CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[NigelMoore]

a few snippets of Garner's evdence . . .

 

Cross-examining Mr Garner:

 

“JUDGE PUGSLEY: What happened in July 2009?

A: I am sorry, I became an enforcement officer."

 

I suspect many boaters have shared that sorrow. It may yet be that CaRT will belatedly join them in the emotion.

 

 

Putting the horse before the cart, in effect

 

I was not too subtle was I?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Cross-examining Mr Garner:

 

“JUDGE PUGSLEY: What happened in July 2009?

A: I am sorry, I became an enforcement officer."

 

I suspect many boaters have shared that sorrow. It may yet be that CaRT will belatedly join them in the emotion.

 

 

 

It appears that I may have misjudged him, . . . . . I would never have believed that he could be so frank and honest.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

Just to put the links to the transcripts in the most appropriate place: -

 

Day 1 https://www.scribd.c...Wingfield-Day-1

 

Day 2 https://www.scribd.c...Wingfield-Day-2

[GoodGurl]

It will be interesting to read phase 2 of these shenanigans.

[StarUKKiwi]

Thanks Nigel, this all will be very useful in the future and thanks to Cotswoldsman for sorting the crowdfunding out.

[NigelMoore]

Cross-examination of Mr Garner [and yes, I am unfairly misinterpreting - I hope]

 

MR. FOWLES: . . . What would be the practical impact of your failing to enforce the conditions of houseboat certificates against Mr. Wingfield?

 

A It would lead to an increase of such cases, therefore, leading to more unlicensed boats and more boats (to excuse the term) clogging up the system without satisfying the criteria.

 

Does this say something about the CaRT attitude to boats? The very mention of the term is something to apologise for?

[MtB]

I think he is apologising for their view that boats 'clog up the system'...

[Jerra]

Cross-examination of Mr Garner [and yes, I am unfairly misinterpreting - I hope]

 

MR. FOWLES: . . . What would be the practical impact of your failing to enforce the conditions of houseboat certificates against Mr. Wingfield?

 

A It would lead to an increase of such cases, therefore, leading to more unlicensed boats and more boats (to excuse the term) clogging up the system without satisfying the criteria.

 

Does this say something about the CaRT attitude to boats? The very mention of the term is something to apologise for?

To me it says if boats aren't fulfilling the criteria they don't consider them anything other than a Houseboat. Yes I know I often have odd interpretations of the written word.

[NigelMoore]

I think he is apologising for their view that boats 'clog up the system'...

 

Spoilsport

[Mike Todd]

Cross-examination of Mr Garner [and yes, I am unfairly misinterpreting - I hope]

 

MR. FOWLES: . . . What would be the practical impact of your failing to enforce the conditions of houseboat certificates against Mr. Wingfield?

 

A It would lead to an increase of such cases, therefore, leading to more unlicensed boats and more boats (to excuse the term) clogging up the system without satisfying the criteria.

 

Does this say something about the CaRT attitude to boats? The very mention of the term is something to apologise for?

I think it says more about the quality of the barrister. If I was CaRT, I would not want to use him again, based on the transcript.

To me it says if boats aren't fulfilling the criteria they don't consider them anything other than a Houseboat. Yes I know I often have odd interpretations of the written word.

The transcript suggests that at one point he was getting himself confused in his attempts to understand what exactly is a houseboat and what interaction that has with the form of licence. I suspect that he was confusing the CC issue with houseboats (which by there very definition cannot CC). To be honest it reads more a lack of proper briefing (by the barrister) than deliberate mis-briefing by the client. But then I always tend to the cock-up over the conspiracy theories.

[Alenafour]

To me it says if boats aren't fulfilling the criteria they don't consider them anything other than a Houseboat. Yes I know I often have odd interpretations of the written word.

 

I think it's always wise to consider cockup before conspirancy so it's a little mean of you to accuse CRT of breaking the law.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think it says more about the quality of the barrister. If I was CaRT, I would not want to use him again, based on the transcript.

 

 

As it was Garner, speaking on behalf of C&RT, who actually said ~ ''It would lead to an increase of such cases, therefore, leading to more unlicensed boats and more boats (to excuse the term) clogging up the system without satisfying the criteria.'' ~ the implication is that 'clogging up the system whilst satisfying the criteria' is perfectly acceptable.

That's probably the closest C&RT will ever get to admitting that making boats move about just for the sake of it is utterly pointless, because it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on reducing congestion.

[NigelMoore]

I think it says more about the quality of the barrister. . . . I always tend to the cock-up over the conspiracy theories.

 

Costly cock-up. CaRT paid Shoosmiths £17,177 to instruct Mr Fowles, who then billed them £9,436 net for his performance. That’s more than 26 and a half grand even without “disbursements". Not good value for money; in fact his performance went a long way to putting the judge’s back up.

 

One of the limitations of transcripts is that they seldom manage to convey the emotional tenor of what is said, nor the volume. First hand observers at the trial described the judge as turning purple and shouting on occasion; the one clue to the tone that Mr Fowles was using is the judge’s later comment on the inadvisability of a young brat addressing him as a has-been.

[MtB]

 

That's probably the closest C&RT will ever get to admitting that making boats move about just for the sake of it is utterly pointless, because it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on reducing congestion.

 

I'd say it DOES have an effect on congestion, increasing it as they all play musical chairs.

 

The effect CRT are aiming for though is all the CMers to comply by taking a mooring, surely, not by starting to move about. That was CRT raise their income.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I'd say it DOES have an effect on congestion, increasing it as they all play musical chairs.

 

The effect CRT are aiming for though is all the CMers to comply by taking a mooring, surely, not by starting to move about. That was CRT raise their income.

 

Yes, I agree, but if C&RT were successful in that, I wonder how long it would be before the increased income would offset what they've wasted on 'enforcement' and lawyers ?

[NigelMoore]

I think it says more about the quality of the barrister.

 

By way of balance, it is appropriate to record that the judge got testy with Miss Easty as well -

 

"JUDGE PUGSLEY: I am sorry, this is not a proper cross-examination.

 

MISS EASTY: Well, your Honour, I am sorry, I say it is.

 

JUDGE PUGSLEY: Well, I am the judge and you are not."

[madcat]

You couldn't make it up. My money and that of many other boaters is being wasted on this stuff.

[Alenafour]

You couldn't make it up. My money and that of many other boaters is being wasted on this stuff.

 

I have read a little of the transcript as published and I admit to being shocked that these people, who are on the fat end of £200 per hour (if not more) are chatting as if they are at a tea party.

 

Mind, I suppose if you're on £3.50 a minute you probably have a awareness that every minute wasted is an extra gin and tonic.

 

Corruption at its best. No, you couldn't make it up.

[NigelMoore]

 

Mind, I suppose if you're on £3.50 a minute you probably have a awareness that every minute wasted is an extra gin and tonic.

 

"JUDGE PUGSLEY: Could that be Greenwich Meantime five minutes, not counsel’s five minutes, which will mean that the cleaners will have come and gone by the time we come back?"

[NigelMoore]

 

The effect CRT are aiming for though is all the CMers to comply by taking a mooring, surely, not by starting to move about. That was CRT raise their income.

 

The priorities in that regard are revealed by Mr Garner: -

 

"MR. FOWLES: . . . Why does the CRT require a home mooring to be obtained?

 

A Obviously, financially it will help, it’s a source of income for a mooring fee obtained and it would also prevent the waterways being clogged up on visitor moorings and other mooring sites." [my emphasis]

 

And yet, of course – as to that latter afterthought: -

 

"JUDGE PUGSLEY: Yes, that is what I am just clarifying. As a matter of practice, if people have satisfied the conditions----

A Yes.

 

Q --even though you do not want the canal cluttered up with a lot of residential boats, that cannot be a factor?

A No."

 

So essentially, yes; the prime if not only motive for demanding all boats get moorings is increased revenue.

[NigelMoore]

It is a curious thing; I was checking up on something with scribd and noticed a google entry mentioning Wingfield. Turns out that the transcript of Day 1 is currently the 17th most read paper within the worldwide court filings section [not the most populist of topics] with 75 viewings already; Day 2 not so intriguing, obviously, coming 37th in the rankings, with only 30 views.

 

Can’t say I quite get the ranking. Scrolling down the pages I eventually came across my Statement for Leigh Ravenscroft, and that shows a readership of 176 – so something is odd. Maybe it’s within a particular recent time frame.

[Arthur Marshall]

I'm sorry to revitalise such a large thread, but one thing baffles me, and that is that all the way through the case, CRT seemed to be accepting that a liveaboard boater could take any CRT mooring (or any private mooring where the owner allows it) and continue to live on the boat. However, I was under the impression that unless the mooring was recognised as residential, this is not something CRT allow. Whether this was deliberate obfuscation by the use of the "houseboat licence" phrase I couldn't tell, but it seemed to me that the Counsel for CRT simply didn't know what he was talking about, and was using the phrase to refer to people whose boats were lived on as opposed to those used for leisure.

[NigelMoore]

I'm sorry to revitalise such a large thread, but one thing baffles me, and that is that all the way through the case, CRT seemed to be accepting that a liveaboard boater could take any CRT mooring (or any private mooring where the owner allows it) and continue to live on the boat. However, I was under the impression that unless the mooring was recognised as residential, this is not something CRT allow. Whether this was deliberate obfuscation by the use of the "houseboat licence" phrase I couldn't tell, but it seemed to me that the Counsel for CRT simply didn't know what he was talking about, and was using the phrase to refer to people whose boats were lived on as opposed to those used for leisure.

 

As CaRT themselves acknowledge, it is not for them to police the live-aboard status of boats at moorings - it is for the local planning authority. CaRT’s responsibility might be called upon by that authority if they were concerned about boats on CaRT moorings with non-residential status, but LPA’s rarely bother over much, and it very much depends upon local policies.

 

A classic example is at Brentford, where the ‘Island’ moorings have planning consent for 5 or 6 residential out of the 3 dozen mooring places, yet all of them are live-aboard. The mooring agreement for the recreational moorings stipulate a maximum occupation of 4 or 5 days per week, but no-one really cares.

 

I cannot be sure whether or not you are correct as to the knowledge of CaRT’s counsel; certainly he spouted a lot of absolute untruths as to houseboat requirements – certificates for those are inextricably tied to a mooring, so that the CC’ing option simply does not apply to them.

 

The reason he played such a false card throughout, as I think I made clear earlier, is that in the particular circumstances he otherwise had no case. He drafted CaRT’s skeleton in response to the witness statements wherein Andy had claimed that he was moored to private banks not in CaRT’s ownership. That itself was uncontested.

 

As a licensed/certificated pleasure boat, it was always open to Andy to avail himself of such a legitimate mooring, provided only that it was with the consent of the riparian owner. Regardless of whether he stayed put for extended periods, and travelled around from time to time, he was committing no wrong for so long as his periods of mooring that were greater than 14 days were not on the towpath but on private moorings.

 

There is no obligation on a CC’ing boat to refrain from taking up such private moorings between cruises, for whatever length of time was acceptable to the moorings owner –T&C’s to the contrary [demanding regular updates on HM or CC ‘standing’] notwithstanding.

 

This is the only explanation for Andy’s counsel’s reliance on Moore v British Waterways, and for this absurd reaction from CaRT.

 

As can be seen from Mr Fowles’ arguments in denial that my case had any relevance, he needed to avoid the Appeal Court ruling that such moorings as Andy utilised were not unlawful.

 

The ONLY way out was to claim the impossible fiction of a CC’ing houseboat status for Andy’s boat.

 

There were two ‘traps’ CaRT needed to avoid: any argument as to the possibility of taking up private non-residential moorings even though a CC’er, and any potential argument as to boats remaining off-channel needing a pleasure boat licence anyway, for so long as they did not moor in the main navigable channel.

 

He tied himself in Gordion knots over this, which ought to have been picked apart by Andy’s counsel, because adequate time for reflection is rarely available to a County Court judge; they rely heavily on what counsel present to them. Who knows, maybe, had she been given the chance, Andy’s counsel may have been up to that task; but the simplistic common-sense approach of the judge rendered the implausible arguments of Mr Fowles redundant anyway.

 

Just to clarify one particular absurdity of the relevant legislation - the residential status of a boat is expressly irrelevant to its houseboat status, whether as a matter of fact or of design.

 

 

spelling edit

Edited September 29, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Arthur Marshall]

Thanks Nigel. I knew you would know the answer!

[Rufford]

I think we are all lucky in this case that the judge seemed to understand more of the legalities of the situation than either party's legal representatives.

 

People being paid a fortune for something that will have no repercussions on themselves, accept no liability for their actions or decisions and usually if they don't do well more money will be thrown at them to do an appeal.

 

There really is very little incentive for them to bother.

 

I will never ever use a solicitor again.