Nbta's Nick Brown Finally Is Granted Permission For A Judicial Review

[jenlyn]

So we are back to 'bona fide navigation' and 'place' again, and perhaps 'reasonable'

 

I would like to see that section clarified in court

 

Richard

It would only be a county court though, so only relevant in that county?

[RLWP]

It would only be a county court though, so only relevant in that county?

 

I'm afraid I don't know how case law works, I think your interpretetion is wrong though. Otherwise something legal in one county could be illegal in another

 

Richard

[Lady Muck]

 

Now there he may have had a point!

 

It is not uncommon for me to lift the engine covers and go "Oh God!".......

LOL

[jenlyn]

 

Maybe Nick wants to argue that it is reasonable for a person in his circumstances to be allowed to remain in any one place for more than 14 days.

 

 

 

 

MtB

I bet the sparks will fly when he discovers a few on the K&A are interested in the roving permit idea.

[Henhouse]

Otherwise something legal in one county could be illegal in another

 

Norfolk ?!!!

 

( sorry couldn't resist)

[Graham Davis]

It would only be a county court though, so only relevant in that county?

 

No!

County Court just implies that it that County's branch of the Court system above Magistrates Court. Decisions affect countrywide.

[jenlyn]

No!

County Court just implies that it that County's branch of the Court system above Magistrates Court. Decisions affect countrywide.

So does that mean nick brown is correct about the need to suspend section 8's until his case is heard?

[junior]

This thread is crying out for Nigel Moore.

[mayalld]

So does that mean nick brown is correct about the need to suspend section 8's until his case is heard?

 

No.

 

In essence, Brown has been granted a Judicial Review as to whether the Guidelines that CRT provide are a reasonable yardstick that they can require a boater to pass for them to be "satisfied".

 

Crucially, he has been denied a judicial review as to whether they are entitled to lay down guidelines at all.

 

If CRT bring a section 8 case before the courts at present, the court doesn't judge the case against the guidance. Rather the court will decide in each case whether the boater complies with the Act. CRT will advance the guidance as a yardstick, but it doesn't have the force of law.

 

So, this is actually a Judicial Review that Brown can't win!

 

If he loses, then the Guidance WILL have the force of law. If he "wins", then CRT may have to modify the guidance, and it will continue to not have the force of law.

 

As others have said, ultimately if certain people keep trying to neuter CRT's powers by "clever" legal arguments, they will end up going back to parliament for additional powers, and will have a good case for clearer and more restrictive powers, because they can show that they need them.

[blodger]

 

No.

 

In essence, Brown has been granted a Judicial Review as to whether the Guidelines that CRT provide are a reasonable yardstick that they can require a boater to pass for them to be "satisfied".

 

Crucially, he has been denied a judicial review as to whether they are entitled to lay down guidelines at all.

 

If CRT bring a section 8 case before the courts at present, the court doesn't judge the case against the guidance. Rather the court will decide in each case whether the boater complies with the Act. CRT will advance the guidance as a yardstick, but it doesn't have the force of law.

 

So, this is actually a Judicial Review that Brown can't win!

 

If he loses, then the Guidance WILL have the force of law. If he "wins", then CRT may have to modify the guidance, and it will continue to not have the force of law.

 

As others have said, ultimately if certain people keep trying to neuter CRT's powers by "clever" legal arguments, they will end up going back to parliament for additional powers, and will have a good case for clearer and more restrictive powers, because they can show that they need them.

I am sure he and CaRT will not necessarily see it that way

[Chris Pink]

I think I'm going to lie down now. I agree with this.

 

With the addition that if CRT do persuade Parliament they need more power, and with a brouhaha brewing in London, they might. It will be an ill thought out and rushed piece of legislation.

 

Whatever else one says about the 1995 Act it wasn't rushed.

 

No.

 

In essence, Brown has been granted a Judicial Review as to whether the Guidelines that CRT provide are a reasonable yardstick that they can require a boater to pass for them to be "satisfied".

 

Crucially, he has been denied a judicial review as to whether they are entitled to lay down guidelines at all.

 

If CRT bring a section 8 case before the courts at present, the court doesn't judge the case against the guidance. Rather the court will decide in each case whether the boater complies with the Act. CRT will advance the guidance as a yardstick, but it doesn't have the force of law.

 

So, this is actually a Judicial Review that Brown can't win!

 

If he loses, then the Guidance WILL have the force of law. If he "wins", then CRT may have to modify the guidance, and it will continue to not have the force of law.

 

As others have said, ultimately if certain people keep trying to neuter CRT's powers by "clever" legal arguments, they will end up going back to parliament for additional powers, and will have a good case for clearer and more restrictive powers, because they can show that they need them.

I am sure he and CaRT will not necessarily see it that way

 

Which bit?

[jenlyn]

No.

 

In essence, Brown has been granted a Judicial Review as to whether the Guidelines that CRT provide are a reasonable yardstick that they can require a boater to pass for them to be "satisfied".

 

Crucially, he has been denied a judicial review as to whether they are entitled to lay down guidelines at all.

 

If CRT bring a section 8 case before the courts at present, the court doesn't judge the case against the guidance. Rather the court will decide in each case whether the boater complies with the Act. CRT will advance the guidance as a yardstick, but it doesn't have the force of law.

 

So, this is actually a Judicial Review that Brown can't win!

 

If he loses, then the Guidance WILL have the force of law. If he "wins", then CRT may have to modify the guidance, and it will continue to not have the force of law.

 

As others have said, ultimately if certain people keep trying to neuter CRT's powers by "clever" legal arguments, they will end up going back to parliament for additional powers, and will have a good case for clearer and more restrictive powers, because they can show that they need them.

Cheers for that. :-)

[jenlyn]

My concern is that CRT will ultimately go to parliament at some point. This will be their last resort, but I have no doubt it's not far away. Some are playing with fire. I dont consider the guidance to be that bad, and I would definately rather have it as guidance rather than law. Mr Brown is becoming the perverbiable.

[Bobbybass]

I do feel a bit twitchy when it's claimed that boaters are the same as travellers. Got friends who live on boats and work with travellers who say they think it's patronising to the travellers they work with.

 

Big difference - one is a lifestyle choice (usually made by those who have a choice), and the other is a trap which is difficult to escape.

When I was very ill with pneumonia a few years back..I struggled into A&E at Rugby hospital.

Unable to clarify an address for me due to being on a boat, they logged me as a 'traveller'.

This was good...as they said "you are an ethnic minority "...(apparently they get extra money points ?)

 

This meant, I jumped the queue...was the next person seen...( I wasn't complaining)

As I was in difficulty and the initial examination went on for long time..they sent out for drinks and sandwiches for me...as 'You may be hungry'.

Eating was the last thing on my mind...so my wife had them.

 

I was hospitalised...and next morning at 6am felt ill as my blood sugar was getting low.

I asked for ..just a plain biscuit...to which she responed.."You're an ethnic minority"

She left the ward for 30 minutes..and came back with a tray...with several slices of nice buttered toast and a pot of tea..which she had made herself.

 

I..LIKE being a traveller !!

[Lady Muck]

Maybe I should send my friend (an Irish traveller) to Rugby? Because he's clearly too ill to work and has lost his DLA and is being treated like sh*t because he's of that background. He faces prejudice like that every day. He's clearly living in poverty and if it wasn't for us keeping him in logs last winter....

 

and once again, that's why I think some of what Nick Brown claims is insulting (and very naive). He has no idea.

 

Oh and I agree with Dave and Chris too - I think any excuse that CRT can get to go to Parliament, they desperately want to limit numbers of cruising licenses in London.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Lady Muck

[Tuscan]

I wonder if CRT themselves could request a judicial review to clarify the Act , completely seperate to this. In my opinion it would be good to get a clear definition that sets out exactly what CRT is or is not empowered to do. Perhaps some one with the legal knowledge could whether this is possible?

[jenlyn]

I wonder if CRT themselves could request a judicial review to clarify the Act , completely seperate to this. In my opinion it would be good to get a clear definition that sets out exactly what CRT is or is not empowered to do. Perhaps some one with the legal knowledge could whether this is possible?

Why o why do you find it so impossible to think of sitting down with CRT and sorting this out without the need for courts? It's unbeleviable that people are so intent on getting a day in court.

[Tuscan]

Why o why do you find it so impossible to think of sitting down with CRT and sorting this out without the need for courts? It's unbeleviable that people are so intent on getting a day in court.

I believe in doing both I am not suggesting I want a day in court I am suggesting that CRT should look to have a day in court to clarify the legality of their interpretation of the Act.

[jenlyn]

I believe in doing both I am not suggesting I want a day in court I am suggesting that CRT should look to have a day in court to clarify the legality of their interpretation of the Act.

I would rather they spent the money on the system. Sit down and talk to them, they will even provide lunch if you make the effort.

[MtB]

Why o why do you find it so impossible to think of sitting down with CRT and sorting this out without the need for courts? It's unbeleviable that people are so intent on getting a day in court.

 

Is it not because any agreement thrashed out can be ignored/abandoned by either party on a whim. As Nick Brown has demonstrated already by rejecting the widely accepted guidance from BW/CRT on what 'satisfies the board, etc'.

 

It has to be sorted out because if Nick Brown gives up, someone else will pop up sooner or later also willing and able to stir it all up again.

 

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

Is it not because any agreement thrashed out can be ignored/abandoned by either party on a whim. As Nick Brown has demonstrated already by rejecting the widely accepted guidance from BW/CRT on what 'satisfies the board, etc'.

 

It has to be sorted out because if Nick Brown gives up, someone else will pop up sooner or later also willing and able to stir it all up again.

 

 

MtB

Compromise. An end to all the bitching?

It's in everyones interest to sit down, drive something through that a majority can abide by, happily. The Nick Browns are a very very small minority. They will always be making some sort of racket about something. They wont go away, but they can be brought into the fold by getting involved with what a majority wants. If they dont wish to get involved, then let them harp on. Lets face it, he and others like him actually have very little support in reality. His only claims to fame so far are, inventing a new religion, stitching up ccers and latching onto nigel moores turn ups.

If he cares about others welfare that much, he should be doing something positive, rather than having an org*sm everytime he gets another court hearing.

[carlt]

I would rather they spent the money on the system. Sit down and talk to them, they will even provide lunch if you make the effort.

Yes you can sit down with them for hours, have a nice friendly chat, amicably sort out a mutually acceptable course of action, even get it all down on paper, signed by both parties and then, a couple of weeks later get the phone call telling you that someone higher up has binned the agreement and your boat is being destroyed at that very moment.

 

I wish I'd had my day in court rather than trust the lying gits.

[alan_fincher]

Yes you can sit down with them for hours, have a nice friendly chat, amicably sort out a mutually acceptable course of action, even get it all down on paper, signed by both parties and then, a couple of weeks later get the phone call telling you that someone higher up has binned the agreement and your boat is being destroyed at that very moment.

 

I wish I'd had my day in court rather than trust the lying gits.

One of the things that is happening though is that agreements are being reached at a level where there really isn't much in the way of anybody "higher up". When we were sat at table with two of the directors, one was also the acting CEO at the time, and already people are forging links with the new CEO, who really does sound like a breath of fresh air.

 

Yes, there is still a lot of past culture to change, but if we brand them all "lying gits" we get nowhere. I think those of us involved in talks with CRT have a fair idea who can be relied upon, and, (equally!), who can not. I don't think anyone involved is naive, or otherwise unaware of possible pitfalls.

 

I'm more concerned about the influence of some of the "old guard" in the IWA, a lot of the time, than I am by CRT staff themselves, many of whom seem to have far less personal agendas, than those heading up "the associations".

[mayalld]

Why o why do you find it so impossible to think of sitting down with CRT and sorting this out without the need for courts? It's unbeleviable that people are so intent on getting a day in court.

 

Sadly, I am increasingly seeing this as a necessary way to proceed, because I really can't see Nick Brown playing by any agreement unless that agreement is that he can do exactly what he pleases.

 

Anything less than CRT rolling over utterly, and Mr Brown will still want his day in court.

[carlt]

but if we brand them all "lying gits" we get nowhere. I think those of us involved in talks with CRT have a fair idea who can be relied upon, and, (equally!), who can not. I don't think anyone involved is naive, or otherwise unaware of possible pitfalls.

 

I'm more concerned about the influence of some of the "old guard" in the IWA, a lot of the time, than I am by CRT staff themselves, many of whom seem to have far less personal agendas, than those heading up "the associations".

I didn't brand them all "lying gits", just the ones that lied, but if you go through the process I went through and then had the rug pulled from under your feet at the last minute you acquire a bit of cynicism along the way.

 

I am not saying don't talk at all but all the yakking in the world is meaningless if someone along the line decides that they weren't part of the chat so they can do what they want.

 

I believe that, on top of negotiations a judicial review can only be a good thing, if it reaches a definitive conclusion and I also agree with a previous poster that, whichever way it goes, Nick Brown cannot really win (though he'll claim victory anyway).

I'm more concerned about the influence of some of the "old guard" in the IWA, a lot of the time, than I am by CRT staff themselves, many of whom seem to have far less personal agendas, than those heading up "the associations".

Me too but if nothing else the negotiations that are taking place at the moment are proving just how useless and toothless our so-called "representative associations" are and always have been which will surely erode the influence the "old guard" have.

Edited July 25, 2013 by carlt