Charges of unlicensed fishing require proof of the vessels' ownership and operational control by the accused, both of which were not established.

[1] This is a case whereby the Appellant had filed two (2) separate appeals in respect of two (2) cases of the same nature. In those appeals filed by the Appellant, it is against the convictions and sentences of the Learned Sessions Court Judge after full trial that was given on the 28 August 2020 whereby the Appellant was convicted and was sentenced to a fine of RM20,000.00 for each case and that the vessels ONE UNITED 05 and ONE UNITEN 37 are to be forfeited to the government of Malaysia.

The Charges:

[2] The Charges meted out against the Appellant was :

Case KCH-63EG-1/6-2018 :-

"That you, as a representative for ONE UNITED SEAFOOD TRADING SDN BHD, at a position of Latitude 4 degrees 05.57 North and Longitude 111 degrees 57.00 East, at a distance of 82.9 nautical miles from international maritime border Malaysia-Brunei, allows ONE UNITEN 37, a local fishing vessel to be operated, for the purpose of fishing at Malaysia fisheries waters, without a valid license issued by the Director General of Fisheries Malaysia in pursuant to s 11 of the Fisheries Act 1985 [Act 317]. Therefore, you have thereby committed an offence under para 8(a) Fisheries Act 1985 and punishable under para 25(b) read together with para 52(1)(a) of the same Act."

Case KCH-63EG-2/6-2018 :-

"That you, as a representative for ONE UNITED SEAFOOD TRADING SDN BHD, at a position of Latitude 4 degrees 05.69 North and Longitude 111 degrees 57.07 East, at a distance of 82.9 nautical miles from international maritime border Malaysia-Brunei, allows ONE UNITED 05, a local fishing vessel to be operated, for the purpose of fishing at Malaysia fisheries waters, without a valid license issued by the Director General of Fisheries Malaysia in pursuant to s 11 of the Fisheries Act 1985 [Act 317]. Therefore, you have thereby committed an offence under para 8(a) Fisheries Act 1985 and punishable under para 25(b) read together with para 52(1)(a) of the same Act."

The SCJ's Grounds Of Decision:

[3] In discussing the evidence adduced, the SCJ had accepted that the Court finds there is no fishing activity at the time the vessels were spotted on 23 May 2018 at about 4.58 pm at the said locality. The evidence shows that vessels were detained 10 minutes apart from each other and they were equipped with fishing net that was tied to the pole on the vessels and the evidence shows the nets are not ready for use at the material time. In order to fish, the vessels have to be paired for one vessel is incapable to trawl alone.

[4] In gist, the SCJ during trial had found that the charges against the representative of the company - the owner of the vessels; disclosed no offence for the charges under s 8 of the Act is about fishing without license and is in contravention of any conditions of the license or direction in writing issued by the Director General pursuant to the Act whereas the charge framed against the representative were relating to the representative allowing a vessel to fish in Malaysian water without license.

[5] The SCJ was initially of the view that the offending provision of allowing a vessel to fish without license is more likely in s 11(3)(a) of the Act and the representative of the company was not charged under this particular section. Hence the representative was initially discharged and acquitted on this ground alone. There was no evidence to show that the representative or the named company ha