Seafood firm may not lose trawler
A $20 million vessel forfeited to the Government for a breach of fishing rules could be returned to the offending company for a fee worth a fraction of its value.
Seafood company Sanford Limited pleaded guilty to trawling in a protected fishing area off the coast of Stewart Island.
In the Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O’Driscoll yesterday ordered the company to forfeit the San Waitaki – a 64 metre deep water stern trawler with a processing factory and freezer facilities on board – to the Crown.
The company has also been fined $36,000. But the vessel has already been bonded back to the company by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), which brought the charges, and could eventually be returned for a ‘‘redemption fee’’ if the company submits a relief application to the courts.
Doug Paulin, chief executive of Sealord, a separate fishing company, said it was common practice in some cases to pay a redemption fee for the return of a forfeited vessel.
Last year, Sealord forfeited a $21 million fishing vessel for a similar offence to the Sanford case. But the vessel was returned after Sealord paid a redemption fee of about $70,000. ‘‘The forfeiture itself is a paper forfeiture. You don’t give the vessel up,’’ Paulin said. ‘‘The vessel is, to all intents and purposes, taken by the Crown, but on the same day you sign an agreement for use of
the vessel until they decide the outcome of the forfeiture.’’
Sanford acting chief executive Andre Gargiulo said the company would work quickly to address the forfeiture of the vessel. ‘‘In the meantime, Sanford will work with MPI to ensure the vessel remains operational until the matter is resolved.’’
Sanford made an application to the court stating special reasons existed why it should not forfeit its fishing vessel to the Crown. The company submitted it had made extensive efforts to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act, that the quantity of fish caught in the protected area was small, and that there was no evidence before the court that the sea floor was damaged.
MPI opposed the application, saying Sanford had not put in place adequate measures to ensure its vessel did not enter the protected area, the quantity of fish caught was ‘‘by no means small’’, and trawling inside the area was of significant benefit to the company.
The judge said no special reasons existed to prevent forfeiture of the trawler.