Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Remote-controlled devices for recreational angling prohibited under the Marine Act. - (16 Jul 2024) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Gannet Works (Pty) Ltd and Others v Middleton Sue NO and Another</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellants, business entities dealing in angling equipment like bait-carrying drones, sought a declaratory order from the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. They wanted the court to declare that using drones and other remote-controlled devices for angling is not prohibited by the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1988 (the Marine Act) and its regulations. They also sought the withdrawal of a public notice issued by the first respondent, the Deputy Director-General for Fisheries Management (DDG), on 24 February 2022, which prohibited the use of such devices. 
The issue in this case was whether the Marine Act and its regulations prohibit the use of bait-carrying drones and other remote-controlled devices for recreational angling. 
The Marine Act defines fishing in Section 1 to include various activities such as searching for, catching, taking, or harvesting fish, and engaging in any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in these outcomes. Section 2 outlines the objectives and principles of the Act, including the need to achieve optimum utilization and ecologically sustainable development of marine living resources, to conserve these resources for present and future generations, to apply precautionary approaches in management, to protect the ecosystem, to preserve marine biodiversity, and to restructure the fishing industry to address historical imbalances and achieve equity. 
The term "angling" is defined in the regulations as "recreational fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line." The word "manually" is key, as it differentiates angling from other fishing activities and implies operation by hand rather than automatically or electronically. The respondents argued, and the court agreed, that a permit for recreational fishing endorsed for angling authorizes only fishing by manually operating a rod, reel, and line. This definition implicitly excludes the use of remote-controlled, motorized equipment, such as drones. 
Section 13 of the Marine Act stipulates that no person shall exercise any right or perform any activity under the Act unless a permit has been issued by the Minister. The permit is subject to the conditions determined by the Minister. The court highlighted that lawful fishing can only be performed with a permit, and the method specified in the permit must be adhered to. The appellants contended that once a fishing permit is issued, the angler is at liberty to use any method not explicitly prohibited by the Marine Act or its regulations. The court rejected this argument, stating that both the type of fishing activity and the method used are specified in the regulations. The activity of angling, as defined in the regulations, explicitly requires manual operation, thereby excluding the use of remote-controlled devices. 
The court referred to the principles of statutory interpretation as outlined in the case of Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another (CCT 99/13). This case emphasized that the interpretation of statutes must consider the text, context, and purpose of the provision in question. Furthermore, the interpretation must align with the Constitution and consider the historical context of the provision. In this case, the Constitutional Court of South Africa underscored the importance of understanding legislative intent and applying a purposive approach to interpretation. This means looking beyond the literal meaning of the words to understand the broader objectives of the legislation. 
Therefore, the court held that the Marine Act and its regulations indeed prohibit the use of remote-controlled devices for angling. Statutory interpretation must consider the text, context, and purpose of the provision, along with the Constitution. Further, Section 24(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 imposes a legal obligation on the Minister to protect the environment through reasonable legislative measures that prevent ecological degradation, promote conservation, and secure ecologically sustainable development. 
The court concluded that the appellants failed to make a case for the relief sought. The use of remote-controlled devices for angling is prohibited under the Marine Act and its regulations. Appeal dismissed with costs.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Marine Law, Marine Act, recreational angling</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>