Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Bod]

p.s. He rang late last night to say that he has received CaRT’s Defence; I am agog to read it.

 

We are all agog as well!!

 

Bod

[pearlygeoff]

In response to Nigel's mention of what has happened to my boat here is an update.

My boat was sunk - I say 'was sunk' as we now know it was intended to sink my boat and 'they', the enforcement squad, were looking forward to it. I knew this and we now have evidence.

It was taken unlawfully in breach of an undertaking to the court.

It was taken to a place with deep water. The boat yard, who are entirely innocent in the matter, put pumps in the boat and the boat sunk when there was a power supply problem.

I arranged for my possessions to be delivered to a storage unit as I knew it would sink and had told them so. This took some time , 6 weeks, as they used a small van so had to make two trips. Some of my 'stuff' is still missing.

Their plan was, obviously, for all my possessions to go down with the boat. They will have thought my files and documents were in the boat but I had kept them in a storage unit for some time as I expected some kind of 'assault'. I had also purchased extra fire extinguishers. I have no illusions about the kind of people they are. Some of you still suffer from those illusions.

My boat has since been craned out of the water and CRT have instructed the boatyard to 'wrap it' in tarpaulins. Presumably to make it look like they're looking after it.

It has been wilfully damaged and destroyed.

Don't think the police would do anything about the criminal acts in my case, although they will be involved eventually. There needs to be a joint complaint from as many people as possible.

There needs to be another website where all the abuses by CRT are exposed without interference from those who, for various reasons, refuse to recognise the problem, partly though ignorance, partly as it doesn't affect them and partly because they are complicit in the abuse i.e. boat clubs and hire boat operators and some selfish leisure boaters . AWCC and APCO and SUCS. The 'friends' of Sally Ash. Who have even managed to get the architect of the destruction of waterways life as a worthwhile pursuit, an award.

A lot of the best people on the waterways were driven off years ago when Sally Ash came up with the ludicrous and unlawful concept of 'continuous cruising'.

Using enforcement/harassment, and threats of legal action and seizure of your boat, for not engaging in a continuous journey, without turning back on yourself, while being spied upon and treated like a criminal or trespasser, was a criminal action as the requirement was, and has since been ruled as, unlawful. It caused all of the problems we have had since and all the endless division, debate and aggravation and was entirely unlawful and mind numbingly stupid and was the creation of a woman of limited knowledge, understanding and perception, empowered as a result of her association, from university onwards, with Robin Evans.

None of this was necessary and no useful result has been achieved and thousands of innocent and decent people have been adversely affected with some who, rightfully, challenge them being hounded, at great cost, and losing their homes.

And they are still doing it and many of you are still assisting them.

I now have a transcription of the hearing when the Judgment was handed down, in my absence, as I was told the hearing had been cancelled. The Judge was 'expecting a day of arguments' as this was an opportunity to challenge the Draft Judgment which my 'representatives', it seems, did not want to do as they wanted an end to the case.

So I did not attend the hearing, could not challenge the Judgment, which had numerous factual errors which could reasonably be challenged, was without representation - as my 'representatives' had released themselves from representing me the day before - was deemed to be, therefore, without legal aid - part of the plan - so Shoosmiths/CRT, who were clearly in on the plot, asked for £80,000 costs. And the Judgment was handed down, obviously without my knowledge, so I didn't receive it for 2 weeks.

And, to complete this 'cunning plan' the date of the hearing had been arranged so that the order execution date, i.e. the seizure of my boat, would be on the last working day before Christmas so as to cause maximum distress.

This is why they have to be challenged and only a person with 'bottle', and a lot more legal knowledge than I have, or most solicitors and barristers have, and good advocacy skills, stands a chance. But, as I have discovered, there are lots of dodgy things going on behind the scenes. Particularly in a court where the solicitors are in their 'home' court and dealing with court staff they have developed a relationship with. If I made complaints about all the 'misdeeds' in my case I would never get to the end. Complaints would not be dealt with correctly, would engender more complaints, files would be 'lost' and there would, most likely, be 'threats'. The action against me was a result of my making complaints that they could not, and would not, answer. My complaints were all justified and have since been proved correct in other courts.

The whole of the CRT enforcement team should be prosecuted. I have recently received an email from Denise Yelland who, despite the evidence of their abuses and the opposition to their 'strategies' and 'set them up to fail' ambiguous 'rules', state that they all have her full support.

If you can be bothered to read my website - Canal and River Tyranny - there's a lot more evidence and analysis on there.

[bigcol]

I don't know what to say,am I understanding correctly the defendant didn't appear at court?

So that CRT won, as the claimant didn't appear, no case to answer, and was awarded £80,000 costs.

[pearlygeoff]

It's a long story. You'd have to read the website mentioned.

[Bod]

Pearlygeoff

"I now have a transcription of the hearing when the Judgment was handed down, in my absence, as I was told the hearing had been cancelled. The Judge was 'expecting a day of arguments' as this was an opportunity to challenge the Draft Judgment which my 'representatives', it seems, did not want to do as they wanted an end to the case."

 

Who told you the hearing was cancelled?

How were you told?

 

Bod

[larkshall]

I have no quarrel with the cynicism of that post, but I do decry the defeatism of it.

 

If we were all to despair of justice by reason of manifold injustices, the judiciary would never change for the better – and for all the current failures, the present day system is so far improved upon the situation even of a century ago that it is all but unrecognisable.

 

In great part, that is down to those who have entered the arena and played by the rules in defiant challenge to then current injustices and [largely by reason of publicity] have succeeded in gradually forcing greater public accountability and ethical standing.

 

Besides: regardless of potential success or failure when challenging governmental corruption, it is personally better to fight and lose than to roll over and lose – if win they must, let them know they must still fight for it.

 

All the above supposing that your cause is worth it of course.

As you said luck. I'm not a gambling man. I know I despise the legal profession with very very good reason. But as soon odds fall below ten to one on. I bail.

Looks like CRT WON LOL

[cotswoldsman]

Looks like CRT WON LOL

And what case are you talking about? ??

Edited June 19, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[kris88]

 

 

In response to Nigel's mention of what has happened to my boat here is an update.

 

 

 

My boat was sunk - I say 'was sunk' as we now know it was intended to sink my boat and 'they', the enforcement squad, were looking forward to it. I knew this and we now have evidence.

 

It was taken unlawfully in breach of an undertaking to the court.

 

It was taken to a place with deep water. The boat yard, who are entirely innocent in the matter, put pumps in the boat and the boat sunk when there was a power supply problem.

 

I arranged for my possessions to be delivered to a storage unit as I knew it would sink and had told them so. This took some time , 6 weeks, as they used a small van so had to make two trips. Some of my 'stuff' is still missing.

 

Their plan was, obviously, for all my possessions to go down with the boat. They will have thought my files and documents were in the boat but I had kept them in a storage unit for some time as I expected some kind of 'assault'. I had also purchased extra fire extinguishers. I have no illusions about the kind of people they are. Some of you still suffer from those illusions.

 

My boat has since been craned out of the water and CRT have instructed the boatyard to 'wrap it' in tarpaulins. Presumably to make it look like they're looking after it.

 

It has been wilfully damaged and destroyed.

 

Don't think the police would do anything about the criminal acts in my case, although they will be involved eventually. There needs to be a joint complaint from as many people as possible.

 

There needs to be another website where all the abuses by CRT are exposed without interference from those who, for various reasons, refuse to recognise the problem, partly though ignorance, partly as it doesn't affect them and partly because they are complicit in the abuse i.e. boat clubs and hire boat operators and some selfish leisure boaters . AWCC and APCO and SUCS. The 'friends' of Sally Ash. Who have even managed to get the architect of the destruction of waterways life as a worthwhile pursuit, an award.

 

A lot of the best people on the waterways were driven off years ago when Sally Ash came up with the ludicrous and unlawful concept of 'continuous cruising'.

Using enforcement/harassment, and threats of legal action and seizure of your boat, for not engaging in a continuous journey, without turning back on yourself, while being spied upon and treated like a criminal or trespasser, was a criminal action as the requirement was, and has since been ruled as, unlawful. It caused all of the problems we have had since and all the endless division, debate and aggravation and was entirely unlawful and mind numbingly stupid and was the creation of a woman of limited knowledge, understanding and perception, empowered as a result of her association, from university onwards, with Robin Evans.

None of this was necessary and no useful result has been achieved and thousands of innocent and decent people have been adversely affected with some who, rightfully, challenge them being hounded, at great cost, and losing their homes.

 

And they are still doing it and many of you are still assisting them.

 

I now have a transcription of the hearing when the Judgment was handed down, in my absence, as I was told the hearing had been cancelled. The Judge was 'expecting a day of arguments' as this was an opportunity to challenge the Draft Judgment which my 'representatives', it seems, did not want to do as they wanted an end to the case.

 

So I did not attend the hearing, could not challenge the Judgment, which had numerous factual errors which could reasonably be challenged, was without representation - as my 'representatives' had released themselves from representing me the day before - was deemed to be, therefore, without legal aid - part of the plan - so Shoosmiths/CRT, who were clearly in on the plot, asked for £80,000 costs. And the Judgment was handed down, obviously without my knowledge, so I didn't receive it for 2 weeks.

 

And, to complete this 'cunning plan' the date of the hearing had been arranged so that the order execution date, i.e. the seizure of my boat, would be on the last working day before Christmas so as to cause maximum distress.

 

This is why they have to be challenged and only a person with 'bottle', and a lot more legal knowledge than I have, or most solicitors and barristers have, and good advocacy skills, stands a chance. But, as I have discovered, there are lots of dodgy things going on behind the scenes. Particularly in a court where the solicitors are in their 'home' court and dealing with court staff they have developed a relationship with. If I made complaints about all the 'misdeeds' in my case I would never get to the end. Complaints would not be dealt with correctly, would engender more complaints, files would be 'lost' and there would, most likely, be 'threats'. The action against me was a result of my making complaints that they could not, and would not, answer. My complaints were all justified and have since been proved correct in other courts.

 

The whole of the CRT enforcement team should be prosecuted. I have recently received an email from Denise Yelland who, despite the evidence of their abuses and the opposition to their 'strategies' and 'set them up to fail' ambiguous 'rules', state that they all have her full support.

 

If you can be bothered to read my website - Canal and River Tyranny - there's a lot more evidence and analysis on there.

 

I feel for you Geoff and admire your strength in standing firm. Against an organisation acting unlawfully.

I hope enough boaters wake up to the reality of what is still being done in there name. The way CRT are carrying on is wrong and needs challenging.

It we don't all get active, this lifestyle and relaxing way of life we all enjoy will be gone forever.

I don't claim to have all of the answers, but collectively we have the knowledge and know how. Unfortunately this is getting blatantly disregarded by an authority out of control and hell bent on working it's own agenda. Regardless of the effect on the long term survival of the waterways network.

Regards kris

[GillianOlcay]

Looks like CRT WON LOL

 

My daughter tells me LOL means “laugh out loud”? I don’t know, it seems to be used that way.

 

Supposing that was referring to Geoff’s case, which lost him his home and nearly everything he had – why is that something to laugh about?

 

As one of those Nigel refers to as believing it better to fight and lose rather than roll over and lose, it seems Geoff would do it all over again, although I would hope that he did so better armed with knowledge of protocols and procedures, less reliant on jobsworth legal-aid lawyers, and more canny as to handling things generally.

 

It's that knowledge that is needed, for cases of injustice. It is ignorance of the dance steps that has some falling over their feet in the court routine, and the superiority of CaRT's hired professionals is not something to crow over, but to face up to. I know better than most how much luck and inexperience can play its part in the fight, because I very nearly lost my boat over it, time and again, but is that not a good reason for people to pool resources and experience in order to help each other cope with genuine cases?

[MtB]

Pearlygeoff

"I now have a transcription of the hearing when the Judgment was handed down, in my absence, as I was told the hearing had been cancelled. The Judge was 'expecting a day of arguments' as this was an opportunity to challenge the Draft Judgment which my 'representatives', it seems, did not want to do as they wanted an end to the case."

 

Who told you the hearing was cancelled?

How were you told?

 

Bod

 

 

I'm fairly sure I've read that Geoff was told the hearing was cancelled by Shoosmiths.

 

If this is true then it's outrageous and if he has it in writing, I'd have thought he had a good argument to have the whole judgement set aside and the case re-heard.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

I'm fairly sure I've read that Geoff was told the hearing was cancelled by Shoosmiths.

 

If this is true then it's outrageous and if he has it in writing, I'd have thought he had a good argument to have the whole judgement set aside and the case re-heard.

 

Geoff protested, the judge ordered a second hearing with Geoff present. The judge explained that he could not overturn his own judgment, but was as helpful perhaps as he could be and advised Geoff to appeal the decision.

 

He also informed CaRT that he considered their previous assertion [that if Geoff had found a mooring and applied for a new licence on the strength of that, they would leave him be] to be an undertaking to the court to which he would hold them [they weren’t happy about it].

 

Trouble is, Geoff felt unable to appeal for lack of funds [and knowledge of how it could be done without professional representation], and likewise did not understand the protocols involved in bringing an action for contempt of court when the boat was seized anyway, after he had procured a mooring and asked for a new licence.

 

I am afraid that the idea that the judiciary will recognise what is happening and volunteer action in the name of ‘natural justice’ is misconceived, and a sense of outrage is futile in the absence of knowing what to do and when, according to the ‘rules’.

 

I believe from what I have read that there is mileage in a contempt of court action even now, but it will take some thought, and I am hoping that some of the potential findings in the Ravenscroft case will go the right way, in which case that will be of help to any future case Geoff brings. The worst having already been accomplished, from this point on the time pressure no longer exists, and in the meantime the publicity Geoff keeps alive is maybe his best 'revenge', while the observations within the judgment remain as an enduring legacy of judicial appraisal of the "Guidance" that CaRT really wish had not been provoked.

[NigelMoore]

We are all agog as well!!

 

Well, my old protagonist has not disappointed – well not too much anyway.

 

As to issue one, and the definition of ‘main navigable channel’, mayalld should be flattered that Mr Stoner has cribbed the whole argument relating to “fairways” from his CWDF contributions.

 

Mr Stoner has also expanded on nicknorman’s contributions respecting the difficulties of enforcement where no specific boundaries are visible [omitting any comment on the stress-free operation for decades, of the EA’s previously similar licensing regime on the Thames].

 

His response to the crucial point however – that “main navigable channel” is defined in the 1968 Act – is a peculiar gloss-over. Then again – what could he say? He confines comment to saying “in so far as previous use of the term in legislation as a guide to the meaning of ‘main navigable channel’ in section 4(1) of the British Waterways Act 1971 is permissible, the Trust will refer to the provisions of the Transport Act 1968.” I would hope he would refer to them – they are explicit enough – and the suggestion of doubt as to this being “permissible” is almost risible. So that was disappointing; he effectively just ignores it.

 

As an alternative to all that, he claims that s.4(1) of the 1983 Act overturns all limitations on the application of the 1971 Act [it in fact refers only to duration of licences and level of charges].

 

He claims that by reason of s.4 - to which he adds the additional qualifier “without geographic limitation” - BW thus CaRT can demand licences for boats regardless of the nature of the waterways. This was an argument he ran and lost in my case, did not appeal, and consequently cannot re-litigate. He ignores the quoted Hildyard comment on the licensing regimes respecting that, that BW had never offered any convincing explanation of the fact that their powers were differently expressed in relation to the different waterways.

 

His further alternative argument is that the boat should have been classified as a houseboat, the licensing requirements for which know no geographic limitation!

 

That last is a classic – and again, an argument run throughout my own case. Problem there is - as identified elsewhere in the Defence – that the boat had been validly registered as a pleasure boat, and the two definitions are mutually exclusive; plus: the actions taken with respect to the boat were those relating to pleasure boats and s.8, NOT houseboats and s.13. CaRT are obliged to deal with what they did, on the grounds they asserted, not with what they might have done and claimed instead.

 

Just to alert everyone to the implications of that latter argument – which is far from new – it relies on the concept that a boat is defined according to its actions/inaction at the moment. In other words, for so long as a boat is “bona fide navigating”, it is a pleasure boat; the moment is moors up, it becomes a houseboat. [The argument is not expressed in such callow terms, but that is the effect of it]. According to this, of course, the tens of thousands of pleasure boats that rarely if ever leave their marinas, are all wrongly classified and should be given houseboat certificates – and every “overstayer” is automatically treatable as an offender against the 1971 Act, avoiding any applicability of s.17 of the 1995 Act.

 

On the plus side, everyone who so wished on that basis, could demand Houseboat licences and so, as least for all BW moorings, obtain security of tenure. It is not going to happen of course.

 

I will have a closer look at the responses to the other two issues later; am tied up for the next week.

[larkshall]

I'm fairly sure I've read that Geoff was told the hearing was cancelled by Shoosmiths.

 

If this is true then it's outrageous and if he has it in writing, I'd have thought he had a good argument to have the whole judgement set aside and the case re-heard.

I read the same as you Mike. And yes it should be re-heard, at no extra cost. Alas it won't change the outcome though

[pearlygeoff]

Further clarification.

It's all on the website and I can assure you it's not a 'hard luck story'. It's an exposure of what happens when you complain about the criminal abuse by BW/CRT.

It is effective. Moreso if more people read it and read it carefully. It is helpful to other cases.

I can, and will, take them to court but will be aided by the result of other cases such as the case this thread is concerned with. I'm doing my bit. Nigel is doing his bit. Other concerned people can 'bother' CRT with requests for information and further exposure. Why are there no other sites like mine? I thought everyone spent all their time on their computers communicating to one another. Do they just talk bollocks on Facebook?

'Other people', most people on boats, share the blame for all this along with CRT et. al.

After the Draft Judgment was issued I tried to contact my solicitor about challenging what was in it. I hadn't been able to get a straight answer as to what I can challenge and how. Of course, I couldn't challenge anything. The barrister would do it on instruction from the firm of solicitors. I say 'firm of solicitors' as they were 'pulling the strings' not the solicitor I was dealing with who I had arguments with but got on well with. He was having to follow instructions as well.

All I could do, as was the case in the written submissions to the court following the 'trial' which was 2 days, not 4, due to my barrister being ill, was submit my arguments to the solicitor as 'notes' and he would (or would not) pass them to the barrister who would use them or not use them. Same applied to my input to the arguments to be submitted to the court. What went int the court was not what had been agreed .

Let me state, again, here. The details about me and my argument in the Judgment are not accurate. I never said, and strongly objected to at a meeting I managed to arrange, that I wanted to stay in one place because I was suffering from depression. That was not the argument. It was a convenient argument to pursue. The true facts are on my website. (I didn't get the submissions to my trial until two days before).

That's the process. That's the procedure. I am largely excluded although, in my case, I have some 'specialist' knowledge and, obviously, know more about the case than anyone else.

The procedure is unfit for the purpose. I don't regard the legal process as a game, lucrative for some. My, 'apparent' naivete is not that, it is an insistence on pursuing my argument/defence as a 'reasonable' man who is intelligent and has a just cause or complaint. That is my 'peculiarity'. I identify the systematised pursuit of 'expedience' as a cancer running through all of human activity and 'civilisation' and I won't go along with it because 'that's the way things are done'. I.e. I don't put up with crap and I don't give into bullies. And that's what we are all, increasingly, supposed to do. Again.

Anyway, my solicitor had retired. I didn't know., No one answered my emails. When I found out I arranged a meeting. I emailed the barrister's clerk. I emailed the court saying I was unhappy with my representation and asked to delay the handing down of the judgment.

I had a meeting with another solicitor at the firm. It was agreed I would write my concerns about my representation etc. as a complaint, send it to a senior partner, they would vacate the hearing to hand down the judgment, we would then have a meeting to discuss how to proceed.

A month or so later I was notified by them that the hearing was on 22nd November, in a few days time, I replied it was supposed to have been vacated. They said do you still want to pursue your complaint, which I did - as an internal complaint prior to further discussions as arranged.

They said that, in that case, they could no longer represent me. I would have to tell the Judge at the hearing that I no longer wished for them to represent me. This was agreed a few days before the hearing.

The day before the hearing the senior partner phoned me and said they had spoken to the Judge and been released from my representation and the hearing, the following day, had been cancelled. He said he was acting on the advice of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In the conversation he repeated that there was no hearing and it had been cancelled.

That is why I did not attend the hearing.

To think that Shoosmiths were not involved in this is beyond the bounds/balance of probability.

There's more on my website so I'll be brief.

By writing to the Judge I got a stay of execution two days before the order date.

Arranged another hearing and requested that the judgment be set aside as I had been deliberately misled providing him with all relevant emails and making a submission to the court. I did not expect that at that hearing my complaint would be ignored and the Judgment be handed down from that date. As reasonable as the Judge was in some ways I don't think that was reasonable.

He made them agree to an undertaking to give me an opportunity to remain on the waterways by negotiation - probably involving getting a mooring. (He didn't know there weren't any as he had been told there were nine moorings available to me.) As Nigel said, they were reluctant to agree to this and took my boat regardless as their intent, as someone was told, was to 'make an example of me'.

I wrote to the Judge to say they had breached the undertaking to the court. He replied he could no longer be involved in the case. Legal aid is no longer available.

So, I do what I do - which exposes them, and the inadequacy and corruptibility of the legal process (which is what Shoosmiths specialise in), and will, doubtless, go back to a court when better armed and with the results of other cases to refer to. And with help from someone who knows what they're doing with regards to the law.

Threads such as this, especially with the invaluable and learned input from Nigel Moore, are useful to everyone and infinitely better than the usual tedious sniping and misdirected mud slinging from the tunnel visioned CRT abuse supporters who contribute nothing and should find something else to do.

[Paul C]

 

Well, my old protagonist has not disappointed – well not too much anyway.

 

As to issue one, and the definition of ‘main navigable channel’, mayalld should be flattered that Mr Stoner has cribbed the whole argument relating to “fairways” from his CWDF contributions.

 

Mr Stoner has also expanded on nicknorman’s contributions respecting the difficulties of enforcement where no specific boundaries are visible [omitting any comment on the stress-free operation for decades, of the EA’s previously similar licensing regime on the Thames].

 

His response to the crucial point however – that “main navigable channel” is defined in the 1968 Act – is a peculiar gloss-over. Then again – what could he say? He confines comment to saying “in so far as previous use of the term in legislation as a guide to the meaning of ‘main navigable channel’ in section 4(1) of the British Waterways Act 1971 is permissible, the Trust will refer to the provisions of the Transport Act 1968.” I would hope he would refer to them – they are explicit enough – and the suggestion of doubt as to this being “permissible” is almost risible. So that was disappointing; he effectively just ignores it.

 

As an alternative to all that, he claims that s.4(1) of the 1983 Act overturns all limitations on the application of the 1971 Act [it in fact refers only to duration of licences and level of charges].

 

He claims that by reason of s.4 - to which he adds the additional qualifier “without geographic limitation” - BW thus CaRT can demand licences for boats regardless of the nature of the waterways. This was an argument he ran and lost in my case, did not appeal, and consequently cannot re-litigate. He ignores the quoted Hildyard comment on the licensing regimes respecting that, that BW had never offered any convincing explanation of the fact that their powers were differently expressed in relation to the different waterways.

 

His further alternative argument is that the boat should have been classified as a houseboat, the licensing requirements for which know no geographic limitation!

 

That last is a classic – and again, an argument run throughout my own case. Problem there is - as identified elsewhere in the Defence – that the boat had been validly registered as a pleasure boat, and the two definitions are mutually exclusive; plus: the actions taken with respect to the boat were those relating to pleasure boats and s.8, NOT houseboats and s.13. CaRT are obliged to deal with what they did, on the grounds they asserted, not with what they might have done and claimed instead.

 

Just to alert everyone to the implications of that latter argument – which is far from new – it relies on the concept that a boat is defined according to its actions/inaction at the moment. In other words, for so long as a boat is “bona fide navigating”, it is a pleasure boat; the moment is moors up, it becomes a houseboat. [The argument is not expressed in such callow terms, but that is the effect of it]. According to this, of course, the tens of thousands of pleasure boats that rarely if ever leave their marinas, are all wrongly classified and should be given houseboat certificates – and every “overstayer” is automatically treatable as an offender against the 1971 Act, avoiding any applicability of s.17 of the 1995 Act.

 

On the plus side, everyone who so wished on that basis, could demand Houseboat licences and so, as least for all BW moorings, obtain security of tenure. It is not going to happen of course.

 

I will have a closer look at the responses to the other two issues later; am tied up for the next week.

 

Sounds like you've read the defence. Is it published anywhere public, so we may read both sides of the case in full? Thanks Nigel!

[MtB]

 

There's more on my website so I'll be brief.

 

 

Here is the address of Geoff's website that he keeps advising us to visit, where one can read the full story.

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/psblc

[NigelMoore]

. . . it should be re-heard, at no extra cost. Alas it won't change the outcome though

 

As noted by Geoff and myself – it was re-heard, and no costs were awarded for that second hearing. While you are correct that it did not change the outcome insofar as the prior Order was concerned, it DID change some aspects in important ways.

 

In the first place the judge expressly gave permission for/advised an appeal; he granted extension of time, clarified the nature of the s.8 power as not constituting any seizure of possession, and most importantly held CaRT to what he regarded as an undertaking to take no action on the Order if Geoff found a mooring and applied for a new licence.

 

As Geoff did find a mooring and did ask for a new licence [6 months worth of fees having been retained by CaRT from the remainder of the revoked licence], there would appear to be a clear case for Contempt of Court. That is an outcome of the second hearing that would otherwise never have arisen, so it was well worth it, even though further action would/will need to be taken to take advantage of that.

[NigelMoore]

 

Sounds like you've read the defence. Is it published anywhere public, so we may read both sides of the case in full?

 

It is not, although I could do so - I am just not that confident of the proprieties involved, although BW have previously happily published such responses on their own behalf.

 

Perhaps you could ask Jackie Lewis if CaRT are happy to have their case publicly available? One would think so.

 

However I see no reason why the document cannot be shared privately, so I will PM you.

[NigelMoore]

it won't change the outcome though

 

AND – I forgot to add – in the course of the second hearing, the judge specifically clarified that the previous Costs Order for the £50 grand was unenforceable without his express permission, or that of the Court of Appeal.

 

He told Geoff: “So it is what we call a football pools order . . . you are technically liable in costs but it is not an enforceable order so you do not owe them any money in costs.”

 

Most importantly, he went on to state: “They cannot enforce it and they cannot take your boat to enforce it either.” [my bold]

 

That did not stop CaRT initially demanding the court costs of course, as they did with Leigh, as a pre-condition of returning the boat. It took awhile before a BW/CaRT solicitor acknowledged that they could not demand the court costs for return of Geoff's boat.

[Paul C]

This "main navigable channel" thing - if CRT were to produce a picture in court, of the boat in the main navigable channel, the case would be dead in the water (no pun intended). If they were to produce evidence that on different occasions it was on one side of the river, then the other............would a judge assume:

 

1) the boat had been at some point, in the main navigable channel

2) the boat was transported by road, from an inaccessible location to another location, without ever entering the main navigable channel......

 

If (1) then all the arguments about what the main navigable channel is/isn't are hot air.

 

Thoughts on this one?

[larkshall]

AND – I forgot to add – in the course of the second hearing, the judge specifically clarified that the previous Costs Order for the £50 grand was unenforceable without his express permission, or that of the Court of Appeal.

 

He told Geoff: “So it is what we call a football pools order . . . you are technically liable in costs but it is not an enforceable order so you do not owe them any money in costs.”

 

Most importantly, he went on to state: “They cannot enforce it and they cannot take your boat to enforce it either.” [my bold]

 

That did not stop CaRT initially demanding the court costs of course, as they did with Leigh, as a pre-condition of returning the boat. It took awhile before a BW/CaRT solicitor acknowledged that they could not demand the court costs for return of Geoff's boat.

Those judges comments and saying the costs where un-enforceable, puts a completely different perspective on it. Judge with common sense hurray.

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

Here is the address of Geoff's website that he keeps advising us to visit, where one can read the full story.

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/psblc

 

I wonder what the judge in Geoff's case, it it ever makes it to court again, would make of this website.

[NigelMoore]

This "main navigable channel" thing - if CRT were to produce a picture in court, of the boat in the main navigable channel, the case would be dead in the water (no pun intended). If they were to produce evidence that on different occasions it was on one side of the river, then the other............would a judge assume:

 

1) the boat had been at some point, in the main navigable channel

2) the boat was transported by road, from an inaccessible location to another location, without ever entering the main navigable channel......

 

If (1) then all the arguments about what the main navigable channel is/isn't are hot air.

 

Thoughts on this one?

 

Good points

.

According to Leigh the boat was moved from the north bank to the south bank and back, on one particular day, for the purposes of having an inspector survey the boat for its BSSC. That is acknowledged.

 

That does NOT make the whole point “hot air”, because we are dealing with the use of s.8 powers – NOT licence enforcement. S.8 is not an enforcement power for licensing; it is a power to remove boats, as a last resort, from the waterways where a “relevant consent” is required and not in place.

 

If the boat is no longer within the area requiring a licence, then the purpose of s.8 has been fulfilled, and nothing remains to be activated. The definition of the term remains, therefore, central to the whole issue.

 

That still leaves the possibility of CaRT pursuing him over the licence enforcement issue. It is acknowledged that he used the main navigable channel in the course of a particular day. Strictly speaking therefore, he was guilty of an offence under the 1971 Act and can be prosecuted for it, with a £50 fine on summary conviction, plus any associated costs.

 

A potential problem for such a prosecution would lie in the very purpose for which he undertook that ‘journey’ – which was to obtain a BSSC in order to ‘license’ the boat prior to selling it. The 1995 Act specifically provides [at BW/CaRT’s discretion] for such ‘journeys’ to be undertaken as a necessary prelude to obtaining a relevant consent.

 

Ideally, of course, Leigh would have notified them of his intentions, and they could never have reasonably refused their consent to the boat using the main navigable channel for that purpose. However, even though he neglected that sensible approach, the crime was, I suggest, ‘de minimus’ and would scarcely have been entertained by any court. Had he asked, there could realistically have been no withholding of consent, so the 'crime' lay in lack of communication more than anything else.

 

It would be a different matter altogether if a boat in that or similar situation went off on purely pleasure-oriented day trips once in awhile; in such cases CaRT would be entitled to bring an action on each and every occasion such an offence took place, and would need only to show proof that the boat was simply being used within the relevant channel while not entitled. If they stayed out longer than a day, then the fine would accumulate at the cost of £5/day for the duration of the offence, with Contempt of Court sanctions for any failures to comply.

 

This in itself is ample demonstration of what the appropriate measures are, in relation to the offence of using waterways without relevant consent – sue for the offence, if you know who you are dealing with, and recover the sums owed. Scarpering from the jurisdiction does not insulate the errant boater from the consequences of the law on licence/certificate requirements, although it does from the effect of s.8. This is a 'trick' overlooked by CaRT’s Mr Stoner.

 

Another point he seems to have forgotten when re-arguing the lost cause over whether licences can be demanded over all CaRT waters regardless of limitations under the 1971 Act, is that the clause of the 1983 Act he relies on as abolishing the restrictions of the 1971 Act, is itself subject to any effects of the later 1995 Act – wherein the “river waterways” were added to for the last time! What would be the point to BW of providing for chargeable consents for boats on a section of waterway at nearly half what they were already entitled to charge, if Mr Stoner’s argument held true?

 

But as I say, that whole section of his argument should be struck out as blatant re-litigation anyway. The folly of it has already been seen through.

[NigelMoore]

Judge with common sense hurray.

 

There are quite a few around – as becomes obvious when reading through all of the available s.8 Orders linked to on CaRT’s website, wherein sensible resolutions are sometimes provided for in lieu of immediate removal of the vessel.

 

However – that is very largely where the ‘luck of the draw’ comes into it.

[NigelMoore]

 

I wonder what the judge in Geoff's case, it it ever makes it to court again, would make of this website.

 

The potential exists, regardless of whether the matter came before him again [it would not], that being public access the judge could easily have read it already, even if only by way of occasionally ‘googling’ his own name.

 

It can be a tricky balancing act, deciding just how scathing one should be about a judge – if you are appealing a decision, that necessarily involves calling his judgment [literally] into question anyway, but caution is advisable as to the language one’s criticism is couched in, if looking to more senior judicial review of one’s case.

 

Hopefully, a sensible and balanced judge will understand the layman’s frustrations and make allowances for any intemperance. Sometimes, too, there are instances wherein denial of justice is so outrageous that one might say “who cares?” this needs to be said. I confess to having probably skated beyond safety zones myself before now.