<p>DETERMINATION OF SEA-FISHING BOAT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2003</p><p>APPELLANT: JOHN CRONIN, COAST ROAD, CASTLETOWNSEND, SKIBBEREEN, COUNTY CORK </p><p>BOAT: KATIE MARIE </p><p>REF NO: 209 </p><p>Having considered the undated Notice of Appeal, with all supporting documentation, the ILASC file, and letters from the appellant including a fax received on the 30th January 2006. </p><p>DECISION: The appeal is refused. </p><p>REASON FOR DECISION: The appellant has submitted that he made a previous application under the 2002 limited inshore scheme, and is eligible under paragraph (ii) of the eligibility criteria, and therefore the bar on having had a boat registered in a different fleet segment should not apply to his case.</p><p>I have considered both schemes, the 2002 and 2003 scheme, with the principal Act the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, and the 2003 Scheme including the Scope of the Scheme and the eligibility criteria under the Scheme at paragraphs (i) and (ii), explanatory memorandum, which does state that the only persons who can apply are those who have not had a boat licensed or registered other than in the specific aquaculture fleet segment and/or those who applied under the limited inshore scheme in 2002. </p><p>The scheme continues to state that ‘it should be clearly understood that those who have had a boat licensed or registered since 1 January 1990. (other than those specifically catered for above) are expressly excluded from the scope of the new scheme. This means that it is not open to those who currently have boats licensed or registered to sell on their boat’s capacity and apply under the scheme. Such applications will not be considered’. </p><p>The appellant clearly has a stateable argument that on an ordinary meaning of the scheme, he is eligible to apply under the scheme having applied under the previous 2002 scheme and he believes that he is not barred from the scheme despite being a previously licensed person ‘THE TON TON LOUIS’, and ‘THE GOLDEN SUNSET’. However, I do not accept that the second sentence above, ‘This means that it is not open to those who currently have boats licensed or registered to sell on their boat’s capacity and apply under the scheme. Such applications will not be considered.’ Gives any assistance to the appellants interpretation of the scheme and I do not believe that it qualifies the first sentence ‘it should be clearly understood that those who have had a boat licensed or registered since 1 January 1990. (other than those specifically catered for above) are expressly excluded from the scope of the new scheme but simply is there for information. </p><p>On considering the context of the principal Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, whose aim is inter alia to conserve and manage fish stock, and the purpose of the inshore potting scheme, I cannot accept that an applicant who makes an application under the 2002 scheme, should be automatically able as a result to avoid the express bar on those who have had a boat licensed or registered since 1 January 1990, as it would defeat the purpose of the scheme and therefore the appellant Mr Cronin on a purposive reading of the scheme as a whole is subject to this bar and as he has had such a boat licensed or registered he is excluded from the present scheme. </p><p>Furthermore, the 2002 scheme was a limited scheme for fishing vessels in the Irish inshore fleet generally, and was not limited to pot-fishing as with the current scheme which also indicates that a simple application under the general 2002 scheme, could not give an applicant a means of avoiding the express bar on having had a boat licensed or registered under the current scheme, and therefore the appellant Mr Cronin on a purposive reading of the schemes and primary act as a whole is subject to this bar. </p><p>Confining myself simply to the TON-TON LOUIS registration, which was in the name of the appellant and a Mr Patrick McCarthy, I am satisfied that the appellant was an owner of this boat albeit in a partnership with another person, and in law must be considered to have had a boat previously registered other than in the specific aquaculture segment and therefore does not qualify under the scheme. </p><p>______Michael Vallely, Law Library, Four Courts, Dublin 7 </p><p>Thursday, 16 March 2006</p>