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. Almost two years after my arrival in Fiji, it ended in an acquittal. This account explains what happened, the attempts to settle the dispute, the Court’s decision and the implications for other cruising sailors.

It is based on my account, court submissions and the Court’s written judgment. I distinguish my experience and assessment from the findings made by the Court.

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 did not believe an upwind passage to Vavaʻu was safe with the damaged forestay. Sailing upwind would have imposed substantially greater loads on the compromised rigging. 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 it required an upwind passage. Fiji could be approached downwind, placing less stress on the damaged forestay, 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, Immigration and Biosecurity. I explained that:

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 physically possessing the Tongan clearance. My position was that I had originally left Tonga with valid clearance, but the document had subsequently been retained or cancelled by the Tongan authorities after I returned because of the forestay failure. 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. Returning upwind to Vavaʻu would have exposed the damaged rigging—and potentially my life and vessel—to greater danger.

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 then determines the financial penalty. It can be as high as the maximum fine a court could impose following a conviction. Section 155 also states that the resulting order is final and cannot be appealed. An unpaid amount can be enforced through the courts. 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 had no guarantee that the eventual penalty would be limited to that figure.

I considered even the suggested FJ$12,000 penalty grossly disproportionate to the circumstances. I had diverted because of structural rigging damage, given Fiji seven days’ advance notice and explained why I could not produce the clearance that Tongan officials had retained.

In practical terms, I was being asked to admit the offence first and leave the amount payable to the Comptroller’s subsequent decision, with exposure up to FJ$100,000 and no right of appeal against the resulting order. I would be giving up the opportunity to defend the allegation at trial before knowing the financial consequences.

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 was therefore being asked to sign an admission without the document recording the financial limit we had negotiated.

I wrote directly to the CEO of FRCS, requesting that FRCS honour the amount agreed at the meeting and commit to it by putting it in writing on the form. Following that correspondence, I received a revised compounding 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 is if I wished to settle. The proposed settlement now required me to accept FJ$10,000 plus an undisclosed amount of import duty.

That left the total financial exposure unresolved. Although the negotiated amount had finally appeared in writing, the additional duty condition meant I still could not establish what signing would ultimately cost.

I again involved the CEO, seeking removal of the import-duty condition. My objection was that section 155’s compounding procedure concerned settlement of the alleged Customs offence. I did not accept that resolving the last-port-clearance allegation should require me also to admit an unexplained liability for importing my boat.

I had made a further attempt to settle, but the documents presented for signature did not give me the certainty I had sought: an agreed payment that would resolve the allegation without an additional, unquantified liability. In the end I reverted back to proving my innocence in court.

The trial

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, emails, passport and vessel documents, photographs of the damaged forestay, correspondence seeking assistance and repairs, 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, however, the prosecution witnesses accepted significant parts of my account. The arriving Customs officer accepted that I had originally departed Tonga with the required papers, that the authorities had taken back the clearance after my return, and that I had explained the damage and my reasons for coming to Fiji. He had personally seen the temporary Dyneema support.

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

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

The technical evidence

Sam Price had approximately 18 years’ experience repairing yacht masts and standing rigging, extensive sailing experience and participation in 18 Sydney-to-Hobart yacht races.

He personally inspected Lordship in Fiji. He found that the forestay was broken and described the damage as structural. He told the Court that the vessel could not safely continue sailing in that condition and that the forestay required removal and replacement using specialist equipment, including a hydraulic press.

He explained that a complete forestay failure could bring down the mast, damage the hull and potentially sink the vessel.

He also addressed the choice of destination. Although Vavaʻu was geographically closer, sailing there required an upwind passage, placing greater pressure on the damaged rigging. The route towards Fiji was downwind and, in his opinion, was the safer course for a vessel with this type of damage.

The Court accepted Mr Price as a reliable witness on the technical matters within his expertise. It found that his evidence independently confirmed the structural damage and the increased danger of sailing upwind.

The Court also accepted that my account of the central events was consistent with what I had said before entering Fiji, upon arrival, during the Customs interview and at trial. It was supported by the documentary evidence and by the physical condition of the forestay, which was subsequently inspected and repaired.

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.”

The words “if any” were central to the decision.

The prosecution proved that I did not physically possess a Tongan clearance when I entered Fiji. But that fact alone did not establish the offence. The Court had to consider why the document was absent and whether there was still a clearance within my possession or control that I was capable of producing.

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 Court found that the prosecution had not proved that, when the Fiji Customs officer requested the clearance, there was a clearance in my possession or control that I could have furnished. The absence of the document, without more, did not establish the offence.

The Court also considered my advance notification and immediate explanation upon arrival. These supported the reliability and consistency of my account. The judgment expressly distinguished that evidential value from treating advance notification as a substitute for clearance.

The emergency defence

The Court separately considered section 41 of Fiji’s Crimes Act 2009, which concerns conduct undertaken in response to a sudden or extraordinary emergency.

The evidence established that the structural failure occurred after I had left Tonga with outward clearance. I reduced sail, sought a safe anchorage, attempted to secure the mast, sought assistance in Tonga, investigated repair facilities and contacted a Fiji rigger before sailing to Fiji. Advance notification was then sent before arrival.

The Court considered whether I reasonably believed the course I adopted was the only reasonable means of dealing with the emergency and whether my response was reasonable. Mr Price’s evidence about the danger of an upwind passage supported that belief.

The magistrate contrasted his expertise with that of the Customs investigating officer, who admitted that he had no sailing experience and had never sailed a vessel. His claim that repairs were available in Vavaʻu was unsupported by independent admissible evidence before the Court. The magistrate expressly gave limited weight to his opinion that I could simply have gone there. She found that he had no comparable expertise with which to contradict Mr Price’s evidence about the stresses an upwind passage would place on the damaged forestay.

The investigation had therefore advanced a supposedly safer alternative without supporting it with sailing expertise or independent evidence of suitable repair facilities. The Court accepted the technical evidence of the experienced rigger who had personally inspected and repaired the damage.

The magistrate found that the evidence sufficiently raised the emergency defence and that the prosecution had not disproved it beyond reasonable doubt.

Refusing to compound was not evidence of guilt

The magistrate also addressed the proposed compounding arrangement. She held that my refusal to compound could not be treated as evidence of guilt.

The fact that other yacht operators had admitted offences and settled them did not establish that I had committed an offence. The Court gave the proposed settlement figures and previous settlements no weight in deciding whether the charge against me had been proved.

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. They recognise distress, safety of life at sea and the importance of a master taking necessary safety measures when faced with maritime danger.

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.

The acquittal rested on the particular statutory charge and the emergency defence, assessed against the evidence of this voyage.

The verdict

On 29 September 2026, Resident Magistrate Talei Kean delivered the written judgment in FRCS v Andrew Brown, Private Prosecution Case No. 009/2025.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under section 19(7), read with section 19(1)(d) of the Customs Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

I was found not guilty and acquitted.

The Court accepted that Lordship’s structural damage was real, that the Tongan authorities had retained or cancelled the clearance following my return, and that my explanation of the emergency was supported by documents and independent technical evidence.

The judgment advised the parties of a 28-day period in which to appeal.

The unresolved import-duty issue

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

When judgment was delivered, the magistrate made clear that this 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 from the moment something goes wrong.

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.

A further lesson is not to assume that either your own government or the coastal state will provide practical assistance merely because you are a sailor in distress, or that the officials enforcing border and Customs rules will understand the seamanship and maritime law relevant to an emergency. I contacted the British mission in New Zealand and tried to contact the British High Commission in Suva. The response I received from New Zealand was, in substance, “Not our problem; if you want a lawyer, we can recommend one.” I was unable to establish contact with the High Commission in Suva: the published information gave me no usable means of doing so and stated that it did not accept visitors. International maritime law is not self-enforcing, and reciprocity between states offers little protection to the individual sailor standing before an official who may have no sailing experience and limited knowledge of the law being applied. I had assumed that a visiting country would assist a sailor in genuine distress just as my own government would assist one of its sailors, but my experience showed that this is not something on which a skipper can safely rely.

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. If an official retains or cancels a document, ask for a written explanation and keep a record of when, where and by whom that was done.

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.

This judgment concerns the facts of Lordship’s voyage. It should not be treated as general permission to dispense with clearance requirements. My advance communication, prompt explanation on arrival and efforts to obtain assistance were all part of the evidence the Court considered.

Moving on

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. After almost two years dealing with this case, I would like the opportunity to prepare my boat, leave safely and continue my voyage.