## Facts

- Emmanuel Mortensen, a Danish national, was master of the Norwegian-registered steam trawler *Niobe*.
- He was prosecuted in the Sheriff Court of Dornoch for using “otter-trawling,” a prohibited fishing method, in the Moray Firth.
- The prohibition rested on (1) statutory authority allowing by-laws to forbid certain trawling within an area defined by a line from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point, (2) a statute imposing penalties on “any person” contravening such by-laws, and (3) a Fishery Board by-law applying the prohibition to the whole defined area.
- The alleged fishing occurred within the area delimited by the statutory headland-to-headland line, but more than one marine league (three miles) from the adjacent coast.
- Mortensen raised a preliminary objection that the locus was outside British territorial waters under international law, and that the legislation should be construed as not applying to foreigners beyond the three-mile limit.
- The sheriff rejected the objection, convicted Mortensen, and imposed a £50 fine (paid), with imprisonment in default.
- Mortensen appealed to the High Court of Justiciary by stated case, challenging jurisdiction and the legal competence of the conviction and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the relevant fisheries statutes and by-law, properly construed, authorized summary criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national on a foreign-flag vessel fishing beyond three miles from shore but within the area defined by the statutory line across the Moray Firth.
2. Whether a domestic criminal court may decline to enforce clear statutory language on the ground that it conflicts with asserted rules of international law concerning territorial waters and wide bays.

## Decision

- The High Court of Justiciary (Full Bench) held that Mortensen was subject to the jurisdiction of the Dornoch Sheriff Court.
- The Court held that the conviction and sentence were legal and competent.
- The Court treated the statutes and by-law as extending the prohibition throughout the defined area, notwithstanding that part of the area lay beyond the three-mile limit.
- The Court enforced the statutory scheme against Mortensen despite arguments based on international law and foreign nationality.

## Legal Principles

- Where Parliament has clearly legislated to regulate conduct in a defined maritime area, domestic courts must apply the statute as written even if it appears inconsistent with customary international law.
- International law does not override an unambiguous statute in domestic adjudication; it operates only to the extent incorporated or not contradicted by legislation.
- Statutory language applying to “any person” may extend regulatory and penal provisions to foreign nationals and foreign-flag vessels when the legislation defines the regulated area in territorial terms.
- A by-law validly made under statutory authority can define the regulated fisheries area by a headland-to-headland line and apply prohibitions throughout that area for purposes of domestic enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a fisheries conviction against a foreign master of a foreign-registered vessel for prohibited trawling within a statutorily defined area of the Moray Firth beyond three miles from shore, holding that clear legislation governs in domestic courts even if it conflicts with asserted international-law limits on maritime jurisdiction.


Mortensen v. Peters, 14 S.L.T. 227 (High Ct. Justiciary 1906)