Queensland Government
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
December 22, 2016
Media release
Licensed fishers prosecuted for crab pot interference
Fisheries Queensland has successfully prosecuted two fishers in separate cases of interfering with crab pots which belonged to other commercial operators.
INGHAM:
A fisher from Ingham pleaded guilty in the Tully Magistrates Court to four charges of unlawfully interfering with fishing apparatus.
Surveillance cameras set up by another commercial fisher photographed the defendant removing crab apparatus from the water in Hinchinbrook Channel.
The Magistrate issued a penalty of $5,000 and awarded legal costs of $2,298, with no conviction recorded.
GLADSTONE:
A fisher was found guilty and fined $7,000 in the Gladstone Magistrates Court on five charges of unlawful interference with fishing apparatus.
Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers intercepted the Gladstone fisher’s vessel at Gladstone Marina and found 19 crab pots which belonged to other commercial fishers, with 14 live crabs inside.
Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol district manager Greg Bowness said crab pot interference by commercial and recreational fishers is prevalent, with instances being reported regularly to Fisheries Queensland.
“In this case, the offending caused the commercial fishers who lawfully owned the crab pots some financial loss when they were deprived of the use of their fishing apparatus,” Mr Bowness said.
“The intervention of QBFP officers means all their fishing apparatus was recovered and will be returned to its rightful owners.”
Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol relies on the ongoing support of the community to provide information about suspected illegal fishing activity.
If people suspect illegal crabbing in Queensland, they should report it to the Fishwatch hotline on 1800 017 116 so that it can be investigated.
Share farmers busted
- Matt Flynn
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 16201
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
- Location: Somewhat Southerly
- Contact:
- Melv
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:35 pm
- Location: is everything
Re: Share farmers busted
sh!ts me, one of my pet hates.
Pots are 5 for $50, you stick a fish head in and chuck em in a creek. Not that hard to do. Thieving fcukers!!
Now I feel better................
Melv
Pots are 5 for $50, you stick a fish head in and chuck em in a creek. Not that hard to do. Thieving fcukers!!
Now I feel better................
Melv
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:25 am
- Location: Darwin
Re: Share farmers busted
,,,good job ,,,
Thieving Priiicks .
Thieving Priiicks .
-
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 2450
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: Share farmers busted
A scrambling PR job by Qld Fisheries following a botched prosecution over interfering with fishing apparatus near Mackay recently.
There, the defendant was prepared to claim that he had a legal right to move somebody's crab pot under the Qld Marine Safety Act because it was interfering with safe navigation of a waterway (despite photo surveillance showed a pot being pulled).
The charge was an inept try-on by Fisheries to be seen to be doing something/anything to placate complaints over time about the defendant. Fisheries was hoping that he'd pay an infringement notice issued to him. He didn't and then Fisheries played brinksmanship in the lead-up to the court hearing.
At the hearing, Fisheries offered no evidence (all they had were a couple of photographs which supported the defendant's intended safe navigation defence) and the charge was struck out.
Fisheries should have been investigated for abuse of process over that episode.
The guy at Gladstone would have had trouble offering a reasonable explanation with somebody else's pots in his boat.
As for the guy in Ingham, confidence in Fisheries ability and willingness to professionally apply the law remains at an all-time low.
There, the defendant was prepared to claim that he had a legal right to move somebody's crab pot under the Qld Marine Safety Act because it was interfering with safe navigation of a waterway (despite photo surveillance showed a pot being pulled).
The charge was an inept try-on by Fisheries to be seen to be doing something/anything to placate complaints over time about the defendant. Fisheries was hoping that he'd pay an infringement notice issued to him. He didn't and then Fisheries played brinksmanship in the lead-up to the court hearing.
At the hearing, Fisheries offered no evidence (all they had were a couple of photographs which supported the defendant's intended safe navigation defence) and the charge was struck out.
Fisheries should have been investigated for abuse of process over that episode.
The guy at Gladstone would have had trouble offering a reasonable explanation with somebody else's pots in his boat.
As for the guy in Ingham, confidence in Fisheries ability and willingness to professionally apply the law remains at an all-time low.
Regards
Ronje
Ronje
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post