[ad_1]
A $ 20 million boat seized from the government for a violation of fishing regulations could be returned to the offending company for a fee equivalent to a fraction of its value.
Seafood company Sanford Limited pleaded guilty to trawling in a protected fishing area off the coast of Stewart Island.
The Christchurch District Court on Tuesday ordered the company to hand over the San Waitaki, a 64-meter-deep stern trawler with a processing factory and freezing facilities on board, to the Crown.
The company has also been fined $ 36,000.
READ MORE:
* Seafood company could lose a $ 20 million boat after trawling in a protected area
* Trawls damage fragile coral reefs, so why is the government authorizing more sets?
* Sealord fined $ 24,000 and ordered to seize the boat for trawling in the protected area
But the vessel has already been returned to the company by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), which filed the charges, and could eventually be returned for a “reimbursement fee” if the company files a request for redress with the courts.
Doug Paulin, CEO of Sealord, an independent fishing company, said that in some cases it was common practice to pay a reimbursement fee for the return of a seized vessel.
Last year, Sealord seized a $ 21 million fishing boat for a crime similar to the Sanford case. But the vessel was returned after Sealord paid a redemption fee of approximately $ 70,000.
“The seizure itself is a paper seizure. The container is not delivered, ” Paulin said.
“The ship is, for all intents and purposes, taken over by the Crown, but the same day you sign an agreement for the use of the ship until they decide the result of the seizure.”
Supplied
The Ministry of Primary Industries seized a total of 22,860 kg of orange roughy. (File photo)
Sanford Acting Chief Executive Officer Andre Gargiulo said the company would work quickly to address the seizure of the vessel.
“In the meantime, Sanford will work with MPI to ensure the vessel remains operational until the matter is resolved.”
Sanford filed an application with the court stating that there were special reasons why he should not surrender his fishing vessel to the Crown.
Things
Sanford is New Zealand’s largest fishing company.
The company alleged that it had made great efforts to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Law, that the amount of fish caught in the protected area was small, and that there was no evidence in court that the seabed was damaged.
MPI objected to the request, saying that Sanford had not put adequate measures in place to ensure that their vessel did not enter the protected area, that the amount of fish caught was “not small” and that trawling within the area was a benefit. meaningful to the company.
Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said there were no special reasons to avoid confiscation of the trawler.
“It seems to me that there were a number of systemic failures that caused or contributed to the crime.”
Supplied
Sanford Limited has been fined by the Christchurch District Court after one of its trawlers fished in a protected fishing area off the coast of Stewart Island. (File photo)
Sanford could now petition the courts for relief from full forfeiture after MPI has publicly notified it.
Earlier this month, Sanford pleaded guilty to trawling in a lower buffer zone of a Benthic Protected Area (BPA), an area of the seafloor in New Zealand where trawling is prohibited within 100 meters to avoid the destruction of ecosystems.
The charges relate to multiple incidents at the same BPA in 2017 and 2018.
Gargiulo said the offense was caused by human error which meant that the boat’s charts did not show the protected area. The company has 37 vessels in New Zealand from Stewart Island to Northland
“We are very sorry for what happened and we are disappointed in ourselves,” he said.
The systems are now in place where an alarm will sound on the bridge if a ship approaches a protected area, he said.
An MPI spokeswoman said that any company with an interest in the seized property can apply to the courts for redress and could recover the asset after payment of a ransom fee.
“In some cases, especially when the crime was intentional or motivated by greed or commercial gain, this redemption value is as high as 50 percent of the value of the confiscated property.”
“Ultimately, it is a court decision regarding any exemption from forfeiture and the amount of redemption to be paid.”
Jessica Desmond, an ocean advocate for Greenpeace, said the seizure system was misleading.
Confiscation is a flashy headline for MPI and it sounds like a big problem, but often they are not real.
“It gives people confidence that the government is taking action, but in reality that is not the case.”
