, it was suggested, for such legal expertise – and the accused should bear a substantial portion of the total bill, having previously pleaded not guilty and raised the legal argument that had now been abandoned.
Mr Hatton pointed out that his client’s earnings as a fisherman were in the region of £100-200 per week, not per hour. Coglan accepted that he had “done wrong”, but he simply didn’t have the money to pay this kind of levy.
The Magistrates ordered a contribution of £750, payable at £10 per week.
Commenting on the case afterwards, Chief Fisheries and Conservation Officer Tim Dapling said that the SIFCA “has a duty to manage the sustainable exploitation of sea fisheries resources and take necessary steps to balance socio-economic considerations with the need to protect and promote the recovery of the marine environment. The obstruction of a fisheries officer is regarded by the Authority as a serious offence. This is reflected within the law, as such an offence cannot be addressed by means of a financial penalty and requires courts to consider these offences.
“The Authority hopes this provides a clear message that, individuals should always co-operate with fisheries officers whilst they undertake their work to protect stocks and promote sustainable fisheries.”
Over the past five years, according to Mr Dapling, the SIFCA has issued 94 verbal warnings, 12 “official written warnings” and 15 fixed administrative penalties totalling £7,750, and mounted six prosecutions with fines and costs totalling £7,250 and £11,114 respectively.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply