DETERMINATION OF THE FISHING BOAT LICENSING APPEAL

UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003

APPELLANT:KEVIN KIELTHY, BRIDGETOWN, CO WEXFORD

REFERENCE NO: 546

Having determined that an oral hearing in relation to this matter is not necessary and that the documentation that has been furnished by the Appellant is sufficient evidence in order to determine this Appeal. I have considered the documentation that has been furnished upon me, namely, the Notice of Appeal dated the 2nd August, 2004, together with all supporting documentation and exhibits the papers on the original application made to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources including submissions from the Department and correspondence between that Department and the Appellant.

DECISION:

This Appeal is granted.

REASON FOR DECISION:

  1. The licence for the Appellant’s fishing vessel was refused on the basis that the licensing authority concluded that the Appellant did not satisfy the following criteria; that the Applicant must be the current owner of the boat in respect of which the licence application was made and has been in the possession of same on or before the 18th June, 2003.

From the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and further submission papers that have been filed it is clear that the Appellant mistakenly indicated on his original application form that he was applying for a licence in respect of a vehicle that at that stage did not exist. The explanation that the Appellant now gives for this fact, which he accepts did occur, is that the vessel for which the application should have been made was for the vessel named “MFV Galilee”, a vessel that the Appellant had operated from the 6th June, 1988 until the 15th November, 2001. At this stage the vessel was old and had deteriorated considerably however he still owned the vessel until it sank in October 2003 as a result of her poor condition. The Appellant included as an exhibit in his Appeal a documentation proving ownership of the vessel by way of an official declaration of ownership made before a Commissioner for Oaths dated the 30th July, 2003. This declaration has been signed and witnessed by Mr Edward King a Solicitor in Westgate, Co Wexford. As such I am of the belief that the vessel was owned by the Appellant at the time he first applied for his licence namely the 16th June, 2003.

  1. If the application form had been filled in correctly I am of the view that the Appellant’s licence would have been granted. The difficulty appears to have arisen as a result of the Appellant indicating that the boat for which he was applying for a licence was in respect of a boat that was in the process of being constructed and as such, it did not exist at the time of the application. This was because according to the Appellant the boat which was in his ownership namely the “MRV Galilee” was due for decommission as a result of its deteriorated state. At the time the application was brought the Appellant intended and indeed was in the process of building a new boat which he would then use from thereon onwards. As a result of the timing in relation to the application being brought the Appellant in a sense fell between two stools and as a result of this the licence was not granted to him.
  1. On the basis that I am satisfied that had the Appellant indicated that the licence was being applied for in respect of the MFV Galilee and that this boat together with all the evidence that the Appellant has furnished (including receipts which demonstrate that he has had a track record of commercial sea fishing for the criteria set out in the scheme) and that all other criteria are amended I am satisfied that the Appellant comes within the scheme.

______

EMILE DALY B.L.

Appeals Officer,

Law Library,

Four Courts,

Dublin 7

23rd August 2006