Hålogaland Court of Appeal overturns convictions in landmark case that exposed fundamental flaws in EU-Norway fisheries information system
In a dramatic reversal that could have far-reaching implications for EU vessels operating in Norwegian waters, two Irish trawler skippers have been acquitted of illegal fishing charges after a Norwegian appeals court ruled they could not be held criminally responsible for violations they had no reasonable way of knowing about.
Paul O’Sullivan of the Ronan Ross and Adrian O’Sullivan of the Sarah David, both from Castletownbere, were acquitted at Hålogaland Court of Appeal on October 24th after a deciding minority of judges concluded the Skippers had “done all that can be required from them” when they unknowingly fished in a prohibited zone for Norwegian spring spawning herring in October 2023.
The court’s decision also meant their companies, Keelbawn Fishing Limited and ODHL Limited, were acquitted of confiscation orders that had reached NOK 1.25 million combined.
The Incident
The case centered on fishing activity that took place between October 18-19, 2023, when the two vessels were operating as pair trawlers in Norway’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Over two trawls, they caught approximately 265,000 kg of herring in an area northeast of a line running from coordinates 72° 10.46′ north to Darupskjæret at 70° 40.5′ north, a zone that has been closed to herring fishing since 1998.
The Coast Guard vessel KV Svalbard monitored the operation, which lasted over six hours before intervention. The first trawl was partly in the prohibited zone, yielding 45,000 kg taken aboard the Ronan Ross. The second trawl, entirely within the closed area, produced 220,000 kg loaded onto the Sarah David.
The Skippers never disputed the factual circumstances. What they contested was whether they could be held criminally liable for breaking a rule they had no knowledge of, and, crucially, no reasonable way of discovering through the established channels they were required to use.
A System That Failed
At the heart of the case lay a communication breakdown that the court found impossible to ignore. Norwegian authorities had sent a diplomatic note, a “Note Verbale”, to the European Commission about the prohibited zone back in February 2022, as they had done previously in 2020, 2021, and 2023. The system was supposed to work like this: Norway notifies Brussels, Brussels informs member states, member states update fishing companies through license conditions.
It didn’t work this time.
The SFPA and Ireland’s Fisheries Monitoring Centre was completely unaware of the prohibition that had been in place for nearly three decades. An email from October 20, 2023, the day after the vessels were stopped, revealed that the Note Verbale forwarded from the EU in 2023 sat unopened in the Dept of the Marine. Why a prohibition in place since 1998 remained unknown to Irish authorities was never adequately explained.
The licenses issued to both vessels by Irish authorities listed their fishing area as “United Kingdom, Norwegian and international waters of ICES Areas 1 and 2” with no mention of any prohibited zones. Both Skippers explained they understood this to mean no such restrictions existed in Norway’s waters, a reasonable interpretation given their experience with other countries’ licensing systems, which explicitly marked closed areas.
Following the Rules, To the Letter
The defence painted a picture of skippers who had done everything by the book. They held valid licenses issued by their flag state. They reported to Ireland’s Fisheries Monitoring Centre when entering Norwegian waters at 23:10 on October 15th, a notification that was forwarded to Norway’s FMC and acknowledged. They switched their electronic logs to Norwegian settings as required.
Throughout their time fishing in the Norwegian zone, they remained under continuous monitoring by Irish authorities, operating under the reasonable assumption, as they testified, that FMC Ireland would immediately alert them if they crossed any prohibition line or risked breaching Norwegian regulations.
The vessels were obligated to send daily catch reports through their flag state authorities. In this case, no reports had yet been filed when the Coast Guard intervened.
The Legal Battle
Nord-Troms and Senja District Court initially convicted both Skippers in June 2024, sentencing each to NOK 18,000 fines. The court acknowledged they were ignorant of the law but ruled this ignorance was negligent, and therefore not a defence.
The companies faced confiscation orders: NOK 188,000 for Keelbawn Fishing Limited and NOK 1,065,000 for ODHL Limited, based on the value of their respective catches.
Both Skippers and the prosecution appealed, with the case eventually reaching Norway’s Supreme Court, which set aside earlier judgments and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. The prosecution sought to increase the fines to NOK 30,000 each and raise the confiscation amounts to NOK 375,860 and NOK 2,129,549 respectively.
The Turning Point
The appeals court split sharply on the central question: Were the Skippers negligent in their ignorance of Norwegian law?
The majority, consisting of two appeal court judges and two lay judges, initially sided with the District Court’s reasoning. They noted that Norwegian courts have consistently held that foreign fishermen cannot simply rely on information from their home authorities. Previous Supreme Court decisions had established that allowing such reliance would “lead to an undesired weakening of the Norwegian authorities’ control and enforcement.”
However, the majority acknowledged this case differed from earlier precedents. Unlike previous cases, here the Skippers had received documented erroneous information from their national authorities, with no indication of disloyalty toward Norway. These were small family-owned companies operating expensive vessels in northern waters, and they clearly weren’t aware of the prohibition, they wouldn’t have fished with a Coast Guard vessel nearby otherwise.
The deciding minority, three lay judges, took a different view that ultimately prevailed. They concluded the Skippers had done everything required of them within the established system. They operated under valid licenses, checked for prohibited zone information, reported their movements, and changed log settings appropriately.
Crucially, the minority noted that if the Skippers had questioned the absence of prohibited zone information in their licenses, “the most obvious thing to do would have been to contact Irish authorities.” They would have received the same answer the license provided, since Irish authorities knew nothing about the restriction.
The minority also considered it significant that the Coast Guard waited over six hours before intervening, which “made the Skippers believe that fishing was legal.”
A System-Level Failure
The court’s final analysis was damning for the notification system: “It is the system, which Norwegian authorities have helped to establish, that has failed. The Skippers can hardly be blamed for that.”
The judgment noted that demanding skippers check directly with Norwegian authorities in addition to following their flag state’s licensing requirements “would be unreasonably strict.” The defence had documented that information about prohibited zones isn’t available in English on the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries website, requiring email or telephone contact. Even email inquiries initially receive only standard replies rather than specific answers, and the Directorate has no dedicated resources for servicing foreign vessels.
While witness testimony established that foreign Skippers “sometimes” contact the Directorate with questions about regulations, the court found this shouldn’t be a requirement when the established inter-governmental notification system exists specifically to prevent such direct burden.
The Confiscation Question
With the Skippers acquitted, the court addressed whether the shipping companies could still face confiscation. Norwegian law allows confiscation of catch value from vessel owners when Marine Resources Act provisions are breached, with the statutory wording suggesting this might occur regardless of conviction.
However, examining precedents including a 2014 Supreme Court case and a 1999 decision, the appeals court concluded there was a “close connection between conviction of the Skippers and the confiscation requirement.” The court found that when Skippers are acquitted, the conditions for confiscation aren’t fulfilled.
The prosecution hadn’t demanded costs, so none were awarded.
Implications
This judgment represents a significant victory for the principle that criminal liability requires not just breaking a rule but having a reasonable opportunity to know that rule exists. It places responsibility squarely on the information system that governments have established, rather than on individual operators who follow that system in good faith.
For Irish vessels and other EU flagged boats operating in Norwegian waters, the case highlights the vulnerability created when inter-governmental notification systems fail. The fact that a prohibition in place for 27 years remained unknown to Irish fisheries authorities despite multiple diplomatic notifications exposes fundamental weaknesses in how maritime regulations are communicated across borders.
The judgment also raises questions about the extent to which coastal states can expect foreign vessels to independently verify regulatory restrictions beyond what their flag state licenses specify. While the court acknowledged that professional fishermen have duties to understand rules governing their activities, it balanced this against practical realities of international fishing operations and established governmental procedures.
For the two Skipper and their companies in Castletownbere, the three-year legal ordeal that stretched from Norwegian district courts through appeals to the Supreme Court and back has finally ended in vindication, though not before causing substantial legal costs and uncertainty for their operations.
The case serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of managing shared marine resources across multiple jurisdictions, and the human cost when administrative systems fail the very people they’re designed to serve.
