NEIFCA lobster fine reduced by £30k on appeal

Questions asked about flawed original case, and failure to follow Manual of Guidance used by other IFCAs when undertaking prosecutions

Bridlington fisherman Sam Laws has successfully appealed parts of his conviction, and a huge fine imposed by the Magistrates’ Court in Scarborough, after proceedings brought by the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (NEIFCA). His original conviction related to the landing of two berried lobsters, one undersized lobster, 11 soft-shelled lobsters and three mutilated lobsters.

He was prosecuted in his personal capacity as skipper of the vessel Our Helena R 51. For reasons that are unclear, NEIFCA took no action against the owner of the vessel, which was a limited company – a factor that was to become important down the line.

Sam Laws told FN: “I had never even been warned or cautioned when inspected by IFCA officers before, never been charged before, never been to court. I pleaded guilty straight away, even to the soft lobster charge that I would have challenged if I’d had a lawyer. I thought it served me right, and I’d take the fine and put it behind me.

“In court, the NEIFCA lawyer clearly knew nothing about the issue or fishing. Then I was fined over £30,000! It wasn’t just that; I was made out to be a real criminal when the case was reported. My phone was red hot afterwards, with fishermen from all over saying it was outrageous, and to appeal.”

The only financial information presented to the magistrates by the prosecution was the grossings of the vessel for a three-year period. Despite Sam Laws having no previous convictions and pleading guilty at the first available opportunity, the court imposed fines of £7,500 on each of the four charges, plus costs and the mandatory ‘victim surcharge’, making a final overall penalty of £33,050.

Subsequent specialist legal advice was that the penalty was manifestly excessive and should be appealed. In addition, the offence in respect of the undersized lobster was brought under legislation that had been repealed in 2019!

After discussion with the lawyers representing NEIFCA at the appeal hearing in York in October, it was agreed that the Crown Court would quash the conviction for retaining an undersized lobster.

Mr Laws’ legal representative argued that any fine for the other offences should be assessed on the owning company’s financial position, not his personal finances, and that NEIFCA had had the opportunity to prosecute the company, but had consciously chosen not to do so. The court agreed, with the judge stating that NEIFCA had chosen not to prosecute the company, and had furthermore decided to prosecute Mr Laws in person.

After hearing from the defence lawyers about the relevant sentencing guidelines, which it seems had not been made available to the magistrates in Scarborough, the original fine of £33,050 was quashed. A fine of £2,372 was substituted for the berried lobster case, and no additional penalties were imposed for the mutilated and soft lobsters.

The victim surcharge was reduced proportionately, resulting in a revised penalty on appeal of £3,320.80 – a reduction of just short of £30,000.

In addition, Mr Laws’ costs for the appeal were ordered to be paid out of central funds.

Mr Laws was represented by solicitor Andrew Oliver of Andrew Jackson LLP, Hull, and barrister Ben Thomas of Park Square Barristers, Leeds.

This story was taken from the latest issue of Fishing News. For more up-to-date and in-depth reports on the UK and Irish commercial fishing sector, subscribe to Fishing News here or buy the latest single issue for just £3.50 here.

Sign up to Fishing News’ FREE e-newsletter here.