Man guilty of obstructing fisheries officers

A judge has confirmed a pair of fishermen were within the law to have more than one day’s catch onboard their boat during last fall’s food fishery.

Tossing some of the fish into the sea as fisheries officers approached was still illegal, however, Judge Harold Porter ruled April 7.

Porter heard the case against Roger Banfield and Reginald Walters in provincial court in Grand Bank on March 23.

Charges of retaining more groundfish than the daily quota permitted were dismissed against both men.

Porter ruled Banfield was guilty of obstructing a fisheries officer, nonetheless.

Under the regulations for the 2020 recreational groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, participants were allowed five fish per day, with a maximum boat limit of 15 when three or more people were fishing.

In his written decision, Porter wrote that he accepted the majority of Walters’ and Banfield’s testimonies during the trial, although there were some minor discrepancies.

The two men testified during the trial that they had left Boat Harbour on the Burin Peninsula on the afternoon of Oct. 3, 2020, caught six fish between them that day, and spent the night at a cabin on an island in Placentia Bay, cooking and eating one of the fish that evening.

They caught another 10 fish the following morning and had a total of 15 fish on board when they saw a patrol vessel with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

The officers retrieved five fish from the water and seized 10 from Banfield and Walters.

ADMISSION OF GUILT

During cross-examination, Banfield admitted throwing several fish into the ocean to prevent the fisheries officers from inspecting the catch. He told the court he thought they had more fish onboard the boat than they were allowed and panicked.

“That is an admission of his intent to deliberately obstruct the DFO officials. He must be convicted of hindering or obstructing the fishery officers as a result,” Porter wrote.

“There is no evidence that Mr. Walters encouraged Mr. Banfield to jettison the five fish, or that he even knew that Mr. Banfield was throwing the fish out of the boat.”

Testimony by Banfield’s wife, Noreen, meanwhile, corroborated the two men were considering staying overnight before they left for the trip, Porter acknowledged.

“That evidence stands in contrast with the Crown theory, which included the possibility of all 15 fish having been caught on the Sunday (Oct. 4),” the judge wrote.

Porter indicated the regulations for the recreational fishery submitted as an exhibit in the case “did not provide for possession of fish caught over the span of two days, which was the case here. It did not, for example, require the vessel to return to port and land the catch every day.”

Porter will next hear from counsel in the case on an appropriate sentence for Banfield.