Dietman v Feast

In the case of Feast v Dietman, the appellant, Mr Feast, a professional fisherman, was charged with offences under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 for taking a lobster carrying external eggs and for removing the eggs from the lobster. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had removed the eggs from the lobster and if the charge was valid in the context of the statutory defence provided under section 71(3) of the Fisheries Management Act. The court had to decide if the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant removed the eggs from the lobster. The court also needed to determine if the statutory defence was available to the appellant and if the charge was properly framed.

The court considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, including expert testimony from Dr Bremner, who concluded that the eggs on the lobster had been manually scrubbed off. The court also took into account the appellant's evidence and interview with fisheries officers, in which he denied any wrongdoing. The court found that the combination of factors presented by the prosecution, while individually insufficient, collectively excluded the possibility that the eggs were removed by other means. The court concluded that the appellant or his deckhand had removed the eggs from the lobster and that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also examined the statutory defence available under section 71(3) of the Fisheries Management Act. The court found that the defence was available to the appellant, but since it was not considered by the Magistrate at trial, the court did not make a finding on the matter. The court acknowledged that it was likely the appellant would have made out the defence if a re-trial were ordered before a different Magistrate. The court also noted the prosecution's tactical decision to proceed with a duplicitous disjunctive pleading and rejected the contention that the statutory defence was not available to the appellant at trial.

In conclusion, the court found that the appellant had removed the eggs from the lobster and that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not make a finding on the statutory defence, but acknowledged that it was likely the appellant would have made out the defence if a re-trial were ordered before a different Magistrate. The court also considered the objects and practical enforcement of the Fisheries Management Act and the importance of private and public deterrence in the context of fisheries industries.