Australian Fisheries Management Authority v Su [2009] FCAFC 56

Australian Fisheries Management Authority v Su [2009] FCAFC 56

The appeal failed because the primary judge's findings supported that the Master's mistake was a mistake of fact about the Mitra's position in relation to the AFZ, based on his belief that the GPS red line represented the AFZ boundary, not a mistake of law about the legal boundary itself. The Full Court found no sufficient basis to disturb the findings that the Master actually held that belief, and held that the primary judge applied the correct s 9.2 inquiry as to whether the Master's mistaken belief was objectively reasonable in his circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Seizure and Alleged Forfeiture of a Foreign Fishing Vessel Under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (cth) / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['foreign Fishing Vessel in the Australian Fishing Zone' 'strict Liability Offence' 'mistake of Fact Under S 9.2 of the Criminal Code (cth)' 'forfeiture Under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (cth)' 'appellate Review of Findings of Credit']
['admiralty' 'criminal Law' 'fisheries Law'] ['foreign Fishing Vessel in the Australian Fishing Zone' 'strict Liability Offence' 'mistake of Fact Under S 9.2 of the Criminal Code (cth)' 'forfeiture Under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (cth)' 'appellate Review of Findings of Credit']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Seizure and Alleged Forfeiture of a Foreign Fishing Vessel Under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (cth) / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Master's mistaken belief that a red line on the GPS represented the AFZ boundary was a mistake of fact or a mistake of law." 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Master had an actual mistaken belief that the red line on the GPS represented the location of the border of the AFZ.' "Whether the primary judge asked the correct question when considering whether the Master's mistaken belief was reasonable for the purpose of s 9.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge's findings supported that the Master's mistake was a mistake of fact about the Mitra's position in relation to the AFZ, based on his belief that the GPS red line represented the AFZ boundary, not a mistake of law about the legal boundary itself. The Full Court found no sufficient basis to disturb the findings that the Master actually held that belief, and held that the primary judge applied the correct s 9.2 inquiry as to whether the Master's mistaken belief was objectively reasonable in his circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondents' costs."]