why is it the Comm's can dump 100s of tonnes of fish yet no prosecution?

A recently released email shows the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) did not want to prosecute fish dumpers for fear it would jeopardise future operations.

Prime quota species being thrown overboard has been caught on camera by MPI. It's blatantly illegal behaviour, but MPI decided no one should end up in court.

"The way in which the decision not to prosecute over the apparent dumping of quota fish is regrettable," says MPI Director General Martyn Dunne.

"It is also very disappointing that the process was characterised by confusion and a lack of adequate documentation and communication."

The case for a prosecution was made clear in a 2013 MPI report called Operation Achilles. The purpose of the operation was to put observers and cameras on vessels to monitor dolphin by-catch.

When investigators also filmed illegal fish dumping, they recommended a prosecution.

But that never happened, and an email that has just been released explains why.

"My concern is that prosecuting these fishers where there seems to have been implied immunity could potentially scuttle this very important project," it read.

It means they feared punishing those who volunteered, which could make it difficult to get by in the future.

"This is supposed to be the agency that enforces the law and the senior managers of that agency blocked prosecution, even though they were sitting on evidence that showed flagrant, systemic fish dumping," says Greenpeace Executive Director Russel Norman.

The author of the email was MPI's Director of Fisheries, Dave Turner - but he gave Newshub a different explanation for not prosecuting in June this year.

"We couldn't prosecute because of the legislation - we couldn't use the evidence gathered by the video footage," he said at the time.

The Independent Investigator investigating the case says the decision to not prosecute was "flawed" in that the law simply wasn't enforced.

Do you have more information on this story? If so, click here to email me.
"Mfish and MPI, in my view, have not grappled effectively with aspects of the problem, and neither enforced the law or acted to change it," says Michael Heron QC.

The QC's inquiry was initiated after a Newshub investigation, which involved the public release of Operation Achilles.

MPI's own investigator stated in that report that five of six vessels monitored openly dumped fish - between "20 to 100 percent of some quota species were discarded during every haul".

Two months after that was revealed, out came two emails from MPI sent to all staff, and Scott Gallacher and Andrew Coleman had both resigned - although the boss claims that's got nothing to do with the failure to prosecute.

"It is a coincidence," says Mr Dunne.

The recreational sector says an overhaul of MPI is necessary to restore public confidence.

This review was undertaken because MPI's credibility was under attack, but the findings have done little to restore that.

Newshub.

I totally agree, it IS wrong. The excuse given though, that it was going to ruin their chances to access boats for future monitoring, hmmmm, plausable. But it still frikken sucks.
What they need to do now is put monitors back on those ships full time, and if they do it again, nail them,and if not, but their catch record when monitored is significantly different...., then nail them again for that.
Were these NZ boats with NZ crews?

Tagit wrote: because the industry 'are their friends'.

v8-coupe wrote: The other thing to take into account is MPI gets a large proportion of its funding via the commercial fishing industry, Must not bite the hand that feeds you.

I'm inclined to disagree with this, what leads you to believe that?

Rozboon wrote: v8-coupe wrote: The other thing to take into account is MPI gets a large proportion of its funding via the commercial fishing industry, Must not bite the hand that feeds you. I'm inclined to disagree with this, what leads you to believe that?

By that I mean via fees, levies and compliance costs et al
I do not mean via donations or gratuities/back handers.
I also believe there is some voluntary financial input into some MPI programs. However the bulk of commercial funding is as stated, by compliance costs and fees/levies.
I should have also included other primary industries help fund MPI as well.
Hope I have clarified things.
MPI is not fully funded by the Government. Being not fully funded and relying on outside sources of revenue leaves you vulnerable and your independance can be questioned.
Which it has been of late.