Department of Fisheries v James Lewis Mallo
[2023] QMC 20
•28 November 2023
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Department of Fisheries v James Lewis Mallo [2023] QMC 20
PARTIES:
CRAIG BAMBLING (Complainant)
v
JAMES LEWIS MALLO (Defendant)
&
NICOLE YOUNG (Complainant)
v
JAMES LEWIS MALLO (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
MAG_00168385/21(8); MAG-00167929/21(4);
MAG-00209392/21(6); MAG-00197823/21(6)
DISTRICT:
Gympie
PROCEEDING:
Summary Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Gympie Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:
28 November 2023
DELIVERED AT:
Gympie Magistrates Court
HEARING DATES:
25 August 2022, 31 January 2023 and 22 June 2023
MAGISTRATE:
C Callaghan
ORDER:
GUILTY ON EACH CHARGE
CATCHWORDS:
FISHERIES COMPLAINTS – FAIL TO COMPLETE FISHING LOGBOOKS – fail to comply with information requirement – where defendant alleges Fisheries Act 1994 doesn’t apply to him as no proof of proclamation of the Act nor of its publication – where defendant alleges that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is a corporation and as he has no contract with same he is not bound by the Act – where defendant alleges that the prosecutions are unlawful acts – judicial notice taken of official copy of Queensland legislation – official copy of Queensland legislation is legislation authorised by Parliamentary Counsel and published on the Queensland legislation website – all people stand equal before the law – was information requirement made – did it apply to the defendant – voir dire on expert evidence as to whether fishing took place on certain days – could defendant reasonably be expected to obtain the required information – was logbook materially incomplete
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
R Carroll (Complainant)
In House Legal for Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Defendant represented himself
The defendant is and was at all relevant times the holder of a commercial fishing licence. He was also master of the commercial fishing boat, “Challenger K”, marked with the boat mark, FPUF.
Four complaints were filed against the defendant by Inspectors of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (the Department) under the Fisheries Act 1994[1](the Act). The complaints in general terms are about allegations that the defendant failed to complete logbooks as required by the Act (at some times, improperly, and at other times not at all).
[1] Two complaints were by Craig Bambling which were filed in the Bowen and Townsville Magistrates Courts, respectively and two complaints were made by Nicole young and were filed in the Maryborough and Gympie Magistrates Courts respectively.
The four complaints contain fifty charges against the defendant, the offences for which are said to have been committed from September to November of 2020. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to these charges.
Essentially, they all are that he failed to comply with an information requirement pursuant to Section 118 of the Act.
The charges were all ordered to be heard together on the first day of trial, 25 August 2022.[2]
[2] See Transcript Day 1, P-18 L-37 to P-19 L37
A Chronology of the charges with brief particulars is as follows:
| Charge No. | Date (on or about) | Description/Requirement | Charge No. in File |
| 1 | 12.09.20 | Failed to keep logbook for period 01.09.20 – 11.09.20 when not fishing | Chg 1 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 2 | 12.09.20 | Did not record Commercial Fisher’s licence number at the top of Page 1 when fishing off Bowen | Chg 2 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 3 | 12.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 3 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 4 | 13.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 4 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 5 | 14.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 5 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 6 | 15.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 6 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 7 | 16.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Ayr | Chg 1 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 8 | 17.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 2 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 9 | 18.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 3 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 10 | 19.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 4 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 11 | 20.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 5 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 12 | 21.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 6 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 13 | 22.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 7 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 14 | 23.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 8 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 15 | 24.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing | Chg 9 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 16 | 24.09.20 | Did not record Commercial Fisher’s Licence number or endorsement on page 2 when fishing off Townsville | Chg 10 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 17 | 25.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 11 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 18 | 26.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 12 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 19 | 27.09.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Townsville | Chg 13 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 20 | 05.10.20 | Failed to keep logbook for period 28.09.20 – 29.09.20 when not fishing | Chg 14 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 21 | 05.10.20 | Failed to keep logbook for period 01.10.20 – 04.10.20 when not fishing | Chg 15 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 22 | 05.10.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Ayr | Chg 16 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 23 | 06.10.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Ayr | Chg 17 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 24 | 07.10.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Ayr | Chg 18 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 25 | 08.10.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Ayr | Chg 19 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 26 | 09.10.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Ayr | Chg 20 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 27 | 10.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Ayr | Chg 21 MAG-00167929/21 (4) |
| 28 | 11.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 7 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 29 | 12.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 8 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 30 | 13.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 9 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 31 | 14.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 10 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 32 | 15.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 11 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 33 | 16.10.20 | Did not record position of maximum catch or effort when fishing off Bowen | Chg 12 MAG-00168385/21(8) |
| 34 | 02.11.20 | Failed to keep logbook for period 23.10.20 – 01.11.20 when not fishing | Chg 1 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 35 | 02.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 2 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 36 | 03.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 3 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 37 | 04.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 4 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 38 | 05.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 5 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 39 | 06.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 6 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 40 | 07.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 7 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 41 | 08.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when not fishing | Chg 1 MAG-00197823/21(6) |
| 42 | 09.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when not fishing | Chg 2 MAG-00197823/21(6) |
| 43 | 10.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when not fishing | Chg 3 MAG-00197823/21(6) |
| 44 | 11.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 8 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 45 | 12.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 9 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 46 | 13.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 10 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 47 | 14.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 11 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 48 | 15.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 12 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 49 | 16.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 13 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
| 50 | 17.11.20 | Failed to keep the logbook when fishing off Fraser Island | Chg 14 MAG-00209392/21(6) |
Section 118 of the Act at the material time, relevantly provided:
118 Information requirements
(1) A regulation or declaration, a condition of an authority, or the chief executive by written notice, may require (an information requirement) a person to—
(a) obtain and keep for stated periods, in the approved form, stated documents or information (the required information) about a fisheries matter; or
(b) give the chief executive or another stated person documents or information mentioned in paragraph (a) (also the required information), in writing or in another stated way, or at stated intervals or times.
…
(2) However, an information requirement may apply to or be made of a person only if the required information relates to the person, or could reasonably be expected to relate to the person.
(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that, subject to subsection (2), subsection (1) is capable of applying to a person whether or not the person performs activities by way of fishing or other activities.
(4) A person to whom an information requirement applies, or of whom an information requirement has been made, must comply with the requirement unless, in the circumstances, the person could not reasonably have been expected to have, or to be able to obtain, the required information.
…(penalty provisions)
(5) In a proceeding for an offence against subsection (4), it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that a person failed to comply with the information requirement at a particular time if it is proved that—
(a) the documents or information kept by the person for a particular period are incomplete in a material particular; and
(b) the incompleteness has, or can only have, resulted from the contravention of the information requirement during that period.
(6) In this section—
fisheries matter means—
(a) aquaculture, aquaculture fisheries resources, fishing, a fishery or fisheries resources; or
…
In order to prove these offences, the prosecution must satisfy the court beyond all reasonable doubt that:
1. An information requirement was made pursuant to section 118(1) of the Act;
2. That information requirement applied to the defendant as the commercial fisher and relevant person;
3. Fishing took place on the relevant dates (and did not take place on some of the dates where it’s not stipulated fishing took place, but the logbooks nevertheless had to be completed pursuant to the information requirement);
4. The defendant could reasonable been expected to have, or to be able to obtain the required information pursuant to section 118(4) of the Act;
5. The logbook was materially incomplete for each charge either by not containing an entry for the particular date or by containing an incomplete entry which incompleteness could only have resulted from the requirement not having been met by the defendant.
The defendant says the Act doesn’t apply to him. As far as I can understand his arguments, he says: -
1. He has not been shown a proclamation under the seal of Queen Victoria;
2. The “Proclamation” of the Act was never published in a gazette;
3. A lawful proclamation of the Act with Royal Assent has not been provided;
4. The Queensland State Government holds an ABN 75818456675 registered to the United States Securities Exchange Commission was not sworn and appointed by a Governor or Governor in Council who has been sworn and appointed by His Majesty King Charles III, and who holds the appropriate seal in letters patent establishing the colony of Queensland on 6 June 1859;
5. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is required by USA law to register itself as a company under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938 (United States) and it has not done so;
6. ASIC requires the Department to apply to register itself in Australia as a foreign company, and it has not done so;
7. There is a Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol legal defence fund which holds an ABN number 8293377102 but there is no corresponding ABN registration for the Department, therefore as it’s not registered it has no standing at law;
8. Inspectors of the Department assumed that the Defendant is a sovereign citizen (which he says he is not);
9. The Defendant is not a member or employee of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and his name is not in the Act;
10. That because the High Court of Australia in Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia & Ors v Queensland Rail & Ors[3] found that the Queensland Rail is a trading corporation within the meaning of Section 51(xx) of the Constitution[4] and subject to the Fairwork Act 2009 (Cth) therefore the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is a trading corporation and should not be treated as forming part of the Executive Government and therefore all actions taken by it are unlawful.
[3] [2015] HCA 11
[4] S 51 (xx) of the Constitution (Cwlth) provides that the Parliament (of Australia) shall have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth
11. A citizen has a fundamental right to resist unlawful governmental action and this action is unlawful;
12. He, the Defendant, has a right to fish in pursuit of his livelihood;
13. Other arguments which concern the Constitution of New South Wales and Australia’s Constitution which I have failed to understand;
14. Because the defendant has no contract with the corporation called the Queensland Government, and has no contract with the Labor Party, and has no contract with Anastacia Palaszczuk, the Premier of Queensland, and he has no contract with Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, the laws made by the Parliament of Queensland do not apply to him.
These arguments fail as the laws of the Queensland Parliament do apply to the defendant. The Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) provides by Section 1:
There shall be within the said Colony of Queensland a Legislative Assembly.
By Section 2:
Within the said Colony of Queensland Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said Assembly to make laws for the peace welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever.
By Section 2A:
(1)The Parliament of Queensland consists of the Queen and the Legislative Assembly referred to in sections 1 and 2.
(2)Every Bill, after its passage through the Legislative Assembly, shall be presented to the Governor for assent by or in the name of the Queen and shall be of no effect unless it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen.
Section 43 of Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) provides that judicial notice must be taken of the following:
(a) every Act;
(b) every statutory instrument; and …
(h) every official copy of Queensland legislation.
The Acts Interpretation Act (1954) (Qld) provides in Schedule 1 that: “official copy” in relation to Queensland Legislation means a copy of the legislation – (a) printed by or under the authority of the Government printer; or authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel and published on the Queensland legislation website.
The Act with which we are concerned here namely the Fisheries Act 1994 is Queensland legislation which has been authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel and published on the Queensland legislation website. I take judicial notice of that publication and find that it is a law of Queensland, and it applies to everybody whilst in this State including this defendant.
Similarly, The Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), the Evidence Act 1977(Qld) and the Acts Interpretation Act (1954) (Qld) are pieces of Queensland Legislation which have been authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel and published on the Queensland legislation website and of which I therefore take judicial notice and find that they are laws of Queensland which apply to everybody whilst in this State.
In Walker v New South Wales[5] Mason CJ said at page 49:
[5] [1994] 182 CLR 45.
“It is a basic principle that all people should stand equal before the law. A construction which results in different criminal sanctions applying to different person in conduct offends that basic principle… The general rule is an enactment applies to all persons and matters within the territory to which it extends, but not to any persons and matters. The rule extends not only to all persons ordinarily resident within the country but also to foreigners temporarily visiting. And just as all persons in the country enjoy the benefits of domestic laws from which they are not expressly excluded, so also must they accept the burdens of those laws imposed. The presumption applies with added force in the case of the criminal law which is inherently universal in its operation.”
Earlier Mason CJ said at page 48:
“The legislature of New South Wales has power to make laws for peace, welfare and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever. The proposition that those laws could not apply to particular inhabitants or particular conduct occurring within the state must be rejected.”
As said earlier Section 2 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) similarly provides that the Legislative Assembly can advise and consent to the Queen making laws for the peace, welfare and good governance of the Colony whatsoever, which it has done in respect of the Fisheries Act 1994.
The elements of the offences
Was an Information Requirement made
S 184 of the Act sets out evidentiary provisions applying to proceedings under the Act. This is such a proceeding.
Exhibit 12 is a Certificate certified by Douglas Charles ZAHMEL. He is an Inspector presumed to be appointed under the Act[6] and his certification of various stated matters is evidence of those particular matters.[7] Annexure C to Exhibit 12 reproduces the information requirement made by the Deputy Director General as follows:
Requirement
The Deputy Director General requires that the holder of a Queensland commercial fishing boat licence with a T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, M1 or M2 fishery symbol to immediately obtain a copy of the approved fishing logbook Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries Logbook OT10 Version 11 (“the logbook”) and upon receipt of it:
1. Keep information in the logbook by completing it in accordance with the ‘INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE’.
2 Ensure the logbook is kept on the boat and is available for immediate inspection. However, this does not apply if the authorised boat is used in a commercial fishery to which a quota does not apply, and the relevant period is 24 hours or less.
3. Gives the completed logbook to the chief executive in accordance with the specified time periods in the ‘INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE’.[6] Ss 184(2) of the Act
[7] Ss 184(4)
The Deputy Director General had the authority to make the information requirement as Dr Elizabeth WOODS, was, as of 30 August 2019, the Director-General, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and as such was the Chief Executive of the Department. On that date she delegated[8] her powers under s 118 of the Act to make information requirements[9] to, among others, the Deputy Director General, Fisheries and Forestry.[10]
[8] Pursuant to s 221 (1)(a) of the Act
[9] Exhibit 32, Schedule 1 page 4
[10] Ibid p9
On 11 May 2020, Graeme Arthur BOLTON was appointed Deputy Director General, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.[11] His Contract of Employment[12] was signed by the Chief Executive Dr Elizabeth WOODS on 5 May 2020 and by him on 11 May 2020. S 110 of the Public Service Act 2008 provides that the Public Service Commission Chief Executive may, by signed notice appoint Senior Executives. It also stipulated that public notice of the appointment must be published in the Government Gazette or in another way the commission chief executive considers appropriate. Notice of Mr BOLTON’S appointment was not published in a government gazette until 8 July 2022[13]. Whilst the notice of this appointment occurred more than 2 years after the appointment, the appointment is nevertheless still valid. S110 of the Public Service Act 2008, whilst mandating that notice of the appointment be published, does not mandate a time within which that had to occur. It could never have been the purpose of s110 that a noncompliance with the publication requirement rendered an appointment, invalid[14]. This is especially so for non-appealable appointments. My view is that as the notice of the appointment has now been published, then the appointment of Mr Bolton to the position of Deputy Director General, is, and was at all material times, valid. Accordingly, as Deputy Director General, Mr Bolton made a valid information requirement.
[11] Exhibit 14
[12] Exhibit 15
[13] Exhibit 34 Queensland Government gazette No. 58 p 361, being a non-appealable appointment of Mr BOLTON for 5 years from 11 May 2020
[14] See Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 72 ALJR 841 at 806- 861
Exhibit 31 is a Certificate signed by Cameron MILLER, also an Inspector appointed under the Act. It certifies that during the relevant period Melissa HOPKINS was the registered holder of Commercial Fishing Boat Licence 20674 (FPUF), with, among other things, the fishery symbol T1. The defendant agreed that Ms HOPKINS was the holder of that Commercial Fishing Boat Licence.[15]
[15] Day 3 p37 Ll 35 - 39
Mr ZAHMEL, in his certificate, Exhibit 12, certifies that the information requirement (and logbook 2680) was posted to c/- Bowen Seafood Fisheries, Bowen Queensland.[16] This was at the telephone request of Ms HOPKINS or the Defendant as the particular logbook containing the requirement was viewed on the dock in Townsville on 30 September 2020 and on board the Challenger K when boarded by inspectors on 18 November 2020 in waters off Tin Can Bay.
[16] See Ex 26 a Certificate by Ashley MEEKINGS
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an information requirement, relevant to these charges was made.
Did the Information Requirement apply to the defendant
The defendant, at the relevant time, held a Commercial Fisher’s Licence No. 102881.[17] At the relevant time he fished under the Commercial Fishing Boat Licence held by Ms HOPKINS.[18] This is a relevant authority as defined in Regulation 100 of the Fisheries (General) Regulation 2019 (“the Regulations”) (as they were at the relevant time – now since having been amended)..
[17] Day 3 p 37 L 33, and Exhibit 30 as certified by Cameron Miller and Exhibit 35 as certified by Deryk SMITH and Inspector appointed under the Act
[18] Day p37 L35 – p38 L 24
Ms Hopkins was not fishing during the relevant times (the relevant period as defined in Regulation 105 of the Regulations).
The Defendant was fishing under the relevant authority during the relevant period and as such was a relevant person as defined in Regulation 105 (c) of the Regulations.
Pursuant to Regulation 102 of the Regulations Ms HOPKINS must give the relevant approved form being the information about the daily use of the boat under the relevant authority (which I find to be the information requirement – or logbook containing the same) to the relevant person – here, the defendant.
I am satisfied that it was given to the defendant prior to the relevant period as it was viewed on the dock in Townsville on 30 September 2020 and entries were made for dates from 12 September 2020 onwards[19].
[19] Exhibit 3
Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the information requirement applied to the defendant at the relevant times.
Did fishing take place and where relevant not take place on the charge dates
On 9 February 2021, logbook pages 1-8 from logbook number 2680 were received by Fisheries Queensland for the period 12 September 2020 to 1 February 2021 which concerned Primary Commercial Fishing Licence number 20674 with boat mark FPUF. On 11 February 2021 logbook pages 9-12, 13-16, and 17-20 from the same logbook were received by Fisheries Queensland for the fishing period 1 January 2020 to 11 September 2020 which concern the same Primary Commercial Fishing Licence number 20674 with the boat mark FPUF.[20] Darren Peter ROY previously employed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as a Senior Fisheries Manager gave evidence as to the movement of the vessel Challenger K based on vessel tracking data obtained by the Department from data emitted from a vessel monitoring system attached to the vessel and through the use of satellites.
[20] See Exhibit 12 the Certificate of Mr D. Zahmel paras 8 & 9, and annexures f & g.
He had experience in the trawl fishing industry and knowledge of how vessels operate, that is to say: where they fish, how they fish, the speed the boat is going when it is trawling. A voir dire was conducted on Mr Roy’s expertise to give such opinion evidence. He has a Bachelor of Science and has had experience on trawlers surveying the nets and collecting samples for a particular project that took many years. He had been out on similar vessels approximately 46 times. He had been interpreting the vessel monitoring system data for several years and was able to say in evidence that when trawlers are trawling for prawns, they will travel somewhere between 3 and 3.5 knots, when they are fishing for scallops it is 2.5 knots. Ultimately, he was accepted by me as an expert to be able to give an opinion on data from the vessel monitoring system as to whether or not the vessel was engaged in fishing on a particular day.
Exhibit 28 is a certificate by Ashley MEEKINGS, an inspector appointed under the Act which attaches data in visual form as to the movements of the vessel the Challenger K obtained by the department using the vessel monitoring system for the dates 11 September 2020 to 29 September 2020, 4 October 2020 to 10 October 2020, and 1 November 2020 to 18 November 2020. Exhibit 29 is the readouts for the movements of the Challenger K which shows the name of the boat, the boat mark (FPUF), the date and time, the latitude and longitude coordinates, and the calculated speed of the vessel. The times set on that readout are international times and one has to add 10 hours to each time. Pages 1-32 of Exhibit 29 concern 11 to 29 September 2020. Following that, pages 1-11 of that exhibit concern the movements of the Challenger K between 4 October 2020 and 10 October 2020. Following that on that particular exhibit, pages numbered 1-28 detail the readout for the movements of the Challenger K from 1 November 2020 to 18 November 2020. It is from this data that Ashley MEEKINGS was to use a departmental computer to reproduce the position of the Challenger K and its direction for each day in a visual form.
Mr Roy interpreted all of this data and found that the vessel was in the port of Bowen on 11 September 2020, not fishing.
His opinion was, in regard to that data on those two exhibits, that the vessel was fishing from 12 to and including 28 September 2020.
He also found that the vessel was not engaged in fishing on 4 October but was engaged in fishing for some part of the days on 5 to 10 October (the vessel being in port on 4 October 2020).
He was also of the view, in regard to that data, that the vessel was fishing for some part of the days on 2 November to 7 November and also on 11 to 18 November but was not engaged in fishing on 8 and 9 November.
He says he was able to form this opinion because of the speed the vessel was travelling, and the fact that it sometimes went up and down on the same line which is what trawlers do in that industry.
I find Mr Roy to be a compelling witness and accept his evidence.
Could the defendant have reasonably been expected to, or been able to obtain the required information
The required information of the information requirement was set out at the commencement of the logbook which is reproduced in Exhibit 12[21] relevant as follows: -
[21] Annexure C p12 of 40
Requirement
The Deputy Director General requires that the holder of a Queensland commercial fishing boat licence with a T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, M1 or M2 fishery symbol to immediately obtain a copy of the approved fishing logbook Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries Logbook OT10 Version 11 (“the logbook”) and upon receipt of it:
1. Keep information in the logbook by completing it in accordance with the ‘INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE’.
2 Ensure the logbook is kept on the boat and is available for immediate inspection. However, this does not apply if the authorised boat is used in a commercial fishery to which a quota does not apply, and the relevant period is 24 hours or less.
3. Gives the completed logbook to the chief executive in accordance with the specified time periods in the ‘INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE’.
The written instructions given by the Chief Executive referred to above are set out on the following pages of the logbook and reproduced in Exhibit 12[22] which relevantly are:
[22] Page 13 of 40.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
The logbook must be completed daily
Recording information within this logbook every fishing day is required. This is so that the information recorded is accurate and up to date.
This logbook is designed to collect information for the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries. If participating in another fishery at any time, you must use the logbook specific to that fishery.
All days during the month must be accounted for in a Queensland fishery logbook. This includes days where no fishing has taken place using your Queensland commercial fishing boat licence.Extended periods of nil fishing activity should be recorded in the ‘if not fishing for an extended period’ section in the logbook. Short periods of nil fishing activity (e.g., steaming, anchored – not fishing) can be reported within the daily catch and effort section of the logbook.
All logsheets returned to DAF must be signed and dated.
If more than one commercial fisher acts under a commercial fishing boat licence in a calendar month, separate logsheets must be used to record each commercial fisher’s activity for the month.
…
The white page (copy page) is designed to remain in the logbook as your permanent record. The pink original page is perforated so that it can be torn out, placed in the prepaid envelopes, and sent to; -
DAF
Logbook Section
GPO Box 2764
BRISBANE QLD 4001Log sheets must be forwarded monthly so as to reach the logbook section not later than 15 days after the end of the month to which they relate.
…
Each page of the logbook itself has a place for the holder of the commercial fisher licence to complete the boat mark, the commercial fisher’s name, the commercial fisher’s licence number, what type of boat it was, and has pre-printed on it, the logbook number and the page of the logbook. It has a boat activity code section with zero for fishing, one for searching, two for steaming, and three for not fishing. It has the words endorsed on each page ‘LOGBOOKS MUST BE COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE FISHING DAY. LOG SHEETS MUST BE FORWARDED SO AS TO REACH THE LOGBOOK SECTION NOT LATER THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE MONTH TO WHICH THEY RELATE.’ It has a section to complete dates if not trawl fishing for an extended period. Then it has a date column being the day, the month, and the year, then it has a section to particularise the position of the maximum catch by nominating the latitude or grid and the longitude or sight. It has a section to complete the trawl gear code, a section to complete for the time shot away, a section to complete for the number of shots, a section to complete for the total hours trawled, a section to complete for the depth at each of those positions, and a section to show the type of prawn, scallops, squid, bugs, lobster, cuttlefish, octopus, brims, shrimp, crabs, and other catch.
Mr Mallo gave evidence[23] that when he is trawling, he cannot walk out of the wheelhouse as he has to stay on the line because he will not catch anything if he departs that line. He says that he hardly ever walks out of the wheelhouse in a 12-hour period from 6 to 6, and accordingly the crew fill out the logbook every day.[24] He said[25] that the logbook probably gets filled out once a fortnight if anything, that it is signed ‘VC’ as he is doing it under duress. He said[26] that he did not take personal responsibility for filling out the logbook at the relevant time.
[23] Day 3 P39 L1 and onwards.
[24] L1 – L14 – L16.
[25] D3 P39 L35.
[26] D3 P40 L15.
Mr Mallo also gave evidence[27] that he did not read books, he does not write, and that he is not a person that does this stuff.
[27] D3 P43 L40.
It is quite clear that he reads and writes (he read to the court the Oath before giving evidence and he read out his submissions), so I do not accept any evidence where he says that he does not do that. He was asked that in the period of September – November 2020 if he was capable of filling out the logbooks. He said that he was not,[28] that he was still coming out of depression and everything. He denied being motivated because the laws did not apply to him (in his view) and answered by saying that if the relevant Minister (Mark Furner) can do whatever he wants then the rest of the fishermen can do the same, that is, whatever they want. Mr Mallo was simply of the view that he did not believe that he should have to complete and submit logbooks because it is his private information which view was told to Mr Zahnel on 10 October 2019.[29] Though, he did go on to say that he could not recall saying this to Zahnel, but I was left with the impression on his evidence that that is his firm belief.
[28] D3 P44 L21 – L38.
[29] D3 P44 L46 – P45 L1.
My conclusion is from all of the evidence that the defendant, in the position he was, being the skipper of the vessel could reasonably have been expected to or been able to obtain the required information to complete the logbook as required by the information requirement.
Was the logbook materially incomplete for each charge
I will now proceed to go through each of the charges referred to by me in the chronology of charges set out in paragraph 6 of this judgement using the same numbering.
Charge 1. I am satisfied that there was no logbook entry or entries made for the period 1 September 2020 to and including 11 September 2020. The vessel was not fishing during that period and there was no entry to document ‘extended periods not engaged in East Coast Trawl Fisheries’ as instructed.
Charge 2. Logbook number 2680 commences at page 1 on the date 12 September 2020. In the section requiring the commercial fisher’s licence number the number ‘20674’ was endorsed. The logbook has at it’s top for each page a space for the fisher to endorse the boat mark, the commercial fisher’s name, the commercial fisher’s licence number, and a box to tick on what type of trawling the trawler is engaging in. The information requirement required that the information be kept in the logbook by completing it in accordance with the ‘INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE.’ The ‘INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE’ required that the information within the logbook be recorded every day and whilst the instructions for use do not specifically require that all sections be completed, I imply that all sections must be completed, particularly so in respect of an endorsement containing the commercial fisher’s licence number given that in the instructions for use it is stated that ‘if more than one commercial fisher acts under a commercial fishing boat licence in a calendar month, separate log sheets must be used to record each commercial fishers activity for the month.’ By completing the commercial fisher’s licence number on each sheet that would designate to the Department as to which commercial fisher was fishing on that particular boat or vessel that day. The logbook was sighted on board the vessel on 30 September 2020 by Ben Robinson, an inspector under the Fisheries Act employed as a field officer within the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. He photographed the logbook inspected that day and a copy of those photographs is found in Exhibit 3. By 30 September 2020 the defendant had not endorsed his commercial fisher’s licence number.[30]
[30] Being Commercial Fisher License Number 102881 – See Exhibit 30 Certificate of Cameron Miller.
By the time the logbooks were delivered to the Department on or about 11 February 2021,[31] there had been endorsed on the page containing 12 September 2020 in the commercial fisher’s licence number box the number 20674 which is not the defendant’s commercial fisher’s licence number. It is in fact the commercial fisher boat licence number held by Ms Hopkins.
[31] See Exhibit 12 Certificate of Douglas Charles Zahmel para 10.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete in that there was no record of the commercial fisher’s licence number recorded for 12 September 2020.
Charge 3. The information requirement requires that the person in control of the boat keep the logbooks in accordance with the instructions for use. The instructions for use require that the logbook must be completed every fishing day. The logbook itself requires the day, the month, and the year to be recorded. The latitude (or grid) and the longitude (or site) is to be recorded for the position of the maximum catch of that day and the effort made to catch is to be recorded by recording the trawl gear code, the time shot away, the number of shots, the total hours trawled, and the depth in meters. Additionally, the catch is to be recorded by nominating which species was taken from the sea.
When the logbook for 12 September was inspected by Mr Robinson and photographed,[32] the position of the maximum catch was not recorded as simply the word Bowen was written across the line, there was no record for the effort, but there was a record for the species being 140kg of tiger prawns. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete in that it did not record the position of the maximum catch or the effort when fishing off Bowen on 12 September 2020.
[32] Exhibit 3.
Charge 4. Similarly, the logbook when inspected on 30 September 2020 did not indicate a position of the maximum catch on 13 September 2020 or any effort but did indicate that 100kg of tiger prawns was taken from the sea and 10kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the sea.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete on 13 September 2020 in that the defendant did not record the position of the maximum catch or the effort when fishing.
Charge 5. Similarly, for 14 September 2020 when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020, the logbook recorded for the position of the maximum catch the words ‘Old Reef,’ there was no recording for effort on that day but there was a recording for 85kg of red spot king prawns being taken from the sea, and 25kg of sand/mud bugs being taken from the sea.
I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete on 14 September 2020 in that it did not record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort.
Charge 6. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020, the entry for 15 September 2020 recorded the ditto marks under the words ‘Old Reef’ for the position of the maximum catch that day, there was nothing recorded for the effort, but there was recorded that 95kg of red spot king prawns were taken from the sea and 50kg of sand/mud bugs were taken from the sea that day.
I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 15 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch nor the effort when fishing on that day.
Charge 7. When the logbook was inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the entry for 16 September 2020 indicated that the position of the maximum catch was ‘Maggi Isl’ (perhaps meaning Magnetic Island). There was nothing recorded for the effort, but there was recorded that 130kg of red spot king prawns were taken from the sea as well as 100kg of sand/mud bugs.
I am satisfied that on 16 September 2020 the logbook was materially incomplete in that it did not record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort when fishing off Townsville or Ayr.
Charge 8. When the logbook was inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 it showed that the entry for 17 September 2020 that the position of the maximum catch had ditto marks under the words ‘Maggi Isl,’ but had no entry for the effort in fishing. It did have a record that 245kg of tiger prawns were taken from the sea that day.
I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 17 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort in fishing off Townsville or Ayr that day.
Charge 9. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 18 September 2020 showed ditto marks under the words ‘Maggi Isl’ and no entry for the effort in fishing that day but did show that there were 245kg of tiger prawns taken from the ocean.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook for 18 September 2020 was materially incomplete in that it did not record accurately the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 10. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 19 September 2020 had ditto marks under the words ‘Maggi Isl’ but had nothing for the effort but did record that 180kg of tiger prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for the entry of 19 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 11. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the entry for 20 September 2020 recorded ditto marks under the words ‘Maggi Isl,’ did not record anything for effort in fishing that day but did record that 270kg of tiger prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 20 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made when fishing that day.
Charge 12. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 21 September 2020 recorded ditto marks under the words ‘Maggi Isl,’ did not record anything for the effort made in fishing that day but did record that taken from the ocean that day were 200kg of tiger prawns and 30kg of endeavour prawns.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 21 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 13. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 22 September 2020 recorded ditto marks under the word ‘Maggi’ and nothing under the effort columns but did record some 195kg of tiger prawns were taken from the ocean.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 22 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch that day, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 14. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 23 September 2020 recorded as the position of the maximum catch the words ‘Marinda Shoal’ but there was nothing recorded for the effort made in fishing that day. It did record that there were 15kg of red spot king prawns taken, and 135kg sand/mud bugs taken from the ocean.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete on 23 September 2020 in that it did not record accurately the position of the maximum catch that day, nor did it record effort that day.
Charge 15. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 24 September 2020 had the words ‘Marind Shoal’ for the position of maximum catch and no entry for effort that day. It did record that 20kg of red spot king prawns were taken from the ocean and 90kg of sand/mud bugs were taken from the ocean.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 24 September 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 16. When the logbook was inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 page 2 of the logbook was not completed in that the commercial fisher’s name was not placed in the box where it should have been placed, nor was there any commercial fisher’s licence number placed there, but instead in that box it had the words ‘James Lewis.’
For similar reasons given for charge 2 above I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete in that it did not record the commercial fisher’s licence number for page 2 of the logbook for the days fishing 24, 25, 26, and 27 September which should have been completed on 24 September the first day of fishing to be recorded on that page.
Charge 17. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 25 September 2020 recorded ditto marks under the words ‘Marind Shaol’ and nothing for effort, nor was there any record of any catch that day. Mr Roy gave evidence that according to the vessel tracking data,[33] that the Challenger K was indeed fishing that day.
[33] Exhibits 29 and 30.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 25 September 2020 in that it did not record accurately the position of the maximum catch or effort when fishing, nor did it record the catch.
Charge 18. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the entry for 26 September 2020 recorded the position of maximum catch as ‘Maggi,’ nothing for effort, and the fact that 100kg of blue legged king prawns and 20kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the sea.
I am satisfied that the logbook was incomplete in a material particular for 26 September 2020 in that it did not record the position of the maximum catch, nor the effort when fishing that day.
Charge 19. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Robinson on 30 September 2020 the logbook entry for 27 September 2020 recorded the position of the maximum catch to be ‘Maggi,’ nothing for effort, and the fact that 40kg of blue legged king prawns and 20kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
I am satisfied that the logbook was incomplete in a material particular for 27 September 2020 in that it did not record the position of the maximum catch accurately, nor the effort when fishing that day.
Charge 20. On 18 November 2020 George William Thieber, an authorised inspector with Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol boarded the Challenger K. He inspected the logbook number 2680 and took photographs of the same. That is Exhibit 8. The logbook shows no entries between 27 September 2020 and 10 October 2020. Mr Roy was of the opinion that the vessel was not engaged in fishing between 28 September and 4 October but commenced to fish again on 5 October.
As there is no logbook for 28 September 2020 and 29 September 2020, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for those days in that there is no entry whatsoever.
Charge 21. Similarly, when inspected by Mr Thieber on 18 November2021 there was no logbook entry for the period 1 October to 4 October 2020. Mr Roy was of the opinion, which I accept, that the vessel was not fishing on those dates.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for the dates 1 October 2020 to 4 October 2020 when the boat was not fishing.
Charges 22 to 26 inclusive. As stated earlier when Mr Thieber inspected the logbook on 18 November there were no entries between 27 September 2020 and 10 October 2020. Mr Roy was of the opinion that the boat fished on each day, namely 5 October 2020, 6 October 2020, 7 October 2020, 8 October 2020, and 9 October 2020.
I am therefore satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for the days 5 October 2020 (charge 22), 6 October 2020 (charge 23), 7 October 2020 (charge 24), 8 October 2020 (charge 25), and 9 October 2020 (charge 26) when the vessel was fishing.
Charge 27. When the logbook 2680 was inspected by Mr Thieber on 18 November 2020, it recorded for 10 October 2020 the words ‘Up start’ for the position of the maximum catch, there was no record for the effort made, but it did record that 100kg of tiger prawns and 10kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 10 October 2020 in that it did not record accurately the position of the maximum catch for that day, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 28. Similarly, when Mr Thieber inspected the logbook on 18 November 2020 the entry for 11 October 2020 recorded the words ‘Up start’ for the position of the maximum catch that day, nothing for effort, but did record that 160kg of tiger prawns and 20kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 11 October 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made when fishing that day.
Charge 29. Similarly, when Mr Thieber inspected the logbook on 18 November 2020 the entry recorded for 12 October 2020 was the words ‘Up start’ for the position of the maximum catch, there was nothing recorded for effort that day, but there was recorded that 80kg of tiger prawns and 5kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 12 October 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 30. Similarly, when Mr Thieber inspected the logbook on 18 November 2020 the entry for 13 October 2020 showed the position of the maximum catch was Bowen, nothing for effort, but it did show that 250kg of tiger prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 13 October 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 31. Similarly, when Mr Thieber inspected to logbook on 18 November 2020, it showed that for 14 October 2020 the position of the maximum catch was said to be Bowen. There was no entry for the effort made in fishing that day but there it was shown that 190kg of tiger prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 14 October 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch that day, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 32. Similarly, when Mr Thieber inspected the logbook on 18 November 2020 the entry for 15 October 2020 indicated that the position of the maximum catch was Bowen. There was no entry made for effort made in fishing that day, but it did record that 220kg of tiger prawns and 5kg of endeavour prawns were taken from the ocean that day.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 15 October 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made when fishing that day.
Charge 33. Similarly, when Mr Thieber inspected the logbook on 18 November 2020 the entry for 16 October 2020 recorded Bowen for the position of the maximum catch, nothing for effort made when fishing, and nothing taken from the ocean.
Mr Roy gave evidence that the vessel was fishing that day. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 16 October 2020 in that it did not accurately record the position of the maximum catch, nor did it record the effort made in fishing that day.
Charge 34. When the logbook was inspected by Mr Thieber on 18 November 2020, the last entry into the logbook was for 22 October 2020. When the logbooks were finally completed as best he could and returned to the Department on 11 February 2021,[34] it shows that from 23 October to and including 31 October, the vessel was not fishing being ‘In town, mini refit, tin can’ and that it was fishing between 2 and 7 November, not fishing on 8, 9, and 10 November, but fishing from 11 November through to and including 16 November, but was not fishing between 17 and 18 November.
[34] Exhibit 12.
I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete in that there were no entries made by 18 November 2020 between 23 October 2020 and 1 November 2020 when the boat was not fishing.
Charge 35. When the logbooks were returned to the Department by the defendant in February 2021 the defendant indicated by entries in the logbook[35] that fishing took place between 2 and 7 November 2020. That is also corroborated by the evidence of Mr Roy.[36]
[35] Ibid 33.
[36] D2 P95 L46 to P96 L3.
As it there was no entry for the logbook on when inspected by Mr Thieber on 18 November for the fishing that occurred on 2 November 2020, I find that the logbook was materially incomplete for 2 November 2020 in that the defendant failed to keep any logbook for fishing that day.
Charges 36 – 40 inclusive. For the same reasons that I have given in charge 35, I am satisfied that the defendant failed to keep the logbook when fishing for the days 3 November, 4 November, 5 November, 6 November, and 7 November 2020.
Charge 41. As stated earlier when the logbooks were finally completed by the defendant and returned to the Department in February 2021, he indicated that the boat was not fishing on 8, 9, and 10 November 2020.[37] The entries on Exhibit 12 for 2 November to 7 November 2020 were originally written as 2 – 10 and they have been changed in writing to 2/11, 3/11 to 7/11. Following that, the entry indicates on Exhibit 12 that there is an 8 and a 9 but no month number and then from the 10th onwards, the month number becomes 10, which again, seems to me to be erroneously written in and should be 11. These occur on page 4 of logbook 2680 on Exhibit 12. The fact that the vessel was not fishing on 8, 9, and 10 November as recorded by the defendant in the logbook finally given in February 2021 is corroborated by Mr Roy.[38]
[37] Ibid 33.
[38] D3 P96 L2.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete in that the defendant failed to keep the logbook when not fishing on 8 November 2020, 9 November 2020, and 10 November 2020.
Charge 44. As stated earlier when Mr Thieber looked at the logbook on 18 November 2020 there were no entries from 22 October 2020 to that date. When the logbook was completed by the defendant and returned to the Department in February 2021, the defendant indicated that he was fishing between 11 November 2020 and 16 November 2020. This is corroborated Mr Roy.[39]
[39] D3 P96 L1.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the logbook was materially incomplete for 11 November 2020 in that there was no entry for the vessel when fishing on 11 November 2020.
Charges 45 to 50 inclusive. For the same reasons as given in charge 44 I find that the logbook was materially incomplete for the entries 12 November 2020, 13 November 2020, 14 November 2020, 15 November 2020, 16 November 2020, and 17 November 2020 as there are no entries for those dates when inspected by Mr Thieber on 18 November 2020. There is a difference between the defendant’s return in Exhibit 12 where at page 5 of the logbook he had endorsed the position of maximum catch and effort for 17 November 2020, but Mr Roy in his evidence gave evidence given the vessel tracking data that the vessel was in fact fishing on 17 November 2020. I accept the evidence of Mr Roy in that regard.
For the above reasons I am satisfied that all elements of all charges have been proved to me beyond any reasonable doubt and I find the defendant guilty of all charges.
C Callaghan
Magistrate
0
2
0