Muslimin v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Muslimin against his conviction for possessing a foreign boat equipped with fishing gear within the Australian Fishing Zone. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was in possession of such a boat in waters above the Australian continental shelf, but outside the Australian Fishing Zone, equipped for fishing for sedentary organisms. The central dispute revolved around whether the relevant provisions of the *Fisheries Management Act 1991* (Cth) extended to the location where the alleged offence occurred.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the indictment disclosed an offence, specifically whether section 12(2) of the *Fisheries Management Act 1991* extended the operation of section 101 to waters above the Australian continental shelf not within the Australian Fishing Zone, and whether section 101 constituted a provision made "in relation to fishing" for the purposes of section 12(2). Section 101 created the offence of possessing a foreign boat within the Australian Fishing Zone equipped with fishing gear, while section 12(2) provided that provisions relating to fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone extend to fishing for sedentary organisms on the Australian continental shelf outside that zone.

The High Court reasoned that section 12(2) operated to extend the application of provisions made "in relation to fishing" in the Australian Fishing Zone to the specified areas of the continental shelf. The Court determined that section 101, which prohibited the possession of foreign boats equipped for fishing within the Australian Fishing Zone, was indeed a provision made "in relation to fishing." Therefore, by operation of section 12(2), section 101 extended to the waters above the Australian continental shelf not within the Australian Fishing Zone. Consequently, the indictment, which alleged possession of a foreign boat equipped with fishing gear for sedentary organisms in such waters, did disclose an offence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. In its place, the High Court ordered that the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal be allowed, the appellant's conviction be quashed, and a verdict of acquittal be entered.