On 5 Nov 2008 at 9.47pm the Irish Naval Services boarded the yacht Dances with Waves 150 nautical miles south west of Mizen Head, outside of Irish territorial waters (but inside its exclusive economic zone). At the time, the yacht was carrying 1,504kg of cocaine, valued at between EUR 100 and 400 million.

The Naval Services boarded the yacht pursuant to art 110 of UNCLOS to ascertain its nationality. It transpired that the registration of the yacht had lapsed, and it was accordingly not registered in any convention state.

Shortly after midnight, a decision was taken to detain the vessel under s 35 of the Irish Criminal Justice Act 1994. The appellant (Mr Wiggins), and his 2 companions were arrested under s 34 of the same Act, for using a ship for drug trafficking. They were subsequently detained under s 2 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996. 

Each of the three pleaded guilty to an offence under s 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended, and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

Mr Wiggins subsequently brought the present appeal, seeking to withdraw his plea of guilty, and thereafter appeal against his conviction.

The appellant, Mr Wiggins, advanced two grounds as to why his conviction was unsafe:

1. That the boarding of Dances with Waves pursuant to art 110 UNCLOS was unlawful.

2. That a s 15A Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 charge could not have been levied on the facts.

In relation to the first ground, the appellant argued that art 110 UNCLOS (and the right of state agents to board vessels to ascertain nationality) only applied to boarding in the High Seas, relying on art 86 UNCLOS.  The appellant alleged that as Dances with Waves was stopped/boarded in the Irish exclusive economic zone, the naval services did not properly invoke art 110 UNCLOS, and the boarding of the yacht was unlawful.

Held: The appellant failed to demonstrate that, by reason of being materially misled or misinformed as to facts or law, he did something that he would not otherwise have done.  

As to the two substantive grounds advanced, the objection relating to Irish criminal law was unfounded, and dismissed. As to the alleged unlawfulness of the boarding, no decision was advanced, however, the Irish Court of Appeal had regard to the fact that this matter was expressly referred to by Mr Wiggins’ counsel in the course of the sentencing hearing by way of mitigation.

In summary, the Irish Court of Appeal held that Mr Wiggins would not be permitted to re-open his decision to plead guilty, in circumstances where with full knowledge and appropriate legal advice he took that particular course in May 2009, and obtained the benefit of a reduced sentence following a plea in mitigation. The appeal would accordingly be dismissed.