Section 8

[Tuscan]

Anyway, let's hope it is all just a storm in a teacup arising from a communication failure within CRT.

I suspect this is the nub of many of these cases in the beginning. It would be interesting to know what lengths CRT go to physically talk to boaters before taking things further. I am concerned that perhaps this does not happen enough given the substantial costs involved I hope every effort is made to do this before both sides get too entrenched.

[Paul C]

I'd have thought, given the details of the cases Nigel has posted and other recent cases of both CCers and those with home moorings being seemingly persecuted by CRT that as a boater you'd recognise where your interests lie and always support a boater.

 

Sorry where's the case of boaters with home moorings being persecuted?

[Sabcat]

 

Sorry where's the case of boaters with home moorings being persecuted?

 

Mr Dunkley, there's been much discussion about him on these forums. He has a home mooring.

[Paul C]

 

Mr Dunkley, there's been much discussion about him on these forums. He has a home mooring.

 

I am very aware of the Tony Dunkley case - but I can't agree that he's being persecuted by CRT. Mr Dunkley hasn't presented anything like a full account of his circumstances and moorings/movements, and given there's a court case coming up I don't even think he should need to provide that here - but instead focus on the impending legal action. And CRT haven't released any information on it either, except revealed 2nd hand by postsof the contents of (some of their) letters to him. So without the evidence required, its impossible to judge if he's being persecuted or not.

 

It might be that he's proven not guilty (ie innocent) in court; but that it was so marginal that an onlooker could perceive that CRT WEREN'T persecuting him in pursuing legal action. Of course, your interpretation may differ from others in this case.

 

Or indeed, he may be found guilty, and thusly CRT's actions could be taken as appropriate.

 

In any case, there is an argument that CRT should bring a prosecution to 'test' the upcoming trend of exploiting the rules on mooring/CCing by using a ghost mooring.

[carlt]

 

 

 

In any case, there is an argument that CRT should bring a prosecution to 'test' the upcoming trend of exploiting the rules on mooring/CCing by using a ghost mooring.

 

Do you have any evidence of this "upcoming trend" as I see little indication that using a non-existent mooring to bypass s.17 is common enough to be considered a "trend".

[Sabcat]

 

I am very aware of the Tony Dunkley case - but I can't agree that he's being persecuted by CRT. Mr Dunkley hasn't presented anything like a full account of his circumstances and moorings/movements, and given there's a court case coming up I don't even think he should need to provide that here - but instead focus on the impending legal action. And CRT haven't released any information on it either, except revealed 2nd hand by postsof the contents of (some of their) letters to him. So without the evidence required, its impossible to judge if he's being persecuted or not.

 

It might be that he's proven not guilty (ie innocent) in court; but that it was so marginal that an onlooker could perceive that CRT WEREN'T persecuting him in pursuing legal action. Of course, your interpretation may differ from others in this case.

 

Or indeed, he may be found guilty, and thusly CRT's actions could be taken as appropriate.

 

In any case, there is an argument that CRT should bring a prosecution to 'test' the upcoming trend of exploiting the rules on mooring/CCing by using a ghost mooring.

 

 

I have a very different take on the situation (both that of Mr Dunkley and the wider context). I see the way that CRT handle (dodge) FoI requests and the cases posted here by Nigel to be indicative of an organisation which is less than transparent and more interesting in "winning" that finding an equitable solution to any given issue.

 

I also don't see the victory of CRT in a court action as being indicative of them being right. Nigel has made a number of posts referring to cases where CRT staff are believed in court simply because they're CRT staff. This is also compatible with my experience of the judicial system more generally.

 

I see that you've identified a trend that needs to be tackled. I wonder, where did the data come from to make this identification?

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

I have a very different take on the situation (both that of Mr Dunkley and the wider context). I see the way that CRT handle (dodge) FoI requests and the cases posted here by Nigel to be indicative of an organisation which is less than transparent and more interesting in "winning" that finding an equitable solution to any given issue.

 

I also don't see the victory of CRT in a court action as being indicative of them being right. Nigel has made a number of posts referring to cases where CRT staff are believed in court simply because they're CRT staff. This is also compatible with my experience of the judicial system more generally.

 

I see that you've identified a trend that needs to be tackled. I wonder, where did the data come from to make this identification?

Yes but Nigel has his own agenda so is unlikely to paint CRT in a good light even if they are "right"

[nicknorman]

I'd have thought, given the details of the cases Nigel has posted and other recent cases of both CCers and those with home moorings being seemingly persecuted by CRT that as a boater you'd recognise where your interests lie and always support a boater.

No, I would never support an individual blindly. I'll leave that to the extremists. I would certainly support the persecuted underdog when I have full knowledge of the facts but each case must be viewed on its merits, and certainly there have been folk whose prosecution by CRT is entirely justified.

[NigelMoore]

 

In any case, there is an argument that CRT should bring a prosecution to 'test' the upcoming trend of exploiting the rules on mooring/CCing by using a ghost mooring.

 

If CaRT wanted judicial commentary on whether they could legitimately prosecute a boater with home mooring for not conforming to the requirements of a CC’er, and as to whether they could demand he use that mooring for any specified time if ever, then they have the High Court determination respecting ‘Gilgie’ - where the boat was pronounced legitimately licensed and entitled to use that licence even though never or rarely using its home mooring.

 

Judge Halbert in the more recent case of CaRT v Meyers made it clear that Meyers could not be considered a test case [being so fact-specific], but nonetheless delivered himself of persuasive comment in full support of the High Court finding –

 

 

With that case law behind them, how does going to court yet again, to determine whether they were entitled to refuse a licence based on their claim that the declared home mooring was bogus because unused, stack up as a legitimate use of the funds they have?

 

I should make it clear that this is not a "ghost mooring" case as defined by Jackie Lewis in her commentary in the latest NABO newsletter. it is a mooring they have recognised as otherwise legitimate except for being largely unused.

 

 

 

Edit: to clarify which case was said to be not a test case.

Edited July 30, 2014 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

Yes but Nigel has his own agenda so is unlikely to paint CRT in a good light even if they are "right"

 

#48 "in all honesty, it may well be the case in many of them that Part 8 was justifiable".

[Naughty Cal]

 

#48 "in all honesty, it may well be the case in many of them that Part 8 was justifiable".

 

That's you painting them in a good light?

[matty40s]

Yes but Nigel has his own agenda so is unlikely to paint CRT in a good light even if they are "right"

I see that Nigels agenda is to protect all boaters by challenging and reigning in some of the power hungry management despots who are doing their level best to ride against the "Customer comes first" mantra being adopted by CRT.

[NigelMoore]

 

That's you painting them in a good light?

 

Yes. Acknowledging that some actions they took were justifiable is painting them in a bad light?

[nicknorman]

Yes. Acknowledging that some actions they took were justifiable is painting them in a bad light?

No, but it is grudgingly painting them in a neutral light!

[Naughty Cal]

 

Yes. Acknowledging that some actions they took were justifiable is painting them in a bad light?

Im sure they will be so pleased of your glowing appreciation

I see that Nigels agenda is to protect all boaters by challenging and reigning in some of the power hungry management despots who are doing their level best to ride against the "Customer comes first" mantra being adopted by CRT.

I dont.

[nicknorman]

I see that Nigels agenda is to protect all boaters by challenging and reigning in some of the power hungry management despots who are doing their level best to ride against the "Customer comes first" mantra being adopted by CRT.

It is. However a balance needs to be struck and whose agenda is it to protect the majority of boaters from the minority power hungry boater despots who are doing their level best to ride roughshod over rules? (rules put in place for the benefit of us all).

[mayalld]

I'd have thought, given the details of the cases Nigel has posted and other recent cases of both CCers and those with home moorings being seemingly persecuted by CRT that as a boater you'd recognise where your interests lie and always support a boater.

 

Why would you imagine that?

 

It seems quite clear to me that the vast majority of cases (although not all) "seemingly" persecuted by CRT actually consist of people who are actually trying to push the boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not.

 

There seems to be a line peddled by some that as these people are boaters, and as they would be adversely affected if the authority gets its way as to where the boundaries between right and wrong lie, I should support them, because I am a boater as well.

 

It may be a good bit of rabble rousing, but it is muddle headed in the extreme.

 

I may well be a boater, but it does NOT follow that anything that is good for a particular boater will also be good for me.

 

Allowing those who want to push the envelope and try to do as they please to do so will fairly likely lead to a number of others doing likewise. It only takes a fairly small number of people to do this, and a tiny minority start to have an adverse impact on the majority.

[Paul C]

 

 

I have a very different take on the situation (both that of Mr Dunkley and the wider context). I see the way that CRT handle (dodge) FoI requests and the cases posted here by Nigel to be indicative of an organisation which is less than transparent and more interesting in "winning" that finding an equitable solution to any given issue.

 

I also don't see the victory of CRT in a court action as being indicative of them being right. Nigel has made a number of posts referring to cases where CRT staff are believed in court simply because they're CRT staff. This is also compatible with my experience of the judicial system more generally.

 

I see that you've identified a trend that needs to be tackled. I wonder, where did the data come from to make this identification?

 

That's fine, I appreciate you're entitlement to hold a different point of view. One question though - what WOULD you accept, as an indication of CRT being right, if not the result of a court case?

[Sabcat]

 

That's fine, I appreciate you're entitlement to hold a different point of view. One question though - what WOULD you accept, as an indication of CRT being right, if not the result of a court case?

 

My own view of the facts and circumstances surrounding any given issue.

[NigelMoore]

No, but it is grudgingly painting them in a neutral light!

 

Not grudging at all, simply factual acceptance that there are cases where BW/CaRT have been entitled to take boaters to court, and to do so under Part 8. I have in fact been advocating they do this more – except that my suggestion is to follow the more appropriate and less extreme processes, instead of those that they favour.

 

I see, though, that I need to apologise for lacking the wit to properly understand the point I thought I was answering. I took the comment to suggest that that I would not acknowledge CaRT to ever be in the right, even when they were.

 

I had obviously not appreciated that it amounted to a challenge to demonstrate where I had ever given them enthusiastic endorsement.

[NilesMI]

Has the judgement in CaRT v Meyers been published?

 

ISTM that the judge's analysis of the enforcement regime is exactly right. There is no requirement for someone with a legitiimate home mooring to actually use that mooring.

 

But was this a judgement at first instance? If so, does it represent case law or just the considered opinion of a single judge?

Edited July 30, 2014 by NilesMI

[Paul C]

 

If CaRT wanted judicial commentary on whether they could legitimately prosecute a boater with home mooring for not conforming to the requirements of a CC’er, and as to whether they could demand he use that mooring for any specified time if ever, then they have the High Court determination respecting ‘Gilgie’ - where the boat was pronounced legitimately licensed and entitled to use that licence even though never or rarely using its home mooring.

 

Judge Halbert in the more recent case of CaRT v Meyers made it clear that Meyers could not be considered a test case [being so fact-specific], but nonetheless delivered himself of persuasive comment in full support of the High Court finding –

 

 

With that case law behind them, how does going to court yet again, to determine whether they were entitled to refuse a licence based on their claim that the declared home mooring was bogus because unused, stack up as a legitimate use of the funds they have?

 

I should make it clear that this is not a "ghost mooring" case as defined by Jackie Lewis in her commentary in the latest NABO newsletter. it is a mooring they have recognised as otherwise legitimate except for being largely unused.

 

 

 

Edit: to clarify which case was said to be not a test case.

 

Its possible that these 2 things could be distinct and different:

 

1) CRT are satisfied of the home mooring but it is never used

2) CRT aren't satisfied of the home mooring.

[NigelMoore]

I may well be a boater, but it does NOT follow that anything that is good for a particular boater will also be good for me.

 

True. It’s why I say effective “on the water” enforcement aimed at actually achieving immediate fair play for other boaters is the way forward, rather than the supposed “test cases” designed, less as immediate solutions, but rather more as exhibitions of power on the ethos of the “Licence it or Lose it” campaigns. [The results of any judgments at that level cannot form binding precedents]

 

In terms of licence evasion of course, there can be no question over the authority’s entitlement. It is using s.8 as a tool for moorings control instead of the powers tailored to that end, that is simultaneously objectionable [to me] and ineffective.

 

I note that the 2011 answer to your FoI request on active enforcement proceedings gave a figure of 2,213 active proceedings as of that date. Over half of those were Licence Enforcement, but just under half were for: Mooring Enforcement [338]; Overstay Enforcement [124]; Continuous Cruiser Enforcement [343], and Other [96].

 

My presumption is that the vast bulk of these relate to patrol notices and correspondence rather than court actions, given that they published a list of only 24 court cases active in that year, of which only 4 were CC cases. The other 339 CC cases evidently were resolvable without court action. Of the four, the fate of Baynes and Haupt I don't know.

 

The other two "test cases" on the list were Davies and Mayers. Mayers failed as a test case [he should have brought an action against CaRT for declaratory relief, instead of waiting for them to take action against him], yet resulted in CaRT-damaging observations rejecting their interpretations on the law, while Davies forced a re-think on the guidance because that judge too, rejected elements of their guidance.

 

[cotswoldsman]

 

This is quite interesting even though it does not define PLACE it certainly seems to also indicate that PLACE is not a neighborhood but just far enough apart to constitute a different PLACE. No wonder people get confused

[muddywaters]

It does seem that when an organisation reaches a certain size it ceases to function in a logical fashion.

CaRT does not yet seem to have reached the level of some of the major banks who must have a special filter in their human resources departments that ensure that no one with an IQ higher than that of a chimp is allowed on the telephone

This rule is in general practise with line managers where I work as well