Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8

[Paul C]

 

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.

 

True and all good points. I agree that IF this main navigable channel issue goes against CRT's favour, they're on thin ice re: removing a boat from the edge.

 

BUT if he's using the point that he ONLY kept the boat at the edge, and NEVER used it in the main navigable channel, then the fact that he plainly didn't do this (by evidence) goes against him. Even if its just for the BSS (is there a legal exemption for holding a licence during obtaining a BSS - no).

[NigelMoore]

 

True and all good points. I agree that IF this main navigable channel issue goes against CRT's favour, they're on thin ice re: removing a boat from the edge.

 

BUT if he's using the point that he ONLY kept the boat at the edge, and NEVER used it in the main navigable channel, then the fact that he plainly didn't do this (by evidence) goes against him. Even if its just for the BSS (is there a legal exemption for holding a licence during obtaining a BSS - no).

 

The boat either was, or was not, within the main navigable channel when it was seized.

 

If it was, then subject to any determinations made on Leigh’s other points, the removal of the boat was valid [being pedantic here, because seizure in the sense of possession is NOT permitted under s.8].

 

If it was NOT within the main navigable channel when seized, then there is no “thin ice” about it – the seizure was a criminal offence, and the fact that Leigh also may be convictable of an offence for earlier traversing the channel without licence does not affect that.

 

There IS legal exemption from licensing by reason of bringing the boat up to par with the BSSC, as I said, though as I also said, that is at CaRT’s discretion. The relevant law from the 1995 Act, s.17(11) -

 

( a ) The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property. [my bold]

 

A three hundred yard return trip across the width of the Trent and back in order to obtain the BSSC would seem to fit within the category above.

 

[Paul C]

 

The boat either was, or was not, within the main navigable channel when it was seized.

 

If it was, then subject to any determinations made on Leigh’s other points, the removal of the boat was valid [being pedantic here, because seizure in the sense of possession is NOT permitted under s.8].

 

If it was NOT within the main navigable channel when seized, then there is no “thin ice” about it – the seizure was a criminal offence, and the fact that Leigh also may be convictable of an offence for earlier traversing the channel without licence does not affect that.

 

There IS legal exemption from licensing by reason of bringing the boat up to par with the BSSC, as I said, though as I also said, that is at CaRT’s discretion. The relevant law from the 1995 Act, s.17(11) -

 

( a ) The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property. [my bold]

 

 

Yeah I think its going to come down to the definition of "main navigable channel" at the end of the day.

[NigelMoore]

 

Yeah I think its going to come down to the definition of "main navigable channel" at the end of the day.

 

Essentially, yes.

 

And BW/CaRT have long since clarified the extent of the “main navigable channel” as that relates to each of the relevant waterways identified in the 1968 Act [of which the 1971 scheduled rivers form a part].

 

So the only question arising is: should a different meaning be accorded to the identical term, in legislation on the identical waterways, under the identical authority, only 3 years apart? Did BW, in drafting the private legislation in 1971, use the 1968 public Act’s term, to mean something altogether different?

 

I know of no rule of statute construction that could possibly embrace so outrageous a proposition. Mr Stoner has sorely disappointed me in failing to come up with any response to this core point.

 

He won’t believe any of his arguments against BW’s interpretation of “main navigable channel” in the 1968 Act of course, anymore than he will believe any of his arguments for abolition of the 1971 river waterways distinctions, which is why he has once again brought in the houseboat issue to confuse things – arguing that 3 Wise Monkeys was wrongly registered as a pleasure boat is all he has to offer as feasible justification for application of s.8 against the boat.

 

It would be an 'interesting' outcome for CaRT if he won the point.

 

[Paul C]

Yeah I guess we'll have to wait for the court case now, there's arguments on both sides which (IMHO) are far from clear. And, of course, "funny things" happen in courts etc so it may well go one way, then another on appeal, then again on another appeal etc.

[NigelMoore]

True enough. It can sometimes seem all so alarmingly arbitrary.

[peterboat]

True enough. It can sometimes seem all so alarmingly arbitrary.

Just a quick question Nigel if he eventually wins the case on appeal will CRT have to pay for all the repairs to the boat I feel that they should as it seem the judge did not authorize any seizure of property thats if I have read it all correctly

 

Peter

[NigelMoore]

Just a quick question Nigel if he eventually wins the case on appeal will CRT have to pay for all the repairs to the boat I feel that they should as it seem the judge did not authorize any seizure of property thats if I have read it all correctly

 

Peter

 

I think you are confusing two distinct cases Peter?

 

This topic is dealing with the Claim by Leigh Ravenscroft over the seizure of his smallish modern narrowboat, which he has successfully retrieved after having been made to pay the 4 years of alleged licence arrears in addition to the removal and storage costs. Damage has been minimal.

 

It is the old wooden narrowboat owned by Geoff Mayers, which was sunk and damaged, to the point where the market value is considered less than £4 grand. CaRT disclaim all responsibility for any damage suffered whilst in their care. If that seems extraordinary, read their responses to FoI requests Geoff has made via WhatDoTheyKnow.

 

If/when Geoff made a successful claim of his own, then yes, all consequential damages would have to be ordered.

[NigelMoore]

the judge did not authorize any seizure of property

 

That is correct [assuming you refer to Geoff's case], although it would be more accurate to say that the judge affirmed that the effect of s.8 of the 1983 Act was not a seizure of property. I hope that doesn't sound too pedantic - the difference is considerable, because it means that this understanding of the effect of s.8 is universal, not specific to an individual case.

 

The 1983 Act only ever empowered removal of boats under certain rare circumstances from waters under the authorities control. It could even entail simply marking off or buoying the boat and keeping it under observation instead of physical removal from the water, but under no circumstances was it ever a seizure. Title would only vest in the authority after 6 weeks of no owner turning up, and even so, the obligation to return boat [or any surplus monies from a sale subsequent to the lapse of 6 weeks] remained binding for fully 12 months if an owner turned up within that time, providing only that the costs of removal [or buoying etc] and storage were reimbursed.

[peterboat]

 

I think you are confusing two distinct cases Peter?

 

This topic is dealing with the Claim by Leigh Ravenscroft over the seizure of his smallish modern narrowboat, which he has successfully retrieved after having been made to pay the 4 years of alleged licence arrears in addition to the removal and storage costs. Damage has been minimal.

 

It is the old wooden narrowboat owned by Geoff Mayers, which was sunk and damaged, to the point where the market value is considered less than £4 grand. CaRT disclaim all responsibility for any damage suffered whilst in their care. If that seems extraordinary, read their responses to FoI requests Geoff has made via WhatDoTheyKnow.

 

If/when Geoff made a successful claim of his own, then yes, all consequential damages would have to be ordered.

Yes I was looking at the the later stuff the early stuff I skimmed through thanks Nigel for sorting out my queries

 

Peter

[Paul C]

 

Essentially, yes.

 

And BW/CaRT have long since clarified the extent of the “main navigable channel” as that relates to each of the relevant waterways identified in the 1968 Act [of which the 1971 scheduled rivers form a part].

 

So the only question arising is: should a different meaning be accorded to the identical term, in legislation on the identical waterways, under the identical authority, only 3 years apart? Did BW, in drafting the private legislation in 1971, use the 1968 public Act’s term, to mean something altogether different?

 

I know of no rule of statute construction that could possibly embrace so outrageous a proposition. Mr Stoner has sorely disappointed me in failing to come up with any response to this core point.

 

He won’t believe any of his arguments against BW’s interpretation of “main navigable channel” in the 1968 Act of course, anymore than he will believe any of his arguments for abolition of the 1971 river waterways distinctions, which is why he has once again brought in the houseboat issue to confuse things – arguing that 3 Wise Monkeys was wrongly registered as a pleasure boat is all he has to offer as feasible justification for application of s.8 against the boat.

 

It would be an 'interesting' outcome for CaRT if he won the point.

 

 

Why should something undefined in one piece of legislation (British Waterways Act 1971) have its definition located within a different piece of legislation, Transport Act 1968? And in any case, its not defined in there anyway - its referred to, but not defined, and BW and its successors have made an interpretation for maintenance purposes etc. The fact is, its undefined in the 1971 Act but that one does allow for it to be defined - by a map drawn up by the Secretary of State. So I think the judge will need to decide (and justify) what he thinks the main navigable channel is......

[NigelMoore]

 

Why should something undefined in one piece of legislation (British Waterways Act 1971) have its definition located within a different piece of legislation, Transport Act 1968? And in any case, its not defined in there anyway - its referred to, but not defined, and BW and its successors have made an interpretation for maintenance purposes etc. The fact is, its undefined in the 1971 Act but that one does allow for it to be defined - by a map drawn up by the Secretary of State. So I think the judge will need to decide (and justify) what he thinks the main navigable channel is......

 

The terms of Statute must be construed consistently; that is why the same term in different Acts must bear the same meaning unless specifically and expressly defined otherwise. When the statutes are so close chronologically, that imperative becomes overwhelming.

 

The term IS defined in the 1968 Act, with a very precise formula to be applied. You have overlooked crucial parts of the Statement of Case Paul, and/or have not read through the 1968 Act with sufficient care. The Fraenkel Report of 1975 and subsequent records and spreadsheets do but specify the exact dimensions of the main navigable channel for each of the waterways according to the 1968 Act formula; they are NOT "an interpretation".

 

For example: A PROPOSED POLICY FOR WATERBORNE FREIGHT, published 19 February 2014 -

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/6213.pdf

 

"CRT inherits a specific statutory duty to maintain the navigation of the commercial waterways to dimensions set out in the 1968 Act. However, crucially, the enforcement of this maintenance duty was modified in The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, the practical effect of which is that CRT can now request that the Minister intervenes to prevent an enforcement in a specific case if the result would be CRT “incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to its financial position, it would be unreasonable for it to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43A of this Act.” This puts CRT at the heart of protecting itself against an ‘unreasonable’ claim being forced upon it for the maintenance or restoration of the original statutory channel dimensions." [my bold]

 

"In carrying out our assessments, we have carefully sought to identify the ‘incremental’ costs that are genuinely attributable to maintaining the relevant navigations ‘fit for freight’, as opposed to maintaining them ‘fit for leisure cruising’. We decided to assess these on the pragmatic requirements of today’s commercial barges rather than on the ‘statutory’ requirements laid down in the 1968 Transport Act and detailed in the Fraenkel Report of 1972." [sic, and my bold]

[StarUKKiwi]

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

I also am in agreement with that sentiment

This is all fascinating to a newbie on canals and one who finds CRT's actions to be quite spiteful at times; or should that read, the actions of its employees. Having said that, the culture within the Enforcement Team must be such that they feel they can get away with bullying tactics. I understand that this culture is one CRT may be trying to dissuade the average person that they are still complicit in. However, recent evidence, as discussed on other threads would suggest otherwise.

 

The question is what do CRT have to gain from these cases? I am struggling to understand how they can justify the bad publicity it causes.

[jenlyn]

I also am in agreement with that sentiment

This is all fascinating to a newbie on canals and one who finds CRT's actions to be quite spiteful at times; or should that read, the actions of its employees. Having said that, the culture within the Enforcement Team must be such that they feel they can get away with bullying tactics. I understand that this culture is one CRT may be trying to dissuade the average person that they are still complicit in. However, recent evidence, as discussed on other threads would suggest otherwise.

 

The question is what do CRT have to gain from these cases? I am struggling to understand how they can justify the bad publicity it causes.

They are attempting to change the law by using the courts, or to have the law "interpretated" by using the courts.

Applying for new legislation would probably not come about, and even if they did use that route, they could possibly come out of it worse off.

The courts are the best option for them, (in their view).

All in all, there is some pretty shrewd thought going into this, but I suspect a banana skin will appear before long.

[kris88]

Let's hope the comedy banna skin appears soon.

Regards kris

[StarUKKiwi]

They are attempting to change the law by using the courts, or to have the law "interpretated" by using the courts.

Applying for new legislation would probably not come about, and even if they did use that route, they could possibly come out of it worse off.

The courts are the best option for them, (in their view).

All in all, there is some pretty shrewd thought going into this, but I suspect a banana skin will appear before long.

Of course, I had forgotten that salient bit. The whole new T&C ignores the fact they are illegal.

[bassplayer]

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.

The whites of the eyes do seem to matter then, maybe there's still some hope to hang onto in this country...

[NigelMoore]

 

its undefined in the 1971 Act but that one does allow for it to be defined - by a map drawn up by the Secretary of State.

 

The provision for Secretary of State ordered maps was intended “for further defining the waterway”, not “to allow for it to be defined”. You cannot FURTHER define the undefined. What is more, the same provision is made in the 1968 Act, as the Statement of Case explains.

 

There is not and never has been, any question over the definition of the main navigable channel as per the 1968 Act – which also, as I said, provided for maps to be authorised in case of need [which need was obviously never seen]. The only need to FURTHER define the perfectly understood dimensions of the channel would be in order to officially locate that channel within the available width of the navigation for some unforeseen purpose.

 

As it is, one would need only ask ‘Land & Water’ what line they actually followed in fulfilling their dredging contract, to determine the exact placement of BW/CaRT’s arbitrary/unilateral positioning of the channel within the Trent. I seriously doubt that anyone would find their placement contentious; in the relevant area affecting Leigh it will have been right down the middle I suspect, taking up less than a third of the entire width.

 

As their quoted advice on EoG’s explains [posted earlier], they do not consider their obligation for the channel to extend so far as the banks; certainly not the offside and/or private banks.

 

Aside from the couple of arguments cribbed from here over this issue - that are pointless in light of the clear definition existing at the time the 1971 Act was drafted - Mr Stoner has taken two alternative approaches to CaRT’s Defence.

 

Initially he calls for the entire Claim to be struck out on the grounds that it is not presented in strict accordance with the CPR Rules. That is highly unlikely to succeed against an LiP in the circumstances, and reveals a certain ignoble desperation.

 

Alternatively he denies the application of the relevant section to the case in any event – either because the relevant section has been repealed, and/or because it does not apply to houseboats.

 

As I said before – the repeal aspect has already been adjudicated, while the claim addresses the use of s.8 against pleasure boats - which was what CaRT used, against what they registered as a pleasure boat, and which they dealt with as a pleasure boat. At best they can claim they made a mistake in doing so, but that would not and could not affect the principles at issue. They are being sued for what they did, and claimed at the time they could do, not for what they might otherwise have done.

 

Desperate measures. Perhaps even Jenlyn's banana skin.

 

 

 

edit to remove unnecessarily perjorative adjective describing the Forum's 'arguments'

Edited June 27, 2015 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

The whites of the eyes do seem to matter then . . .

 

The truth of that is illustrated by the words of Lord Justice Mummery -

 

"Note on oral hearings

 

48. I add a short comment on the value of oral hearings, as demonstrated in this constitution which, in one week, allowed two appeals by litigants in person. In each appeal the success was the result of legal or factual arguments the full implications of which were neither taken on board in the judgment below nor appreciated in this court prior to the oral hearing.

 

49. Doubts are sometimes expressed about how often oral advocacy affects the actual outcome of appeals. Judicial experience affirms the value of oral hearings of appeals. Sometimes there are dazzling, even terrifying, displays of advocacy, but more often the hearing is a down-to-earth exercise in pro-active judicial engagement with the case: talking through unfamiliar, confusing or difficult factual and legal aspects; disentangling what matters from what does not matter; bringing order and understanding to the discussion of what matters by judicial thinking aloud to test legal propositions and to double-check facts; and ensuring as far as possible that, in conjunction with the pre-reading of the papers, the court has a good grasp of what the parties are getting at.

 

50. Some litigants in person, such as Mr Moore, become formidable experts in their own case, while lacking expertise in the handling of legal concepts and familiarity with the vocabulary of the law. With them the oral hearing is an opportunity to clarify, even to correct, the court's understanding of their grievance. On this appeal we did not allow the claimant to read out his skeleton argument, any more than we allowed Mr Stoner QC to read out his. Instead, there was an examination of particular aspects of the case in order to focus the appeal on what exactly the claimant said was wrong with the judgment against him and why."

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . the judge specifically clarified that the previous Costs Order for the £50 grand was unenforceable without his express permission . . .

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.

 

Just reviewing past posts relating to Geoff's case, I thought it worth observing that, contrary to the above, CaRT/Shoosmiths/Mr Stoner are currently arguing that in fact s.8 DOES permit CaRT to retain possession of a seized boat as a lien on the court costs involved in approving the seizure; these being, on their argument, costs necessarily involved in the removal and storage of the boat.

 

"It is averred that on its proper construction, expenses incurred by the Board in the removal of any particular vessel pursuant to section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983, once that process has been commenced by the service of a notice pursuant to section 8(2) of the same, includes any legal costs incurred by the Trust in facilitating the removal of the vessel and/or relating to storage or the destruction of the vessel.

 

It is further averred that pursuant to section 8(4) of the British Waterways Act 1983 the Trust has a statutory lien on any vessel (and furniture et cetera) removed and stored by it in respect of the expenses identified in section 8(3), including legal costs."

 

How far they are prepared to take the argument is unclear; they could claim only the summarily assessed costs, or potentially on the face of this argument [because it does not rely on a Court Order] the entirety of their expenditure.

 

To appreciate the practical effect of the latter scenario: if upheld, on this principle, for Geoff to have retrieved "Pearl" would have necessitated payment of the £100 plus grand cost of their bringing the court action, additionally to the £12 grand approximately that it allegedly cost CaRT to remove and store the boat.

 

Not everyone would consider that a proportionate means of applying legislation affecting people's homes.

 

To further put the managerial imperative into perspective in Geoff's case - at the time of seizure "Pearl" had the necessary BSSC and Insurance, a home mooring, 6 months' worth of licence payment left from the time of the previous revocation, and a request for a new licence in the pipeline.

 

Edited September 5, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Dave Clinton]

we'll let us hope the counter argument is effective.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[NigelMoore]

Update on this case -

 

For the last three months, CaRT and Leigh have agreed to a stay on proceedings while seeking to find an alternative resolution to the situation.

 

Initially, CaRT suggested a purely financial compensatory deal. Leigh was amenable to compensation provided that at least one of the 3 principle issues was acknowledged, and a Press Release issued by CaRT to that effect.

 

CaRT tentatively agreed, excepting the Press release bit, suggesting an acknowledgement of the point identified - provided that this was subject to confidentiality - and wanted to know what figure he had in mind.

 

I whittled down Leigh’s initial suggestion to a sum less than that which would be spent on defending the case, and suggested that transparency regarding a basis of compromise would be better PR than otherwise.

 

The figure was rejected; no comment was forthcoming over confidentiality vs transparency, and following the Wingfield debacle at which Leigh was present, he felt that refusal of his minimal grounds for ADR would leave important matters unresolved with no substantial benefit to either party. With no counter-offer on the table, the court has been informed that agreement could not be reached.

 

It is now down to the High Court Master to issue further directions. Leigh’s “Reply to Defence” has been now filed along with the Directions Questionnaire etc.

 

The Reply to Defence can be read here –

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/286105204/Ravenscroft-Reply-to-Defence-Attached-Byelaw

[Alan de Enfield]

Thanks for that.

 

Case over - "C&RT don't have a leg to stand on"

[jenlyn]

Thanks for that.

 

Case over - "C&RT don't have a leg to stand on"

I wouldn't bet on it. Some judges can be a liability.

[NigelMoore]

I wouldn't bet on it. Some judges can be a liability.

 

I have been trying desperately to come up with a more euphemistic way of putting that . . .