DETERMINATION OF SEA-FISHING BOAT LICENSING APPEAL
UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2003
APPELLANT: MR PATRICK DEANE, GEESALA, BALLINA, COUNTY MAYO
MFV JANE ANN
Having considered the notice of Appeal dated the 1st December 2008, and letters from the appellant
received on the 13th February 2009 and the 4th March 2009 and considering all papers to hand in
this matter including the Departments file on same.
DECISION: The appeal is refused.
REASON FOR DECISION: The Policy Directive (2/2003), made under the Fisheries
(Amendment) Act 2003, provides that ‘In future, capacity taken off the Fishing Boat Register must
be re-introduced onto the Sea-Fishing Boat Register within two years from its removal from the
fleet register otherwise the entitlement will be lost to its owner. ‘
It appears that the appellant had a surplus of .82 GT's of capacity from the MFV JANE ANN .
which he purchased from a third party on or about the 12th November 2007. The appellant entered
into correspondence with the Department regarding the surplus capacity, and the Department
approved the sale and by letter of same date he was told that the capacity must be re-introduced
onto the Sea Fishing Boat Register by 24th August 2008 otherwise the entitlement will be lost.
I note another letter of the 11th August 2007 which repeats that the tonnage will expire on the 24th
August 2008.
The appellant in his notice of appeal states that due to not understanding the system and sense of
urgency that he did not follow up things. He was attempting to comply with the Code of Practice for
the boat. He sent for his call sign from the MRAU which I assume is the Maritime Radio Affairs
Unit, but got no word back, and waited for 30 days for response. He then contacted them again but
only to find out it was not traceable and by the time they had found same, his capacity expired. He
also in an undated letter to the Licensing authority repeated his situation.
I am satisfied that the Department in their communications with the appellant clearly set out and
notified him twice with regard to off-register tonnage, that the two year rule must be complied with
or tonnage will be lost. Furthermore, I do not have specifics of the dates that the appellant was
dealing with the MRAU or any copy letters at all. He had from November 2007 to August 2008 to
remedy matters, approximately eight months. Therefore, although I have sympathy with this
appellant, unfortunately I cannot hold for him.
________________
Michael Vallely BL
Appeals Officer,
Law Library,
Four Courts,
Dublin 7
4th March 2009