Bravado 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Been reading about some recent convictions in the courts for various breaches of the fisheries act and I have to say that I am dumb founded :icon_e_surprised:Case #1Three recreational fishers have been fined in the Christie Beach Magistrates Court recently for taking over the bag limit of snapper. Fisheries Officers inspected the three fishers� catch at the Wallaroo boat ramp back on 1 December 2007. The men admitted to Fisheries Officers to catching their daily boat limit of large snapper (6 snapper over 60cms) and showed officers the fish. They stated they had no other fish onboard, however a search of the vessel uncovered another 4 large snapper over 60cms wrapped in towels and hidden underneath bunk beds in the front of the vessel. Fisheries Officers seized all of the fish as well as three rod/reel combos and a large esky. The three men Michael Ronald Davey (28) of Hackham West, Jason Scott Geisberger (34) of Christie Beach and Christopher David Burford (30) of Tranmere each had a conviction recorded against them and were fined more than $2,200 each. The forfeiture of the fish and other items seized, worth several thousand dollars, was confirmed by the Court. PIRSA Fisheries Manager Compliance Services, Mr Paul Tatarelli said the penalty handed down by the Court should act as a general deterrent for any other fishers looking to blatantly avoid the rules. Case #2Two men from Semaphore Park and Findon have each received an on-the-spot fine for allegedly taking snapper during the closed season following patrols by Fisheries Officers on Yorke Peninsula recently. Fisheries Officers approached the two men as they returned to the boat ramp at Port Minlicowie, near Minlaton on the western side of Yorke Peninsula. A subsequent search of the vessel uncovered three snapper (measuring 100cm, 95cm and 40cm) concealed within the vessel. As a result, the men were issued on-the-spot fines of $335 each with officers also seizing a quantity of fishing equipment, an esky as well as the snapper. Seems to me that both acts are as serious as each other yet there is a vast difference in the penalties impossed in each case. ??? ??? ???Then there is thisCase #3Two local men have had their rock lobster pot registrations suspended following an appearance in the Mount Gambier Magistrates Court recently. PIRSA Fisheries Officers observed the men retrieving each of their two registered recreational rock lobster pots plus two other unregistered rock lobster pots on two different occasions at Cape Douglas in the state�s southeast in December 2007. The two unregistered rock lobster pots each had floats marked with commercial southern zone rock lobster fishery numbers. It is an offence for recreational fishers to use floats with commercial licence numbers. As a result, Mr Raymond James Dunbar (42) of Cape Douglas and Mr Craig James Whitehead (36) of Mount Gambier were found guilty and convicted of a number of charges relating to illegal rock lobster fishing. Mr Dunbar was fined $2000. He also had his recreational rock lobster registration suspended and is disqualified from holding a recreational rock lobster pot registration for a period of two years. Mr Whitehead was fined $5000. He also had his recreational rock lobster registration suspended, is disqualified from holding a recreational rock lobster pot registration for a period of four years and is prohibited from being on any boat that is carrying any device designed for the purpose of taking rock lobster for a period of four years. A total of six rock lobster pots seized by Fisheries Officers were also forfeited. Is it just me or does anyone else agree that the first two breaches seem more serious than the third :-\. Its my understanding that maximum penalty that can be impossed on breaching the snapper ban is $20,000. Is that right and if so how the heck can someone get off so lightly for breaking it not with one fish but three!Its my belief that the in Case #1 the penalty is sufficent and fits the crime, whilst the third, to me at least appears ecesive. If it is possible to be excessive in these situations.Are these inconsistancies the result of poor education of the judical system as to the seriousness of the crime or something else? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YoBBo 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 At the end of the day, it all comes down to how good your Lawyer is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
freddyboy 5 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 personally i think they should all have been thrown in jail for 6 months regardless and should have had there boats confiscated and there towing vehcal but thats me > > ,,,i guess the judges are the same they think differently and they have all the facts we only get to know how it ended,,,just my opinion cheers freddyboy PS yes i totally agree a good laywer or qc will get you a long way ,, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pescados 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree with Yobbo.Also those clowns behind the bench have absolutely no clue as what goes on in the real world and justice is a joke. > Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ranger 48 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 But your honour, please understand that my client is deeply remorseful as to his actions, and is the product of a difficult upbringing at the hands of an abusive parent. He has since committed no further breaches of the fisheries act and has been volunteering his time at a community project to assist victims of penile dysfunction.May I suggest that in this case a warning would be sufficient? :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pescados 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Spot on Ranger and that's why the system is in a mess.Read this morning the 2 " Heroes "16 & 18 knocked over an 87 yr old woman and nicked off with her shopping bag, fortunately some one gave chase and caught one but he got away, at least she got her shopping bag back.bring back army time and the ole sar major will sort them out. > Quote Link to post Share on other sites
raised31 0 Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 May have somehting to do with prior convictions or past history of those involved. Repeat offender you would hope to be more severely dealt with than a first timer. Also, I know it costs heaps in time and money for any prosecution. Given the penalties of those youv'e posted, I can see why it would be an easy option for Fisheries to give on-the spot-fines rather than take someone to court. If a prosecution costs $15000 or so, and you recover $3000 in fines, you couldn't afford to do this to many times.Interested in the court results though. Is this info available to anyone and if so where did you get it from? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.