district court logo

Sanford Ltd v Ministry for Primary Industries [2021] NZDC 24185

Published 29 March 2022

Relief from forfeiture — forfeiture of assets — redemption fee — "truly redemptive" — Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 — Fisheries (Benthic Protection Areas) Regulations 2007 — Ministry for Primary Industries v Sealord Group Ltd [2020] NZDC 26659 — Sanderson v Ministry of Fisheries DC Whangarei CRI-2005-027-002371, 8 June 2007. The plaintiff fishing company had previously been convicted of trawling within a benthic protection area, a prohibited activity. The conviction meant that the plaintiff was subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Fisheries Act. In the current matter the plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture of its assets. The parties agreed that the plaintiff should not be required to forfeit its assets and should instead be required to pay a sum of money (a "redemption fee") to the Crown; however the parties disagreed as to the proper sum of the redemption fee, with the plaintiff arguing for $58,105.60 and the defendant for $90,000 - $100,000. In determining whether to allow relief from forfeiture, the Court found that the offending had damaged the environment; that to order forfeiture would put the plaintiff's employees at risk of losing their jobs; that the plaintiff had no relevant previous convictions; that the plaintiff had profited from its offending; that the type of offending was relatively uncommon, and therefore did not need to be deterred; and that the costs of prosecution were relatively high. The Court was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant relief from forfeiture, meaning that it then had to assess the proper amount of the redemption fee. Taking into account the value of the vessel and the trawling gear used to commit the offending, the costs of prosecution, the amount of profit that the plaintiff had made from the offending, and the need to add a "truly redemptive" component to take account of all aspects of the offending, the Court imposed a final redemption fee of $100,000. Once the amount was paid the Crown was to return the plaintiff's assets. Costs were to lie where they fell. Judgment Date: 7 December 2021.

Tags