Montemuino -v- Minister for Communications Marine and Natural Resources & ors [2013] IESC 40 (17 October 2013)

Montemuino -v- Minister for Communications Marine and Natural Resources & ors [2013] IESC 40 (17 October 2013)

Section 224B(3) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, properly construed, confers a discretion on the sentencing judge to order forfeiture of all or any of the fish and fishing gear found on the vessel, rather than imposing a mandatory forfeiture of all such items. As a result, the constitutional challenge based on disproportionality does not arise.

Citation
[2013] IESC 40
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Juan M Montemuino; Respondents: Minister for Communications Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; relief refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Penal Statutes, Proportionality of Penalties, Fisheries Regulation, Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
Criminal Law Constitutional Law European Union Law Statutory Interpretation Penal Statutes Proportionality of Penalties Fisheries Regulation Judicial Discretion in Sentencing

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juan M Montemuino

Applicant/appellant

Minister for Communications Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.224B(3) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 imposes a mandatory forfeiture of all fish and fishing gear or confers discretion on the sentencing judge
  2. 2 Whether the provision is unconstitutional due to disproportionality if interpreted as mandatory forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

Section 224B(3) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, properly construed, confers a discretion on the sentencing judge to order forfeiture of all or any of the fish and fishing gear found on the vessel, rather than imposing a mandatory forfeiture of all such items. As a result, the constitutional challenge based on disproportionality does not arise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; relief refused

Orders

  • Court to hear further submissions on alternative relief, if any