Court Case Quotation - Can you Identify It ?

[Paul C]

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?

 

 

 

Because it doesn't need amending.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Because it doesn't need amending.

But Parry was trying to get the Associations to agree a minimum distance so it could be amended so it would appear Parry does not agree with you. Edited January 26, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Bod]

I suppose that a distance rule can be measured, but an intention can't.

As I understand the Judge was concerned about the reason for movement, rather than the distance moved, in his definition of "Bona Fide for navigation".

 

Bod

[Paul C]

But Parry was trying to get the Associations to agree a minimum distance so it could be amended so it would appear Parry does not agree with you.

 

I know, but this is unrelated to the Mayers court case. Personally I'd be surprised if at some point in the future, CRT do try to define a minimum distance, which would apply to the current regulations as they stand.

 

If new legislation were to be brought in in the future (probably a long term aspiration, and probably only regionally anyway not national) they may wish to redefine the two avenues one can traverse to obtain a licence (home mooring/other place to keep boat, or CCing) but I can't see it being a smooth ride to enact anything. Some may perceive a need for it in certain hotspots but I believe this is a minority anyway - so unlikely to get their way.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I know, but this is unrelated to the Mayers court case. Personally I'd be surprised if at some point in the future, CRT do try to define a minimum distance, which would apply to the current regulations as they stand.

 

If new legislation were to be brought in in the future (probably a long term aspiration, and probably only regionally anyway not national) they may wish to redefine the two avenues one can traverse to obtain a licence (home mooring/other place to keep boat, or CCing) but I can't see it being a smooth ride to enact anything. Some may perceive a need for it in certain hotspots but I believe this is a minority anyway - so unlikely to get their way.

Sorry I am not convinced I think Parry was trying to get the Associations to agree to a minimum distance as a result of the Mayers case

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Because it doesn't need amending

 

 

 

 

The current Guidance for CC'ers contains wording as follows : -

 

" . . . . . those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be moving, in passage or in transit throughout the period of the licence"

 

and

 

". . . . 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, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)."

 

. . . which doesn't sit at all well with Para's 7.22.4. to 7.22.7 (inc.) in the C&RT v Mayers Judgment.

[jenlyn]

Sorry I am not convinced I think Parry was trying to get the Associations to agree to a minimum distance as a result of the Mayers case

I agree.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sorry I am not convinced I think Parry was trying to get the Associations to agree to a minimum distance as a result of the Mayers case

It certainly looked that way to me.

 

.. and if it had backfired on him he would have claimed that it was what the associations were demanding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Dunkley]

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).

In fact they haven't filed a Notice of Discontinuance as they agreed to do, in writing on 27 August last year, and their action is still 'on the books' at Nottingham County Court. After reneging on their written agreement to discontinue they applied to the Court for an Order enabling them to discontinue without any liability for my costs which the County Court procedure rules say should normally be awarded to the Defendant in the event of an Applicant discontinuing after having had sight of the Defence. The Court refused to issue the Order, which C&RT had asked to be issued without a Hearing, and the matter is to be decided at a Hearing listed for 13 March.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Dave_P]

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.

It is poor legislation. It doesn't even adequately define navigation. It also clearly relies on an element of mind-reading on the part of the enforcer. I'm hugely grateful that the legislation which I enforce through my work is far clearer.

[Dave_P]

I suppose that a distance rule can be measured, but an intention can't.

As I understand the Judge was concerned about the reason for movement, rather than the distance moved, in his definition of "Bona Fide for navigation".

 

Bod

Exactly! Which is why the act is a poor piece of legislation.

Sorry I am not convinced I think Parry was trying to get the Associations to agree to a minimum distance as a result of the Mayers case

It does seem likely, although misguided since the judge's musings on the Mayer's case offer an excellent defence in certain cases of inadequate distance covered.

The current Guidance for CC'ers contains wording as follows : -

 

" . . . . . those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be moving, in passage or in transit throughout the period of the licence"

 

and

 

". . . . 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, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)."

 

. . . which doesn't sit at all well with Para's 7.22.4. to 7.22.7 (inc.) in the C&RT v Mayers Judgment.

Indeed! Just because Richard Parry doesn't think it needs amending, doesn't make it true. Perhaps they are waiting until they lose a case in court on this issue?

[Paul C]

The current Guidance for CC'ers contains wording as follows : -

 

" . . . . . those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be moving, in passage or in transit throughout the period of the licence"

 

and

 

". . . . 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, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)."

 

. . . which doesn't sit at all well with Para's 7.22.4. to 7.22.7 (inc.) in the C&RT v Mayers Judgment.

 

Mostly agree, that these extracts do differ slightly in interpretation of the law (between the Mayers case and the guidelines as currently written), but given that the Mayers case was "won" on the fact that Mayer didn't move the boat at all, takes it a little into the abstract rather than a practical comparison of the guidance vs what the defendant did.

 

Also, 7.22.5, the Mersey Ferry analogy - its worth noting that this is in fact a poor example to use if you are saying A-B-A-B style of movement is acceptable. The Mersey Ferry in fact operates Pier Head - Seacombe - Woodside - Pier Head through the day, although there is a direct route (Pier Head to Seacombe) at peak times.

[MtB]

Distance clearly DOES matter in determining whether movement is bona fide for navigation. A trip from say, Brentford to Birmingham would surely count as bona fide in the opinion of the apocryphal 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' regardless of the intention behind the trip. So the discussion reduces to how short a distance definitely complies, rather than how far one has to move to comply.

 

CRT could declare (for example) trips of say, 20 miles a fortnight will be always be accepted as de facto CC compliant and guarantee publicly this movement would never result in enforcement action. Then qualify it by saying shorter trips might also comply, but they reserve the right to ask a court to decide if a boater wishes to test for a lower limit. Boater takes the risk.

 

This lets CRT give the distance that so many people keep asking for, but doesn't box them in.

 

They could then tinker with it and say stuff like 'three miles a fortnight in central London also guarantees freedom from enforcement.

 

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to develop the idea a bit.)

Edited January 27, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[BruceinSanity]

Distance clearly DOES matter in determining whether movement is bona fide for navigation. A trip from say, Brentford to Birmingham would surely count as bona fide in the opinion of the apocryphal 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' regardless of the intention behind the trip. So the discussion reduces to how short a distance definitely complies, rather than how far one has to move to comply.

 

CRT could declare (for example) trips of say, 20 miles a fortnight will be treated as de facto CC compliant,. Then qualify it by saying shorter trips might also comply, but they reserve the right to ask the court to decide. Boater takes the risk.

 

 

MtB

Good one, Mike. Greenie for that.

[KenK]

The current Guidance for CC'ers contains wording as follows : -

 

" . . . . . those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be moving, in passage or in transit throughout the period of the licence"

 

and

 

". . . . 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, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise)."

 

. . . which doesn't sit at all well with Para's 7.22.4. to 7.22.7 (inc.) in the C&RT v Mayers Judgment.

Those paragraphs all relate to examples of commercial movement of boats for the purpose of moving either freight or people. If Mr Mayers had been moving coal for example, from Preston Brook to Middlewhich and back, then the purpose of the journey would have been bona fide. As within a five year period his boat was never observed anywhere except within the same 3 kilometre stretch of the T&M and not carrying he was hardly bona fide.

 

Also Para 7.22.9 I quote

 

However, distance does have some relevance. If a boat moves 100 miles it is much easier for the owner to establish that he is bona fide navigating than if it moves only 100 yards.

 

You keep making the point that Richard Parry want's to establish a distance which we can all agree constitutes acceptable movement. In some places that would makes sense, if a boat is in the middle of nowhere a long way between easily defined places then if say a distance of two miles had been agreed and the boat moved that far every 14 days or less as he required, then the owner could be certain that he was complying with the guidelines. I fully accept there would be no force of law the 1995 act does not define amount of movement and therefore C&RT cannot set a distance. If the guidelines were amended to read

 

"A place can be defined either as two different locations, e.g. Upper Slaughter and Lower Slaughter or if no place can easily be defined a distance of no less than two miles from the last place which the boat was moored would be defined as the next place."

 

Para 7.22.3 last two sentences

 

If a boat were moved 500metres within the parish of Anderton it would in my view be in the same place. If it were moved to Northwich, over 2 miles away, it would not.

 

Ken

[Alf Roberts]

he might want to, you might want to, the man on the Clapham omnibus might want to but what the successive judgements have shown is the 'place' within the meaning of the act is not a geographical construct.

 

once again it returns to intent - which doesn't have to be commercial, the Dog and Duck example shows that.

[MtB]

Good one, Mike. Greenie for that.

 

 

Thank you! I've just added to it slightly....

 

MtB

[Alf Roberts]

if I moor in a marina, every weekend I cruise two miles to the pub and back again that is 'bona fide for navigation'. it is impossible to apply another set of criteria to a boat without home mooring.

[KenK]

if I moor in a marina, every weekend I cruise two miles to the pub and back again that is 'bona fide for navigation'. it is impossible to apply another set of criteria to a boat without home mooring.

As you well know if you have a mooring there is no requirement to comply with "bona fide for navigation", so cruising to the pub and back is acceptable.

If you do not have a mooring then cruising two miles between A and B and back, the pub is irrelevant, is not.

 

Ken

[MtB]

if I moor in a marina, every weekend I cruise two miles to the pub and back again that is 'bona fide for navigation'. it is impossible to apply another set of criteria to a boat without home mooring.

 

 

Completely missing the point.

 

IF CRT made a public declaration along the lines of my suggestion, you would fall in the category of 'may still comply'.

 

CCers who cruise the threshold distance CRT publish are 'guaranteed to comply'. Guaranteed safe from enforcement.

 

 

MtB

[Allan(nb Albert)]

As you well know if you have a mooring there is no requirement to comply with "bona fide for navigation", so cruising to the pub and back is acceptable.

If you do not have a mooring then cruising two miles between A and B and back, the pub is irrelevant, is not.

 

Ken

There is a requirement to 'cruise' under the licence terms and conditions. Are you saying that using a boat to 'cruise' has a different meaning to using one 'bone fide for navigation'?

 

 

[Paul C]

if I moor in a marina, every weekend I cruise two miles to the pub and back again that is 'bona fide for navigation'. it is impossible to apply another set of criteria to a boat without home mooring.

 

But you are applying another set of criteria, because in law its an either/or choice of how to comply. As a reminder (with my bold):

 

 

 

©either—

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

[KenK]

There is a requirement to 'cruise' under the licence terms and conditions. Are you saying that using a boat to 'cruise' has a different meaning to using one 'bone fide for navigation'?

 

 

Not being a lawyer I regard moving the boat as cruising, however because of all the people who keep insisting they can't understand the requirements of the 1995 act BW and now C&RT were forced to issue guidelines. The guidelines refer to Bona Fide Navigation or Bona Fide for Navigation.

 

As far as I'm concerned when I move ( cruise ) my boat I comply with the license conditions which apply to me as the holder of a mooring.

If boaters who do not hold a mooring comply with the license conditions which apply to them then clearly all is well with the world.

 

You can argue from now until the end of time as to the meaning of this word or that but anyone with any common sense and a reasonable command of English can read the conditions which they agreed to abide by when the took out their license, the terms Bona Fide for Navigation and cruising are both used in the conditions and it states they mean the same thing.

 

Ken

[Tuscan]

Not being a lawyer I regard moving the boat as cruising, however because of all the people who keep insisting they can't understand the requirements of the 1995 act BW and now C&RT were forced to issue guidelines. The guidelines refer to Bona Fide Navigation or Bona Fide for Navigation.

 

As far as I'm concerned when I move ( cruise ) my boat I comply with the license conditions which apply to me as the holder of a mooring.

If boaters who do not hold a mooring comply with the license conditions which apply to them then clearly all is well with the world.

 

You can argue from now until the end of time as to the meaning of this word or that but anyone with any common sense and a reasonable command of English can read the conditions which they agreed to abide by when the took out their license, the terms Bona Fide for Navigation and cruising are both used in the conditions and it states they mean the same thing.

 

Ken

Don't disagree but obviously in any legal dispute the judge will look beyond any terms and conditions and guidance and focus on the relevant Act and any subsequent judgements relating to it.

[Tony Dunkley]

Not being a lawyer I regard moving the boat as cruising, however because of all the people who keep insisting they can't understand the requirements of the 1995 act BW and now C&RT were forced to issue guidelines. The guidelines refer to Bona Fide Navigation or Bona Fide for Navigation.

 

As far as I'm concerned when I move ( cruise ) my boat I comply with the license conditions which apply to me as the holder of a mooring.

If boaters who do not hold a mooring comply with the license conditions which apply to them then clearly all is well with the world.

 

You can argue from now until the end of time as to the meaning of this word or that but anyone with any common sense and a reasonable command of English can read the conditions which they agreed to abide by when the took out their license, the terms Bona Fide for Navigation and cruising are both used in the conditions and it states they mean the same thing.

 

Ken

 

That's correct . . . . which means the Licence T&C's seek to impose the 'used bona fide for navigation' requirement on every boat, irrespective of whether it has a home mooring or is registered as a CC'er.