Lordship: How a Rigging Emergency Became a Fiji Customs Prosecution

A factual account for cruising sailors

On 29 September 2026, the Magistrate’s Court of Fiji acquitted me of a Customs offence arising from the arrival of my sailing yacht, Lordship, in Fiji without a last-port clearance from Tonga.

The case began with a rigging emergency at sea in September 2024 and took almost two years to resolve. This account explains what happened, the attempts to settle the dispute, the Court’s decision and the implications for other cruising sailors.

This account is based on my experience, court submissions and the Court’s written judgment.

The voyage from Tonga

I am the owner and skipper of Lordship, a 38-foot monohull. At the time of these events, I had sailed her from the UK to Fiji and visited approximately 25 countries aboard her.

I entered Tonga from American Samoa on 27 August 2024. On 26 September 2024, after completing the required Immigration and Customs procedures, I departed Vavaʻu alone, intending to sail to New Zealand. The Tongan authorities issued me with outward clearance for that voyage.

On the morning after departure, I discovered serious damage to Lordship’s forestay. Several of its stainless-steel strands had broken. The forestay supports the mast, so its condition was a structural safety issue.

I immediately reduced sail and made for the nearest safe anchorage in the Haʻapai Group. I anchored at 4 p.m. on Friday 27 September. The following morning, I climbed the mast, inspected the damage and installed a temporary support using Dyneema rope.

That temporary measure helped support the mast, but it did not make the boat safe for normal sailing.

Attempts to obtain assistance in Tonga

On Monday 30 September, I reported to the Customs office at Pangai and explained the damage and my need to re-enter Tonga. A Customs officer took the outward-clearance document that had previously been issued to me and wrote “cancelled” across it.

This was done on the basis that my tourist visa had expired on 28 September. I was informed that I would have to pay a fine of TOP$1,000 (approximately US$400) and was directed to return to Vavaʻu to pay the fine and re-enter the country.

On 1 October, I contacted the Boatyard in Vavaʻu about having my forestay repaired. They informed me that they had no swaging machine, no cables or connectors, and no qualified rigger. I then contacted Westside Rigging in Fiji. They confirmed that the necessary materials and facilities were available there.

I made repeated attempts over several days to resolve the position with the Tongan authorities and also emailed the Tongan High Commission seeking assistance. Those efforts were unsuccessful.

Vavaʻu was geographically closer, but sailing there required an upwind passage that would place substantially greater loads on the damaged forestay. I did not believe that was safe. Fiji could be approached downwind, placing less stress on the rigging, and professional repair facilities had been confirmed there.

I therefore decided that the safer course was to sail carefully to Fiji.

Advance notification to Fiji

On 2 October 2024—seven days before arrival—I completed Fiji’s Advance Notification of Arrival process and emailed the Fiji Revenue and Customs Service (FRCS), Immigration and Biosecurity. I explained the damage, my emergency return to Tonga and the temporary repair. I also explained why I was diverting to Fiji for repairs before continuing to New Zealand.

I then sailed under reduced sail and arrived at Port Denarau, a designated Fiji port, on 9 October 2024.

When the Customs officer conducting the inward clearance asked for Lordship’s last-port clearance, I immediately explained that I did not possess it because the Tongan authorities had taken it back following my emergency return. I showed him the temporary support for the mast and explained that I had come to Fiji for repairs before continuing to New Zealand.

The investigation and allegation

Fiji Customs referred the matter for investigation. I was interviewed under caution on 11 October 2024.

The allegation was that, as master of Lordship, I had contravened section 19(1)(d) of Fiji’s Customs Act by failing to furnish a last-port clearance when required to do so by a Customs officer. The eventual prosecution was brought under section 19(7).

I did not dispute that I had arrived without the document. The Tongan authorities had taken back my clearance and marked it “cancelled” after my emergency return. It was therefore impossible for me to produce it in Fiji. I also maintained that the voyage to Fiji had been undertaken in response to a maritime emergency.

Compounding: admitting the offence before knowing the penalty

FRCS proposed resolving the allegation through a procedure called “compounding”. Under section 155 of Fiji’s Customs Act, this allows the Comptroller of Customs to settle an offence without a criminal trial. Before that power can be exercised, the person must admit in writing that they committed the offence and ask the Comptroller to deal with it.

The Comptroller determines the financial penalty, up to the maximum fine a court could impose following a conviction. Section 155 also states that the resulting order is final and cannot be appealed. Customs Act, section 155

For the offence alleged against me, the maximum fine was FJ$100,000. That was therefore also the statutory ceiling for a compounding penalty. Customs Act, section 19(7)

A figure of approximately FJ$12,000 (approximately US$5,500) had been mentioned, but FRCS refused to confirm the amount despite repeated requests from both me and my lawyer.

I considered even the suggested FJ$12,000 penalty grossly disproportionate to the circumstances of an emergency diversion that I had fully disclosed in advance.

I was being asked to give up the opportunity to defend the charge at trial before knowing what I would have to pay. There was no guarantee that the penalty would be limited to the figure mentioned.

I maintained that I had committed no offence and declined to sign.

The investor permit and import-duty issue

In May 2025, while the Customs case remained unresolved, I obtained an investor permit. I wanted to be able to do something productive while staying in Fiji and avoid having to fly out of Fiji and back in every four to six months to renew my tourist status.

That change in immigration status had implications for Lordship. The temporary import-duty concession for visiting yachts requires the owner to retain their status as a bona fide tourist. My move to an investor permit therefore raised a separate question about import duty on the boat. FRCS conditions of temporary entry

Settlement negotiations in October 2025

In October 2025, with no court date in sight, I attempted to negotiate a settlement. At a meeting involving me, my lawyer and the FRCS team, we agreed on a reduced figure of FJ$10,000.

When I tried to formalise that agreement, however, I was presented with a compounding form containing no settlement amount. FRCS again refused to put the agreed figure into the form.

I wrote directly to the CEO of FRCS asking for the agreed amount to be recorded. Following that correspondence, I received a revised form specifying FJ$10,000. It also introduced an additional condition: liability for import duty on Lordship.

I asked what that liability meant, how much I would have to pay and how the boat’s value would be calculated. FRCS refused to clarify those points and told me I had to sign the form as it stood if I wished to settle. The proposed settlement now required me to accept FJ$10,000 plus an undisclosed amount of import duty. I still could not establish what signing would ultimately cost.

I again involved the CEO, seeking removal of the import-duty condition. I did not accept that settling the last-port-clearance allegation should require me also to admit an unexplained liability for importing my boat.

I decided to contest the charge and put the full circumstances before the court.

The trial and technical evidence

I pleaded not guilty on 20 January 2026. The trial was heard at Nadi Magistrate’s Court on 24 April and 8 May 2026.

The prosecution called two witnesses: the Customs officer who conducted Lordship’s inward clearance at Port Denarau and the senior Customs officer who investigated the case. I gave evidence in my defence and called Sam Price, the marine rigger who inspected and repaired Lordship in Fiji.

The Court received my Customs interview, advance-arrival notification, correspondence, passport and vessel documents, photographs of the damaged forestay and a repair receipt.

The prosecution argued that I should have obtained clearance before leaving Tonga and should have gone to Vavaʻu, which was closer than Fiji. It maintained that the rigging damage did not remove the requirement to produce the clearance.

Under cross-examination, the officer who cleared Lordship into Fiji accepted that I had originally departed Tonga with the required papers and that the authorities had taken them back after my return. He had personally seen the temporary Dyneema support and knew why I had diverted to Fiji.

The investigating officer accepted that I did not physically possess the clearance and could not produce a document I did not have.

He also accepted that he had no sailing experience. Although he said that he had been informed that repair facilities were available in Vavaʻu, no admissible independent evidence supporting that information was produced before the Court. The magistrate therefore gave limited weight to his view that I could simply have sailed there and noted that he had no comparable expertise with which to contradict the evidence about the danger of an upwind passage. Judgment, paragraphs 16, 30 and 36

Sam Price had approximately 18 years’ experience repairing yacht masts and standing rigging and had participated in 18 Sydney-to-Hobart yacht races. He had inspected and repaired Lordship’s forestay. He described the damage as structural: a complete failure could bring down the mast, damage the hull and potentially sink the vessel. The forestay needed replacement using specialist equipment, including a hydraulic press.

His evidence also addressed the choice of destination. He explained that an upwind passage placed greater stress on the damaged rigging and that travelling downwind towards Fiji was the safer course. The Court accepted him as a reliable witness on these technical matters. Judgment, paragraphs 30 and 36–37

The judgment’s account of the defence submissions also records that both prosecution witnesses accepted in cross-examination that Fiji was obliged to afford safe passage to vessels in distress. It records separately that the inward-clearance officer agreed that failing to afford Lordship safe harbour was contrary to Fiji’s obligations under SOLAS. The Court ultimately treated UNCLOS and SOLAS as relevant context for assessing the emergency and the reasonableness of my actions, rather than as creating an automatic exemption from Fiji’s Customs requirements. Judgment, paragraphs 26 and 32–33

After the hearings, the prosecution filed its closing submissions on 25 June 2026 and the defence on 7 September 2026.

Why the Court acquitted me

The Court’s decision rested on the wording of the Customs Act and, separately, the statutory defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency.

“The clearance, if any”

Section 19(1)(d) requires the master, if requested by the proper officer, to furnish “the clearance, if any.” Those final two words were central to the decision. The Court had to consider why the document was absent and whether I still possessed or controlled a clearance that I could produce.

The magistrate distinguished between failing to produce an existing clearance that a master can furnish and being unable to produce a document that the previous country’s authorities have retained or cancelled following an emergency return.

The prosecution had not proved that such a clearance remained available to me when the Fiji Customs officer requested it. The absence of the document, without more, did not establish the offence. Judgment, paragraphs 41–44

My advance notification and immediate explanation upon arrival supported the reliability and consistency of my account. The Court did not treat advance notification as a substitute for clearance.

The emergency defence

The Court separately considered section 41 of Fiji’s Crimes Act 2009, which concerns a sudden or extraordinary emergency. It examined whether I reasonably believed the course I adopted was the only reasonable means of dealing with the emergency and whether my response was reasonable. My attempts to secure the mast and obtain assistance, together with Mr Price’s evidence, supported my account.

The investigating officer admitted that he had no sailing experience. His claim that repairs were available in Vavaʻu was unsupported by independent admissible evidence. The magistrate gave limited weight to his opinion that I could simply have gone there and found that he had no comparable expertise with which to contradict Mr Price on the danger of an upwind passage.

The magistrate found that the evidence sufficiently raised the emergency defence and that the prosecution had not disproved it beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment, paragraphs 30–31 and 45

Refusing to compound was not evidence of guilt

The magistrate held that my refusal to compound could not be treated as evidence of guilt. Other yacht operators’ admissions and settlements did not establish that I had committed an offence. She gave the proposed settlement figures and previous settlements no weight in deciding the charge. Judgment, paragraph 34

The Court did not decide whether the proposed financial penalty was proportionate.

The role of international maritime law

The defence referred to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS.

The Court treated those instruments as relevant context for assessing the emergency and the reasonableness of my actions, including the importance of protecting life at sea.

The judgment also placed limits on their significance. It did not hold that UNCLOS or SOLAS gives a vessel in distress a blanket exemption from domestic Customs requirements. Nor did it decide that Fiji was obliged to grant Lordship unconditional entry into Port Denarau.

Their relevance was to the circumstances of this voyage and my response to the emergency. Judgment, paragraphs 32–33

The verdict

On 29 September 2026, Resident Magistrate Talei Kean found me not guilty and acquitted me in FRCS v Andrew Brown, Private Prosecution Case No. 009/2025. The prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment advised the parties of a 28-day period in which to appeal.

Read the full judgment, transcribed from the signed 12-page court document.

The unresolved import-duty issue

The import-duty issue arising from my change to an investor permit remains unsettled.

When delivering judgment, the magistrate also told us that the import-duty issue fell outside her responsibility in the criminal case and had to be resolved between FRCS and me. The acquittal settled the last-port-clearance charge; it did not determine the separate question of import duty on Lordship.

Practical lessons for sailors

For me, the most useful lesson is the importance of keeping a clear record at all times when sailing.

Copies of clearance documents are particularly valuable. Immediately photograph every document you are given so that you have a record if the original becomes unavailable.

Photographs of the damage, emails seeking repairs, correspondence with officials, the advance-arrival notification and the rigger’s evidence all helped establish what had happened and why I had acted as I did.

The case also shows why the direction of a passage can matter as much as its length. A geographically closer destination may place a damaged yacht under greater strain. Explaining that distinction required evidence from someone with practical sailing and rigging expertise.

My experience with compounding raises a separate point. Before signing an admission or settlement, understand what offence you are admitting, who will determine the payment, whether the amount is fixed in writing, what additional liabilities the document introduces and whether the resulting decision can be appealed. In my case, those questions remained unresolved despite repeated requests and a negotiated figure.

The help I had expected

I had also assumed that a sailor facing an emergency would receive practical help from coastal authorities or his own government. I believed international maritime law would protect me and that Tonga and Fiji would offer assistance. My experience challenged that assumption.

After my first visit to Customs in the Haʻapai Group, I immediately contacted the British mission in New Zealand. The response was sympathetic, but I was told there was essentially nothing the British Government would do to help.

International maritime law helped support my case in court, but it did not secure the practical assistance I needed at the time. I will not make the same assumption about that assistance again.

What does this mean practically for sailors in Fiji?

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. What follows is my view of how this case might have a positive impact on our sailing community.

FRCS’s position in my case was essentially that arriving without a last-port clearance document was enough to establish the offence. I had arrived without the document; therefore, in its view, I had contravened section 19 and faced prosecution or compounding.

The magistrate rejected that interpretation. Section 19(1)(d) requires a master, when requested, to furnish “the clearance, if any.” As the judgment states, “The absence of the document, without more, does not establish a contravention of section 19(1)(d).” The Court considered why the document was missing and whether there was a clearance in my possession or control that I could have furnished. Judgment, paragraphs 41–44

My circumstances were unusual: I had cleared out of Tonga lawfully, suffered a serious structural failure at sea and returned because of that emergency. The Tongan authorities then took back my clearance and marked it “cancelled”. The Court also found that the evidence raised the statutory emergency defence, which the prosecution had not disproved beyond reasonable doubt. That does not establish that every missing document or honest mistake will lead to the same outcome.

I personally know of two other cases in which sailors arrived without clearance documents because of what appear to have been genuine mistakes. In the first, the crew says Customs in the country of departure failed to hand over the clearance document at checkout. They did not notice it was missing among their other departure papers. In the second, first-time boat owners say officials told them that immigration clearance was sufficient and no separate Customs clearance was required.

In both cases, FRCS treated the missing document as an offence and offered compounding at approximately FJ$12,000 as the alternative to prosecution. Both crews paid. I do not blame them. Faced with the cost, uncertainty and potential penalties of a criminal prosecution in a foreign country, paying to make the problem disappear is understandable.

What FRCS v Brown may change is the assumption that a missing piece of paper ends the enquiry. A master with credible evidence of the vessel’s outward clearance, or of circumstances outside their control explaining the missing document, could ask a court to consider the reasoning in this judgment. The prosecution would still have to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The result would depend on the evidence and the court’s assessment of that particular case.

This is a Magistrates Court judgment, so another magistrate may find its reasoning persuasive without being bound to follow it. I am not suggesting that it creates a binding precedent throughout Fiji or that anyone should arrive without the documents normally required. Fiji Magistrates Bench Book, chapter 1, section 3.4

My hope is that genuine mistakes, emergencies and circumstances outside a sailor’s control will be investigated and considered before a missing document leads to a FJ$12,000 compounding demand. If that is one lasting consequence of this case, something useful will have come from a very long and expensive experience.

Moving on

After having been effectively held in custody for 24 months, the boat is in need of a serious maintenance schedule to make her offshore ready.

My hope now is to reach a practical agreement with FRCS. Although I am on an investor permit, I am asking for a defined period in which to make Lordship seaworthy and sail her out of Fiji without having to import her or pay import duty. I would like the opportunity to prepare my boat, leave safely and continue my voyage.