Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Barbelenet and Lefilleul 20-Oct-2006 [2006] JRC 148 (20 October 2006)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Strict liability applies to both the skipper and the owner for breaches of conservation regulations, regardless of the owner's knowledge, to ensure effective enforcement and deterrence. Severe penalties are justified to protect fish stocks and deter future violations.

Court disposition

conviction and sentence

Orders

  • Each defendant fined £8,000 or 8 months' imprisonment in default of payment
  • Confiscation of whelk pots seized by fisheries officers
  • Two weeks granted to pay the fines

02

Material facts

Parties

Monsieur Barbelenet

Defendant

Monsieur Lefilleul

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Per Defendant: GBP 8,000
  • Imprisonment in Default (months): 8

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown Advocate argued for severe penalties to deter breaches of conservation regulations and emphasized the importance of preserving fish stocks for future generations.
Respondent
Counsel for the defendants argued mitigation based on lack of previous convictions, good character, and the owner's lack of knowledge of the illegal activity, and questioned the fairness of strict liability.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG v Grandmougin and Ferrantim [2002/81]

    Fishing conservation rules are made to ensure the survival and preservation of fishing stocks for future generations.

  2. 02

    Statutory law and public policy as referenced in judgment

    Strict liability is imposed on the owner when the skipper commits an offence, as a matter of public policy to ensure compliance with conservation regulations.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Strict liability applies to both the skipper and the owner for breaches of conservation regulations, regardless of the owner's knowledge, to ensure effective enforcement and deterrence. Severe penalties are justified to protect fish stocks and deter future violations.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendants' good character and community service were considered in mitigation but did not outweigh the need for deterrent penalties.
  • A message must go out to all fishermen that severe penalties will be imposed for breaches of conservation regulations.

Court disposition

conviction and sentence

  • Each defendant fined £8,000 or 8 months' imprisonment in default of payment
  • Confiscation of whelk pots seized by fisheries officers
  • Two weeks granted to pay the fines

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2006] JRC 148

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. These two defendants have pleaded guilty to offences involving the catching of over 1,000 undersized spider crabs. This is, we are told, the largest quantity of undersized fish which has been detected by fishery officers. The importance of observing the conservation regulations is obvious.

2. The Deputy Bailiff expressed it in this way in the case of AG -v- Grandmougin and Ferrantim [2002/81]and we cannot put it any better - "The fishing conservation rules are made so as to ensure that the fishing stocks survive and are preserved for future generations. It is the height of selfishness for today's fishermen to put their own financial interests above those of fishermen to come in future generations. The Court must ensure that the level of fines which it imposes is such that it is understood by fishermen that it is not financially worthwhile to break the fishing conservation regulations." 3. The skipper in this case Monsieur Lefilleul, was fully aware that he was breaking the law. His explanation was that he could not get the necessary bait from the merchant and he took the risk of breaking the law in order that his vessel could put to sea.

4. The provisions of the law impose strict liability upon the owner and counsel addressed us at some length upon what was suggested to be the unfairness of this provision. The law provides that if the skipper commits an offence, so too does the owner. The reason for this provision is no doubt one of public policy. The owner benefits from the fishing enterprise and from the profits made by the illegal activity of the skipper.

5. We have been told by counsel that the owner knew nothing of this illegal activity, but we think the law imposes this strict liability in order to ensure that owners ensure that skippers do obey the conservation regulations which are for the benefit of the entire fishing community in the Bay of Granville, both in Jersey, and in Normandy and Brittany.

6. In mitigation we accept that both defendants have no previous convictions, they have served the community of Pirou and they have given valuable and courageous service as members of the French equivalent of the R. N. L. I. We have received and we have taken into consideration a number of excellent references testifying to the good character of the defendants. We have taken all that into account but we think that the fines moved for by the Crown Advocate are correct. A message must go out to all fishermen that if the conservation regulations are broken very severe penalties will be imposed.

7. We therefore impose upon Monsieur Barbelenet and Monsieur Lefilleul each a fine of £8,000 or in default of payment 8 months' imprisonment, and we order the confiscation of the whelk pots seized by the fisheries officers. Both defendants may have two weeks to pay. Authorities AG -v- Grandmougin and Ferrantim [2002/81]. Page Last Updated: 15 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG v Grandmougin and Ferrantim [2002/81]

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.