Leaderboard

I do not believe that you are reading me carefully enough, although I accept the fault may lie with my inability to make myself clear. Parallel civil and criminal proceedings over the same offence are not uncommon. A victim of crime is entitled to sue for their damages arising from a crime, regardless of whether a criminal prosecution is undertaken or not – before, after or during the civil proceedings. If there exists a consequence of a byelaw breach that does not require a conviction in a Magistrates Court, the claimant is not precluded from seeking the relevant relief in the County Court without prejudice to any criminal proceedings – as the 1983 Act made clear in Section 5: (2) If any person from whom any charge is due or by whom any charge is payable fails without reasonable excuse to pay the same, or to comply with any requirement of the specified enactments upon compliance with which a charge is payable, the Board may (without prejudice to any criminal proceedings to which that person may be liable) recover from him a sum equal to— (a) the amount of the charge which is due or payable . . . (3) A court before which a person is convicted of an offence under any of the specified enactments arising from or involving any failure to pay a charge may, in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to pay to the Board any sum which the Board are empowered to recover under this section. As it happens, in the circumstance we are dealing with, there are reliefs available to CaRT in the matter of breach of the byelaw regarding obstruction, that entitle them to independent action under s.8 of the 1983 Act, by virtue of the express provision in s.18 of the 1995 Act: “(3) Any vessel moored or allowed to remoor in contravention of subsection (1) [obstruction] above shall be deemed to be a relevant craft for the purpose of section 8 (Removal of vessels) of the Act of 1983 or, in Scotland, a vessel for the purposes of section 19 (As to vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned) of the [1958 c. xliv.] British Transport Commission Act 1958.” I argued before the court that the appropriate element of s.8 in such a case was sub-section (5) – the entitlement to move the boat without notice. Hildyard J differed in opining that s.8(2) was not precluded. Regardless; the sanction of s.8 is available as a remedy not requiring a criminal conviction in the Magistrates Court in order to be implemented. In the same way that CaRT can and do file claims for a Declaration that they are entitled to remove a boat from the waterway under s.8(2), and apply for an injunction commensurate with that provision, so equally, they could lay claim for a Declaration that they are entitled to demand that a boat refrain from obstruction under s.8(5), and apply for an injunction against repeat offences. A successful claim would mean that any repeat offence would be an imprisonable offence – again, without recourse to the Magistrates Court, any more than that threat in all the s.8 Orders obtained thus far requires that. There would be far less difficulty in obtaining such a reasonable injunction than in obtaining the draconian ban on ever using the waterways again. The right to refer the matter to the CPS for an additional prosecution in criminal proceedings remains an option unaffected by those civil proceedings, as the ’83 Act s.5(2) provides. Success in the civil proceedings will not guarantee success in any criminal proceedings, given the differing burden of proof to which you refer, but would be persuasive. It might, in any event, given the sanction over contempt of court, be considered superfluous, unless CaRT were hell-bent on making an example of the offender. My example of dishonest accusations alleging breaches has nothing to do with whether CaRT can be trusted to use these powers; it has everything to do with the possibility that they will use the powers in circumstances where the accused is wrongfully charged. Quite a different matter; they should use their powers, but they should use them appropriately and honestly without the abuses of process that have occurred in the past.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that CRT takes over the EA. The EA is responsible for much more than waterways. I think what is being proposed is that CRT takes over that part of the EA which deals with navigation, licensing and closely related responsibilities. I seem to remember that it was less than 12 months ago that the EA was being lambasted by the public, MPs and government ministers alike, for having cut back on maintenence and contributing to the flooding in Somerset and the Thames valley. With the EA being subject to cuts itself, you could easily imagine that if more is spent on the polictically sensitive control of flooding, it could be to the detriment of maintaining river navigations. Notwithstanding that sometimes the two may actually be mutually beneficial. I don't detect much in the way of party policy on canals, rivers or waterways in general, but I do know how politicians work. If the choice was ever between spending public money on schools, hospitals or even flood protection versus maintaining waterways for leisure boating, there would be no contest. As it stands, as part of DEFRA, the EA is subject to departmental spending cuts of which there will be more in the next Parliament, whoever forms the government. CRT on he other hand, has a settlement for the remainder of its first 15 years, so if you want to protect the spending on waterways, bringing EA navigations within the remit of CRT, and adjusting the settlement accordingly, would make sense. I think that is the thinking behind the IWA proposal. Transferring that part of spending on EA river navigations which is currently in DEFRA's budget and putting it into the protected CRT settlement, instead. What would that amount to? £15-20m/yr? That the government is agreeing in principle, but baulking at the loss of control over just a few million of spending per year, is, I think, very telling as to where it's priorities lie.

Even better, buy from your friendly neighbourhood fuel boat. Cheaper on both counts and it comes to your door. George ex nb Alton retired

Garry only you can really answer that question. I was once given a bit of sage advice, "Listen to what others say but do as you want, as it is you who has to live with that decision". My experience of the sea comes from a yottie perspective. The sea has its own challenges and rewards, sometimes, abject misery if you are out in anything above force 6 and you are soaking wet. You can't say "I'll just pull in and make a cup of tea". I have found nothing to beat a good night crossing arriving at the Channel Islands in beautiful sun. One great advantage of being on a NB, your glass of wine / beer stays where you put it. If you follow your head you may never do it, what is your heart saying? Best wishes whatever you decide.

I rather suspect that a purist focus on commercial imperatives, involves losing sight of what is open for CaRT to profit from. Certainly, respecting moorings, CaRT are free to invest in offside and offline mooring provisions, wherever that may be possible, but repeating myself - just to make sure the point is made – they are not entitled to remove the towpath from mooring availability to all licensed boaters in their turn. I make this as a point additional to my earlier observation that permitting towpath mooring for longer than the 14 day period does nothing to solve any problems associated with boats mooring for longer than 14 day periods. As with BW before them, CaRT have an obligation to preserve, maintain and improve the Cruising and Commercial waterways in a fit state for those navigational purposes. This remit has in fact been broadened, as per the Trust Settlement – https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183234/Canals-rivers-trust-settlement.pdf 2 OBJECTS The objects of this Settlement (the “Objects”) are as contained in this Clause 2. 2.1 Subject to Clause 2.2 and 2.3, to hold in trust and retain in perpetuity for public benefit the Infrastructure Property for the following purposes: 2.1.1 to operate and manage the Infrastructure Property for public benefit, use and enjoyment including: ( a ) for navigation; ( b ) for walking on towpaths; and ( c ) for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare; 2.1.2 to protect and conserve, for public benefit, sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with the Infrastructure Property; 2.1.3 to further, for public benefit, the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of the Infrastructure Property. It is consequently a key remit of CaRT that they operate and manage the system for navigation [which necessarily includes the capability of mooring to the towpath in the course of navigation] for the public benefit. The corollary would demand that no boater be allowed to annexe any part of the towpath - for their exclusive use, for any length of time not incidental to navigation - in denial of the public benefit. For CC’ers, the limit to mooring in any one place incidental to that navigation is set at 14 days; for HM’ers without that positive statutory right, the right to moor for up to 14 days in any one place arises by virtue of a legitimate expectation that the authority’s affirmation [in T&C’s of the licence] that this is acceptable, may be relied upon. If – and CaRT enthusiastically promote this view – moorings on the towpath for any longer term than 14 days constitute a private benefit carved illegally out from the facility that CaRT are required to maintain strictly for the public benefit, then CaRT has the mandatory duty to prevent that. There is a mirror version to this: if CaRT may not permit this diminution of the public right, then equally they may not permit it for people prepared to pay for it. It is illegitimate to demand money for effectively looking the other way as someone openly violates the public right. In the recent consultation on moorings, CaRT stated: “in charity law terms, our long term moorings confer a private benefit on individuals (i.e. the exclusive use of an area of waterways and towpath for a fixed period).” Frankly, I have little time for the charity-law semantics; but the phrase accurately portrays the situation vis-à-vis CaRT’s duties as quoted from the Trust Settlement, charity or not. The consultation document continued: “The Trust should not be using its assets to effectively subsidise this private benefit by offering its moorings to customers at a rate below market value”. To indulge in my own bit of online ‘thinking aloud’: while this may well apply to the offside and offline moorings owned by CaRT, it signally fails to acknowledge that the Trust should not be using the “Infrastructure Property” designated for public use, for any private benefit whatsoever – charged for or not; market rates or no market rates. I fail to see how accepting payments for towpath moorings because they need funds, amounts to anything other than a protection racket abusive of the public trust and of the Settlor’s conditions of the Trust. This is approaching the question - of what they are forbidden to charge for - from another direction to my usual.