Sentencing — trawling in protected area — forfeiture — Fisheries Act 1996, ss 8, 254 & 255E — Fisheries Act 1983 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106 & 107 — Fisheries (Benthic Protection Areas) Regulations 2007 — Basile v Atwill [1995] 2 NZLR 537 — Croad v Hughes CA52/95, 21 June 1995 — Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries v Modesto Holdings Ltd HC Invercargill AP4/93, 21 June 1993 — Ministry of Fisheries v Mogford Fishing Ltd DC Napier CRI-2005-041-3802, 7 April 2006 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 — Ministry for Primary Industries v Hasson and Antons Trawling Company Limited DC Wellington CRNs 12008500019-22, 27 January 2014. Three defendants appeared for sentence after pleading guilty to charges of trawling in a protected area. A vessel owned by the first defendant and crewed by the second and third had undertaken trawling in the Mid Chatham Rise Benthic Protection Area (a government-created reserve aimed at protecting life on the seafloor). Over five separate trawls the defendants had netted approximately 40,000 kilograms of fish as well as approximately 1300 kilograms of sponges as bycatch. The second and third defendants explained that they had not meant to fish inside the protected area and had done so by misreading the vessel's navigation system; however the prosecution argued that they should have taken more care to ensure that they were not in the protected area before they began trawling. Since the charges came about the first defendant had taken steps to make its charts easier to read and to ensure that its crew members did not lose their bearings while at sea; however, the Court considered that the first defendant should have already had these measures in place before the charges arose. The Court found no special circumstances to displace the legislative presumption of forfeiture of the vessel and the profits gained from selling the fish caught inside the protected area; therefore, the vessel and the money were both forfeited. The Court set start points for fines at $10,000 for the second defendant and $15,000 for the third. Because both defendants had pleaded guilty, had clean previous records, and because the offending was accidental, the Court reduced the sentences to $5000 plus costs of $130 for the second defendant, and to $7500 plus costs of $130 for the third. The Court set the start point for the first defendant's fine at $60,000, taking into account the likely extent of the damage to the protected area. For remedial steps, good prior record and guilty plea, the fine was reduced to $24,000 plus costs of $130. Judgment Date: 24 July 2020.