‘Northern-registered vessels no mussel seed fishing rights’
The six-judge court yesterday unanimously upheld arguments by four mussel fishermen mussel seed is a “natural resource” belonging to the State, the control and management of which must, under Article 10 of the Constitution, be provided for “by law”.
“The practice of harvesting or fishing for mussel seed by NI-registered boats in the territorial waters of this State is not lawful as it constitutes the exploitation of a natural resource which must, by Article 10 of the Constitution, be provided for by a law enacted by the Oireachtas,” Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell said in the court’s unanimous judgment,
“There is no such law at present,” he said, adding that there was “no insuperable constitutional objection” to making provision by law now for such fishing.
There was “much to applaud” in North-South co-operation in relation to mussel fishing and the court’s decision was solely about whether such fishing by NI-registered boats is lawful, he said.
It did not address the merits of the fishermen’s objections to such fishing or whether winning the case on the issue of its legality would bring them any material benefit.
The court adjourned to a later date a hearing to decide issues arising from the judgment, including what form of declaration should be made in the case.
The fishermen’s action also included a claim for damages and that issue is likely to be raised at a future date.
The four — Paul Barlow, Dunmore East, Co Wexford; Michael Crowley, Killinick, Co Wexford; Gerard Kelly, Greencastle, Co Donegal; and Alex McCarthy, Kildimo, Co Limerick — claimed they face financial ruin as a result of alleged disastrous depletion of mussel seed stocks caused by allowing boats from outside the Republic dredge for seed off the east coast.
They claimed “aggressive and unsympathetic” fishing by NI-registered vessels caused the loss of a sustainable Irish mussel industry which could have employed hundreds of people.
The ultimate owners of many NI-registered vessels are not based inthe North and instead are substantial foreign interests, they said.
Losses to the State in earnings from the export of mussels over 12 years could be as much as €200m, they alleged.
They invested €16m for four mussel-dredging vessels and each got a state grant of about €1.4m, having qualified for EU-backed aid.
They claimed that their investments were based on a legitimate expectation sufficient mussel seed would be available to support the enterprises and repay loans on the vessels but available mussel seed dropped from 30,000 tons in 2002 to 2,400 tons in 2013.
Allowing their appeal against the High Court’s rejection of their case, Mr Justice O’Donnell noted, because mussel harvesting is not, as yet, controlled under the “complex EU fishing regime”, this case was decided on Irish law.
For 50 years, and likely since the foundation of this State, fishermen resident in Northern Ireland have fished here with the knowledge and approval of the authorities here and in circumstances where fishermen from this State got reciprocal facilities in the waters off the Northern Irish coast, he said.
He rejected arguments by the State that arrangements entered into in 1965 allowing Northern fishermen fish in the State’s waters were permitted by domestic law under the 2006 Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act and were lawful.
Those arrangements, while admirable in the context of the time, were vague and uncertain and amounted to a “gentleman’s agreement” not binding in law.
