Mei Ying Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (No 2)

In Mei Ying Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (No 2), the court was tasked with resolving a dispute regarding the alleged illegal fishing activities of the vessel Mitra within Australia's Fishing Zone. The case involved a complex interplay of factual evidence, expert reports, and statutory interpretation to determine whether the vessel had engaged in commercial fishing while in the zone. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) had seized the vessel and its contents, claiming that the vessel was engaged in illegal fishing operations within the zone. The vessel's owners, Mei Ying Su and others, sought a declaration that the seized items were not forfeited and should be returned to them.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the vessel was indeed engaged in commercial fishing activities within the Australian Fishing Zone, and if not, whether the owners were entitled to the return of the seized items. The court had to consider the VMS data, expert evidence on the vessel's movements, and the statutory requirements for commercial fishing within the zone. The court also needed to assess the validity of the AFMA's reliance on the observations of the boarding party and the potential application of a defence based on a reasonable but mistaken belief.

The court found that the VMS data and expert evidence indicated that the vessel was not moving at a speed sufficient for commercial fishing during the relevant period. The court concluded that the vessel was not being used for commercial fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone. Given this finding, the court declared that the seized items were not forfeited and ordered their return to the owners. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the owners and granted liberty to apply to re-list the matter for further proceedings regarding compensation, damages, and interest. The decision underscored the importance of accurate evidence and the rigorous application of statutory provisions in such complex regulatory enforcement cases.