Sentencing — bottom trawling — benthic protection area — forfeiture — special reasons — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7, 8, 106 & 107 — Fisheries Act 1996, ss 8, 9, 252(2)(a), 252(7), 254, 255C & 296B — Fisheries Benthic Protection Areas Regulations 2007, regs 7, 8(3), 12(2) & 13(2) — Fisheries Inspector v Turner [1978] 2 NZLR 233 — Novoselets v Ministry of Fisheries HC Christchurch CRI-2006-406-000233 — MAF v Bae DC Wellington CRN 1076007621, 23 November 1992 — Basile v Atwill [1995] 2 NZLR 537 — Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries v Modesto Holdings Ltd HC Invercargill AP4/93, 21 June 1993 — Ministry of Fisheries v Lim District Court Wellington Cri 2006-085-007466 9 November 2007 — Ministry of Fisheries v Platinium Corporation Ltd District Court Napier CRN 100415000688-90, 17 January 2011 — Auckland Acclimatisation Society v Smith (1988) 4 CRNZ 58 — Ministry of Fisheries v Ruthe District Court Papakura CRI 2010-055-001143 14 June 2011 — Ministry of Fisheries v McLiver HC Whangarei AP 38/96, 21 February 1991 — Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries v Tubb District Court Timaru CRN 2076006667 25 March 1993 — R v Kamipeli [1975] 2 NZLR 610 — MAF v Modesto CA 483/93 28 September 1994 — MAF v Antons Trawling Company Ltd [2006] DCR 833 — MAF v Schofield [1990] 1 NZLR 210 — Basile v Atwill [1995] 2 NZLR 537, 539 — Croad v Hughes CA 52/95: 21 June 1995 — Police v M [2013] NZHC 1101, (2013) 26 CRNZ 308 — Waikato Regional Council v Fullerton and Fullerton [2019] NZDC 23720 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372; (2005) 21 CRNZ 769. The three defendants were for sentence having pleaded guilty to representative charges under the Fisheries Act and the Fisheries Benthic Protection Areas Regulations. The offending related to bottom trawling within a benthic protection area. The first defendant was the master of the fishing vessel used in the offending; the second defendant was the first mate; and the third defendant was the company being the registered owner of the vessel. The third defendant applied for an order that the vessel not be forfeit, and the second defendant applied for a discharge without conviction. Pursuant to s 255C of the Fisheries Act, forfeiture was automatic in the case of specified offences. "Special reasons" must exist to depart from automatic forfeiture. The Court considered submissions and relevant case law and concluded that no special reasons existed: the offending was an honest mistake by the defendants, but lack of intent did not amount to a special reason. The application for an order that the vessel not be forfeit was therefore declined. The Court then considered the application by the second defendant for a discharge without conviction, noting that the defendant had not supplied evidence as to what the consequences of a conviction would be especially in relation to employment or future travel. The Court also noted that the sentence for the offending was fine-only, so the second defendant could not be convicted of an "imprisonable offence". The application for a discharge without conviction was also declined. In setting a fine, for the first defendant on two representative charges the Court set a starting point of $25,000, with reductions for previous good history, cooperation, remorse and conduct since the offending as well as a full discount for guilty plea. The end sentence was a fine of $11,250. For the second defendant on one representative charge, the Court set a starting point of $12,000. Discounts were given for previous good history, cooperation, remorse and conduct since the offending as well as a full discount for guilty plea. The end sentence was a fine of $5,400. For the third defendant on three representative charges, the Court set a starting point of a fine of $80,000. Discounts were given for previous good history, cooperation, remorse and conduct since the offending as well as a full discount for guilty plea. The end sentence was a fine of $36,000. Judgment Date: 23 February 2021.