Ministry for Primary Industries v Adams [2018] NZDC 20372 (28 September 2018)

Last Updated: 6 July 2019

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO TIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGAREI

I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE

KI WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA

CRI-2018-088-000785 [2018] NZDC 20372

MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

Prosecutor v

JEREMY ADAMS

_Defendant

Hearing:	28 September 2018
Appearances:	M Bodie for the Prosecutor Defendant appears in Person
Judgment:	28 September 2018

_{NOTES OF JUDGE G L DAVIS ON SENTENCING}

[1] I have before me Jeremy Adams. Mr Adams has pleaded guilty to one charge of fishing in a marine reserve. He was also found guilty today of obstructing a fisheries officer in the execution of his duties. It is my job now to sentence Mr Adams, based on the facts as I understand them. I have narrated the facts in the decision finding

Mr Adams guilty.

[2] A fisheries officer, [Officer 1], has turned up at the Motukaroro Marine Reserve. Mr Adams and two others were at the marine reserve. One of the others was fishing. [Officer 1] has approached them, told them they were in a fishing reserve, indicated he was going to seize the fish and the rods. Mr Adams became upset by that and aggressive and said that he could take the fish, but if he took the rods and the reels

_{and the contact details of the others, he would get upset and that would not go well for}

MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES v JEREMY ADAMS [2018] NZDC 20372 [28 September 2018]

[Officer 1]. That forced him to retreat to his boat. That is a general summary of what

I have found today. That amounted to obstruction.

[3] In dealing with sentence, I have today been handed a summary of a number of obstruction convictions. The most relevant, and while I do not have the details, I have a summary of it, is a case from the North Shore District Court in 2017, Ludloff v Department of Conservation. In that case, Mr Ludloff was apprehended fishing in a marine reserve, no fish were caught. He launched his vessel from a ramp where there was a DOC marine reserve sign. Rangers attempted to seize the rod as evidence. The defendant did not co-operate, refused to let the rod to be seized, despite several attempts and warnings about obstruction.

[4] He was fined $750 for taking marine life, plus a cumulative $200 fine for obstruction, $250 solicitor’s fees and Court costs of $130. I take it from that that would have included credit for guilty pleas. It is not clear to me whether or not this was the starting point or the end point of the fine.

[5] I am of the view that the most serious charge here is the taking of the fish from the marine reserve. That is not to belittle or undermine the obstruction charge and the threat that [Officer 1] found himself to be under. I take the view that a fine starting point of $1000 in respect of the taking of the marine life is the appropriate starting point. That has to be uplifted by another $500 to take into account the obstruction charge.

[6] However, Mr Adams is entitled to a 25 percent reduction in the $1000 fine back to $750 to take into account an intimated guilty plea on the first day. He has not seriously disputed that aspect of the charge, he has represented himself and in my view, while there was a not guilty plea entered, that is probably likely to have been out of a misunderstanding of the process rather than a deliberate not guilty plea. I will give him 25 percent off that $1000 fine.

[7] In respect of the $500 fine, that has been the subject of the defended hearing today, that discount cannot apply. However, I have heard from Mr Adams today about his personal circumstances. He is on a sickness benefit, he has had a number of back

operations and has been in some discomfort here today. He cannot work and cannot do community work. I am of the view that in these personal circumstances, which I accept Mr Adams at his word on this point, there is no medical evidence to support what he is saying, but I simply do not take the view that he is making that aspect of his story up.

[8] The total fines should be reduced by a further $500 to take into account those personal circumstances. That leaves an end fine of $750, which in my view is where this should end today.

[9] I propose to deal with it in the following way. In respect of the taking marine life, Mr Adams will be convicted and fined $500. In respect of the obstruction charge, he will be convicted and fined $250. One lot of Court costs on the taking marine life will be imposed of $130. In other words, a total of $750, plus Court costs of $130.

_{The seized snapper are to be forfeited to the Crown.}

Judge GL Davis

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 03/10/2018

In an electronic form, authenticated pursuant to Rule 2.2(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.