A High Court judge has overturned decisions by the Minister for Communications and Natural Resources that had the effect of reducing the mackerel fishing quota allocated to the owners of the fishing vessel Atlantean, which operates from the port of Killybegs, Co Donegal.
Mr Justice Frank Clarke quashed the decisions because the Minister had failed to give Atlantean the basis of the claims against it. However, he also ruled that the Minister is entitled to raise the issue again once he complies with the appropriate constitutional principles.
The background to the Minister's decisions stemmed from the apparent discovery by the relevant authorities in Scotland of undeclared landings of mackerel. The apparent undeclared landings were brought to the attention of the relevant EU authorities.
It was claimed that a number of Irish boats were involved with other boats in the undeclared landings in question.
In opposing the Minister's subsequent decisions reducing the Atlantean quotas, Des Faherty, managing director of Atlantean, said he had spent the last 40 years building up the business and the vessel was carrying mortgages of €9 million. If the mackerel allocation cuts were upheld, he would be unable to maintain repayments of approximately €1 million annually on such borrowings, he said. He had never been tried or convicted of offences related to undeclared landings in this jurisdiction or in the UK, he added.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Clarke said that in October 2006 the Minister came to the view that the Atlantean was responsible for a significant amount of the alleged undeclared landings in Scotland. The Minister also later decided that the burden of the reduced quotas available to Ireland resulting from such undeclared landings should be borne by those boats, including the Atlantean, that, in the Minister's view had made the undeclared landings concerned.
The judge said he was satisfied the Minister's decisions must be quashed as the Minister was in breach of the principles of constitutional justice by failing to afford the parties concerned some reasonable opportunity to know the basis of the allegations against them and make a response.
However, the Minister was, the judge ruled, entitled to raise the issue again, provided that in so doing he complied with the principles of constitutional justice.