Court Case Quotation - Can you Identify It ?

[Tuscan]

The judges comments in both the Davies and Mayers case carry equal weight I understand. Neither create a precedent but both comments will no doubt be reviewed in depth and taken into account in any future case. I don't understand why CRT has decided not to publish details of both judgements unless they see future difficulties in some of these comments seeing as they won both cases. Far more likely they will look to review guidance and license T&C's in the light of the Dunkley case where I believe they have withdrawn their prosecution ( I stand corrected if this is not the case).

[Dave_P]

Given its been half a day or so, and nobody else has contributed to this thread; and nobody else thinks the guidance to CCers needs to be modified except you and Tony Dunkley, are you still convinced this is such a big deal at all?.

What a strange way of thinking? That if someone doesn't comment, it means they agree with your position?

 

It could be equally argued that, since you're the only one on here who has stated that the guidance doesn't need updating, it follows that 99.9% of forums members think it does!

[Dave_P]

For the sake of clarity: I am of the opinion that some of the judges comments in the Mayers case are in direct contradiction of CRTs enforcement approach. There are 2 areas of contention:

 

1. That the intent of the boater has a greater importance that the distance travelling in determining whether their navigation is 'bona fide '.

 

2. That provided a home mooring could be used, it is not necessary that it actually is used. Therefore any boater with a real home mooring on the network which is accessible to their boat, is exempt from the continuous cruising guidelines.

 

The first of these requires a change to the CC guidelines. The second does not.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Dave_P

[Paul C]

What a strange way of thinking? That if someone doesn't comment, it means they agree with your position?

 

It could be equally argued that, since you're the only one on here who has stated that the guidance doesn't need updating, it follows that 99.9% of forums members think it does!

 

My "position" or opinion on thie issue, was that this case doesn't really justify ANY change to the guidance, given that it was a simple case of not moving --> boat was section 8'd etc. There was a distinct lack of interest in supporting the view that the guidance did need changing based on this case. I was expecting more of a debate on it. But the forum, at least yesterday afternoon, remained quiet on the topic.

[Alan de Enfield]

For the sake of clarity: I am of the opinion that some of the judges comments in the Mayers case are in direct contradiction of CRTs enforcement approach. There are 2 areas of contention:

 

1. That the intent of the boater has a greater importance that the distance travelling in determining whether their navigation is 'bona fide '.

 

2. That provided a home mooring could be used, it is not necessary that it actually is used. Therefore any boater with a real home mooring on the network which is accessible to their boat, is exempt from the continuous cruising guidelines.

 

The first of these requires a change to the CC guidelines. The second does not.

 

That was also my impression, which is why I saved the paragraph for future reference.

[Tony Dunkley]

For the sake of clarity: I am of the opinion that some of the judges comments in the Mayers case are in direct contradiction of CRTs enforcement approach. There are 2 areas of contention:

 

1. That the intent of the boater has a greater importance that the distance travelling in determining whether their navigation is 'bona fide '.

 

2. That provided a home mooring could be used, it is not necessary that it actually is used. Therefore any boater with a real home mooring on the network which is accessible to their boat, is exempt from the continuous cruising guidelines.

 

The first of these requires a change to the CC guidelines. The second does not.

In respect of the 'bona fide for navigation' argument, I would say that the Judge's sentiments in Mayers are very much in line with those in Davies, ie. that compliance, or otherwise, with the requirement is determined by the purpose of the journey or movement of the boat, and not the extent of it. I don't think that either Judge is saying that purpose, or intent, is more important than distance, I think they're saying it's 'purpose' only that satisfies the requirement, to the exclusion of any consideration of distance. This is why Parry wanted to keep the Mayers Judgment quiet while he was asking the boating organizations to come up with a distance to be travelled figure that his Enforcement gang could work with.

[Dave_P]

 

My "position" or opinion on thie issue, was that this case doesn't really justify ANY change to the guidance, given that it was a simple case of not moving --> boat was section 8'd etc. There was a distinct lack of interest in supporting the view that the guidance did need changing based on this case. I was expecting more of a debate on it. But the forum, at least yesterday afternoon, remained quiet on the topic.

probably because this issue has been argued to death on the forum. The debate has already been had. This thread simply started because the OP couldn't remember where the paragraph came from.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In respect of the 'bona fide for navigation' argument, I would say that the Judge's sentiments in Mayers are very much in line with those in Davies, ie. that compliance, or otherwise, with the requirement is determined by the purpose of the journey or movement of the boat, and not the extent of it. I don't think that either Judge is saying that purpose, or intent, is more important than distance, I think they're saying it's 'purpose' only that satisfies the requirement, to the exclusion of any consideration of distance. This is why Parry wanted to keep the Mayers Judgment quiet while he was asking the boating organizations to come up with a distance to be travelled figure that his Enforcement gang could work with.

I was told that IWA suggested 500 miles a year and AWCC 250 (although neither recorded in the disputed minutes). Bizarrely, there was a suggestion that a lower level be set ramping up over several years.

 

However, I hope that common sense will prevail due to NABO, ACC and RBOA not supporting a boater endorsed minimum distance and NABO now asking CaRT questions on the Mayers judgement.

 

 

[Paul C]

probably because this issue has been argued to death on the forum. The debate has already been had. This thread simply started because the OP couldn't remember where the paragraph came from.

 

Fair enough.

[Dave_P]

I was told that IWA suggested 500 miles a year and AWCC 250 (although neither recorded in the disputed minutes). Bizarrely, there was a suggestion that a lower level be set ramping up over several years.

 

However, I hope that common sense will prevail due to NABO, ACC and RBOA not supporting a boater endorsed minimum distance and NABO now asking CaRT questions on the Mayers judgement.

 

 

As usual, there's a gaping chasm between what people and boating groups would like the legislation to say, and what the legislation actually says. As the the judge in the Mayers case has stated, the requirement for bona fide navigation is temporal not geographical and is largely down to the intent of the boater. The only part of the legislation which creates a need for a minimum amount of movement is the requirement to be in a new place after 14 days. The idea of a 'continuous progressive journey' is history now.

 

The CRT guidance states: "What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, a nd not back to neighbourhood A" Based on the Mayers judgement, this is simply not true. The law does not require this. The boater can happily return to point A for a variety of reasons, including because they just might fancy it. What the law implies (but does not explicitly state) is that some reasons for returning to point A are not reasonable, including to be near a workplace or school. The interesting implication of this is that those boaters who continuously cruise over a large area (say within an hours drive of Birmingham) and commute to a single workplace may well not be complying with the law, in that their intent is not bona-fide navigation, their intent is to stay near to work.

 

This demonstrates the inaqeduacy of the waterways act. It is a shockingly poorly drafted piece of legislation and I dread to think of the amount of money CRT/BW have had to spend in trying to interpret it and enforce it. It was only ten year or so ago that BW was trying to enforce a minimum movement of 120 lock miles every 3 months. That seems almost comical now.

 

If we ever get a new waterways act I fully expect it to demand that all boaters have a home mooring. Essentially all of this enforcement is based on the fear that, if CCing were made too easy, many people would give up their home moorings and CRT and marina owners would lose revenue. Nothing more.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Dave_P

[Alan de Enfield]

As usual, there's a gaping chasm between what people and boating groups would like the legislation to say, and what the legislation actually says. As the the judge in the Mayers case has stated, the requirement for bona fide navigation is temporal not geographical and is largely down to the intent of the boater. The only part of the legislation which creates a need for a minimum amount of movement is the requirement to be in a new place after 14 days. The idea of a 'continuous progressive journey' is history now.

 

The CRT guidance states: "What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, a nd not back to neighbourhood A" Based on the Mayers judgement, this is simply not true. The law does not require this. The boater can happily return to point A for a variety of reasons, including because they just might fancy it. What the law implies (but does not explicitly state) is that some reasons for returning to point A are not reasonable, including to be near a workplace or school. The interesting implication of this is that those boaters who continuously cruise over a large area (say within an hours drive of Birmingham) and commute to a single workplace may well not be complying with the law, in that their intent is not bona-fide navigation, their intent is to stay near to work.

 

This demonstrates the inaqeduacy of the waterways act. It is a shockingly poorly drafted piece of legislation and I dread to think of the amount of money CRT/BW have had to spend in trying to interpret it and enforce it. It was only ten year or so ago that BW was trying to enforce a minimum movement of 120 lock miles every 3 months. That seems almost comical now.

 

If we ever get a new waterways act I fully expect it to demand that all boaters have a home mooring. Essentially all of this enforcement is based on the fear that, if CCing were made too easy, many people would give up their home moorings and CRT and marina owners would lose revenue. Nothing more.

 

But reading literally - the judgement says that if a boat has a home mooring it does not need to use it.

Having a home mooring means you do not have to comply with CC rules.

As written, the 1995 Act allows "boats with home moorings" to be compliant if move a matter of a few (100 ?) yards every 14 days, and not necessarily to a new 'place'.

 

The whole situation is a mess but (to quote an oft said saying) be careful what you wish for.

[Mike Todd]

In respect of the 'bona fide for navigation' argument, I would say that the Judge's sentiments in Mayers are very much in line with those in Davies, ie. that compliance, or otherwise, with the requirement is determined by the purpose of the journey or movement of the boat, and not the extent of it. I don't think that either Judge is saying that purpose, or intent, is more important than distance, I think they're saying it's 'purpose' only that satisfies the requirement, to the exclusion of any consideration of distance. This is why Parry wanted to keep the Mayers Judgment quiet while he was asking the boating organizations to come up with a distance to be travelled figure that his Enforcement gang could work with.

But did he not also say that distance may be cited as evidence regarding purpose?

As usual, there's a gaping chasm between what people and boating groups would like the legislation to say, and what the legislation actually says. As the the judge in the Mayers case has stated, the requirement for bona fide navigation is temporal not geographical and is largely down to the intent of the boater. The only part of the legislation which creates a need for a minimum amount of movement is the requirement to be in a new place after 14 days. The idea of a 'continuous progressive journey' is history now.

 

The CRT guidance states: "What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, a nd not back to neighbourhood A" Based on the Mayers judgement, this is simply not true. The law does not require this. The boater can happily return to point A for a variety of reasons, including because they just might fancy it. What the law implies (but does not explicitly state) is that some reasons for returning to point A are not reasonable, including to be near a workplace or school. The interesting implication of this is that those boaters who continuously cruise over a large area (say within an hours drive of Birmingham) and commute to a single workplace may well not be complying with the law, in that their intent is not bona-fide navigation, their intent is to stay near to work.

 

This demonstrates the inaqeduacy of the waterways act. It is a shockingly poorly drafted piece of legislation and I dread to think of the amount of money CRT/BW have had to spend in trying to interpret it and enforce it. It was only ten year or so ago that BW was trying to enforce a minimum movement of 120 lock miles every 3 months. That seems almost comical now.

 

If we ever get a new waterways act I fully expect it to demand that all boaters have a home mooring. Essentially all of this enforcement is based on the fear that, if CCing were made too easy, many people would give up their home moorings and CRT and marina owners would lose revenue. Nothing more.

But I think he indicated that A->B->A is valid depending on circumstances. If it is because the vessel is engaged on a specific trade then it is accerptable but if it is resonably concluded that the only reason for the movement is to evade the licensing requirements then it is not valid. Comes back to an analysis of 'purpose' which will always have room for debate in court!

[Tony Dunkley]

As usual, there's a gaping chasm between what people and boating groups would like the legislation to say, and what the legislation actually says. As the the judge in the Mayers case has stated, the requirement for bona fide navigation is temporal not geographical and is largely down to the intent of the boater. The only part of the legislation which creates a need for a minimum amount of movement is the requirement to be in a new place after 14 days. The idea of a 'continuous progressive journey' is history now.

 

The CRT guidance states: "What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, a nd not back to neighbourhood A" Based on the Mayers judgement, this is simply not true. The law does not require this. The boater can happily return to point A for a variety of reasons, including because they just might fancy it. What the law implies (but does not explicitly state) is that some reasons for returning to point A are not reasonable, including to be near a workplace or school. The interesting implication of this is that those boaters who continuously cruise over a large area (say within an hours drive of Birmingham) and commute to a single workplace may well not be complying with the law, in that their intent is not bona-fide navigation, their intent is to stay near to work.

 

This demonstrates the inaqeduacy of the waterways act. It is a shockingly poorly drafted piece of legislation and I dread to think of the amount of money CRT/BW have had to spend in trying to interpret it and enforce it. It was only ten year or so ago that BW was trying to enforce a minimum movement of 120 lock miles every 3 months. That seems almost comical now.

 

If we ever get a new waterways act I fully expect it to demand that all boaters have a home mooring. Essentially all of this enforcement is based on the fear that, if CCing were made too easy, many people would give up their home moorings and CRT and marina owners would lose revenue. Nothing more.

There's nothing 'inadequate' about it, and it isn't difficult to understand. The difficulties that BW did have, and now C&RT do have with it all arise from their bloody-minded and dishonest attempts to present it as saying what they would like it to say, rather than what it does say.

[Tony Dunkley]

But did he not also say that distance may be cited as evidence regarding purpose?

 

The use or consideration of distance as evidence in support of establishing a purpose is not the same as making distance a condition of compliance.

[b0atman]

Whilst I am out CCing this year then I shall probably do a lot of boating that is a short distance between points of interest .

So I may in a month not move far but will be progressing in the same direction with no return excepting sections like the Ashby or the Llangollen this could mean I may be recorded by the same towpath warden .

Yet I consider what I will be doing is good boating behaviour within the mooring time limits at each place I moor.

[cotswoldsman]

Whilst I am out CCing this year then I shall probably do a lot of boating that is a short distance between points of interest .

So I may in a month not move far but will be progressing in the same direction with no return excepting sections like the Ashby or the Llangollen this could mean I may be recorded by the same towpath warden .

Yet I consider what I will be doing is good boating behaviour within the mooring time limits at each place I moor.

I move very very slowly at times maybe less than 1 mile and that is ok

[jenlyn]

I was told that IWA suggested 500 miles a year and AWCC 250 (although neither recorded in the disputed minutes). Bizarrely, there was a suggestion that a lower level be set ramping up over several years.

 

However, I hope that common sense will prevail due to NABO, ACC and RBOA not supporting a boater endorsed minimum distance and NABO now asking CaRT questions on the Mayers judgement.

 

It was Paul lablique of AWCC that stated the 500 miles, and IWA stated the 250.

NABO, ACC and RBOA stated their position of happy to listen to what CRT had to say, but we're not interested in supporting any sort of distance.

It's for CRT to do that, put out whatever they wish, and see what comes back.

It's not down to the associations.

[Tony Dunkley]

It was Paul lablique of AWCC that stated the 500 miles, and IWA stated the 250.

NABO, ACC and RBOA stated their position of happy to listen to what CRT had to say, but we're not interested in supporting any sort of distance.

It's for CRT to do that, put out whatever they wish, and see what comes back.

It's not down to the associations.

That's right, and I think Parry is trying to get the associations to come up with a minimum distance for the very reason that he knows the 1995 Act doesn't give C&RT the power to set or require any such thing itself. Publication of the Mayers Judgment would not have been helpful with this particular aspect of his scheming.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Publication of the Mayers Judgment would not have been helpful with this particular aspect of his scheming.

.. which is why I asked on facebook if he intended to apologise -

 

• Allan Richards I trust you enjoyed the Christmas party on Saturday and that winning the quiz has not gone to your head.

   

  I would like to ask if you intend to apologise to boating groups for not making the Mayers judgement available to them before starting discussions on which it has a bearing.

  Like · Reply · 3 · 15 December 2014 at 14:34
  • 

    Canal & River Trust Boating Hello Allan, I was sorry you weren’t at the dinner. I did enjoy myself, and was lucky to be part of a good team with Sheila and Nigel!

    Regarding your question, we made the Court Order available on our website, as per our policy, back in February. As a general rule we don’t publish the detailed Court Judgments on our site.

     

    The Judgment in the Mayers case was wholly in our favour, and nothing has changed in our Guidance as a result. If boaters are confused or concerned about their movement patterns, they should get in touch with us to talk about it.

     

    We genuinely did not see any great significance in comments that the Judge himself said were irrelevant to the case.

     

    I don’t believe the case has any bearing on our talks with the boating organisations.

    Like · 1 · 15 December 2014 at 14:52
  • 

    Allan Richards The judgement in the Davis case was wholly in BW's favour but they still amended the 'guidance for boaters without a home mooring in view of the judges comments'.

    Like · 15 December 2014 at 15:11
  • 

    Canal & River Trust Boating Allan, there was nothing in this case that changed our view of our Guidance. That’s why we’ve not changed it.

    Like · 15 December 2014 at 15:21

[Alf Roberts]

 

My "position" or opinion on thie issue, was that this case doesn't really justify ANY change to the guidance, given that it was a simple case of not moving --> boat was section 8'd etc. There was a distinct lack of interest in supporting the view that the guidance did need changing based on this case. I was expecting more of a debate on it. But the forum, at least yesterday afternoon, remained quiet on the topic.

so if you keep repeating something it becomes true?

 

if that's about the level of your debating skills it's no wonder nobody can be bothered to put you right...... .....again.

[KenK]

The reason the guidelines did not need amending is that as the judge says in his summing up:-

 

In fact, it is common ground that towards the end of the period, GDM was deliberately not navigating in order to provoke this litigation. The letter referred to in paragraph 5.12 makes this very clear indeed. I have already referred to the paradox that this action by GDM has deprived the court of jurisdiction to make any decision on whether the guidelines are congruent with the litigation, which is what he wanted to challenge. I have in fact expressed a (very limited) view on this but it is wholly irrelevant to the decision.

 

The decision was based on GDM's failure to observe the 1995 Act not the guidelines and therefore Mr Parry is correct no change is required as a result of this case.

 

It really is worth reading the entire judgement, I have very little sympathy for Mr Mayers, he seems to be his own worst enemy.

 

Ken

[Tony Dunkley]

The reason the guidelines did not need amending is that as the judge says in his summing up:-

 

In fact, it is common ground that towards the end of the period, GDM was deliberately not navigating in order to provoke this litigation. The letter referred to in paragraph 5.12 makes this very clear indeed. I have already referred to the paradox that this action by GDM has deprived the court of jurisdiction to make any decision on whether the guidelines are congruent with the litigation, which is what he wanted to challenge. I have in fact expressed a (very limited) view on this but it is wholly irrelevant to the decision.

 

The decision was based on GDM's failure to observe the 1995 Act not the guidelines and therefore Mr Parry is correct no change is required as a result of this case.

 

It really is worth reading the entire judgement, I have very little sympathy for Mr Mayers, he seems to be his own worst enemy.

 

Ken

The extract you've quoted from the C&RT v Mayers Judgment is not the content that Parry wants suppressed.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[BrumSaint]

Whilst I am out CCing this year then I shall probably do a lot of boating that is a short distance between points of interest .

So I may in a month not move far but will be progressing in the same direction with no return excepting sections like the Ashby or the Llangollen this could mean I may be recorded by the same towpath warden .

Yet I consider what I will be doing is good boating behaviour within the mooring time limits at each place I moor.

 

 

I move very very slowly at times maybe less than 1 mile and that is ok

 

Genuine movement (CCing) does not cause anyone a problem. The problem is caused by those boaters who want to monopolise a small section of the canal for themselves. They may say their actions do not interfere with other boaters, but it only takes 2 or 3 similarly minded people in an area to effectively make it difficult for other boaters to find a mooring. I can't understand why anyone would defend another boaters attempt to continuously remain/moor in the same area (subject to the caveats of illness, breakdown etc).

 

The reason the guidelines did not need amending is that as the judge says in his summing up:-

 

In fact, it is common ground that towards the end of the period, GDM was deliberately not navigating in order to provoke this litigation. The letter referred to in paragraph 5.12 makes this very clear indeed. I have already referred to the paradox that this action by GDM has deprived the court of jurisdiction to make any decision on whether the guidelines are congruent with the litigation, which is what he wanted to challenge. I have in fact expressed a (very limited) view on this but it is wholly irrelevant to the decision.

 

The decision was based on GDM's failure to observe the 1995 Act not the guidelines and therefore Mr Parry is correct no change is required as a result of this case.

 

It really is worth reading the entire judgement, I have very little sympathy for Mr Mayers, he seems to be his own worst enemy.

 

Ken

 

This is what I was trying to say in post 25. It is no good just relying on a part of a judgement that supports the view you might like. The whole judgement has to be read to fully understand the context of any selected section.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The reason the guidelines did not need amending is that as the judge says in his summing up:-

 

In fact, it is common ground that towards the end of the period, GDM was deliberately not navigating in order to provoke this litigation. The letter referred to in paragraph 5.12 makes this very clear indeed. I have already referred to the paradox that this action by GDM has deprived the court of jurisdiction to make any decision on whether the guidelines are congruent with the litigation, which is what he wanted to challenge. I have in fact expressed a (very limited) view on this but it is wholly irrelevant to the decision.

 

The decision was based on GDM's failure to observe the 1995 Act not the guidelines and therefore Mr Parry is correct no change is required as a result of this case.

 

It really is worth reading the entire judgement, I have very little sympathy for Mr Mayers, he seems to be his own worst enemy.

 

Ken

As I said to Richard Parry on facebook - BW won the Davis case but still amended the guidance to reflect the judges comments.

 

Why have they not done so for the Mayers case?

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

 

KenK, on 26 Jan 2015 - 4:29 PM, said:

 

The reason the guidelines did not need amending is that as the judge says in his summing up:-

 

In fact, it is common ground that towards the end of the period, GDM was deliberately not navigating in order to provoke this litigation. The letter referred to in paragraph 5.12 makes this very clear indeed. I have already referred to the paradox that this action by GDM has deprived the court of jurisdiction to make any decision on whether the guidelines are congruent with the litigation, which is what he wanted to challenge. I have in fact expressed a (very limited) view on this but it is wholly irrelevant to the decision.

 

The decision was based on GDM's failure to observe the 1995 Act not the guidelines and therefore Mr Parry is correct no change is required as a result of this case.

 

It really is worth reading the entire judgement, I have very little sympathy for Mr Mayers, he seems to be his own worst enemy.

 

Ken

 

 

This is what I was trying to say in post 25. It is no good just relying on a part of a judgement that supports the view you might like. The whole judgement has to be read to fully understand the context of any selected section.

Please see #43 and #47.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley