section 8 canning dock ?

[RLWP]

 

Interesting how are you going to find out?

 

I think you will find that information would be covered by the DPA 1998, for CRT to release it would be a breach of that act and opening CRT to a fine.

 

This is in a nutshell the whole problem with this thread. We can read what is in the public domain. Tony is giving us some of the owners argument (and medical history!). You cannot hear what CRT's side of the story is.

 

Richard

[MtB]

 

Interesting how are you going to find out?

 

I think you will find that information would be covered by the DPA 1998, for CRT to release it would be a breach of that act and opening CRT to a fine.

 

 

Why does he have to find out? He was speculating.

[Graham Davis]

I think that you will find that no-one pursues the basic offence of trespass any further than removing the trespasser from wherever they are not supposed to be. The famous sign 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' is pretty much meaningless. Off the top of my head the only occasions that further action is likely to be taken is trespass on the railway (separate offence under Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949) and trespass on protected sites (MOD,Royal sites, etc under Sections 128 - 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). So this isn't something peculiar to CRT it is how the law of trespass works.

 

Any ulterior motives that CRT may have regarding the disposal of the vessel could quite easily have been neutralised by Mr Roberts removing the boat himself when asked to do so (the letter you copied onto this thread). For whatever reason he chose not to do so. I also find it interesting that whilst you claim he may suffer from 'confusion', he wasn't so confused that he was unable to employ someone to run his business for him (and presumably pay this persons wages) nor was he so confused that he was unable to get traders to supply him with goods for that business (for which I presume they were also paid), it just seems that he was too 'confused' to pay his 'rent'(berthing fee).

 

Well said!!

Now waiting for the conflicting view

[Geo]

 

This is in a nutshell the whole problem with this thread. We can read what is in the public domain. Tony is giving us some of the owners argument (and medical history!). You cannot hear what CRT's side of the story is.

 

Richard

 

I to an extent agree, however we have had a tiny bit from the CRT emails. However in reality, unless this comes to court and we go and sit through the hearings, the whole truth will never be heard by us. From what has been published and my meagre knowledge of the law gained through various interactions with the civil courts, to date no case lost. I have a distinct feeling that all is not correct in the way CRT have or are handling this matter. Because of their size and wealth, enough money to have their own legal team, CRT are expected to not just obey the letter of the law but its spirit as well. I do not think they have in this case.

[Geo]

 

 

Why does he have to find out? He was speculating.

 

Because if the information is not available, then in my opinion the speculation that something could have happened, based on that data, assuming no breach of the DPA, is unreal and irrelevant to this discussion. Or could it be being suggested the CRT broke the DPA rules? I don't know which is why I found the suggestion concerning.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

This is in a nutshell the whole problem with this thread. We can read what is in the public domain. Tony is giving us some of the owners argument (and medical history!). You cannot hear what CRT's side of the story is.

 

Richard

As I said before - you can -

 

Chantelle Seaborn, waterway manager at the Canal & River Trust said:

 

It’s always so sad when we have to ask a boat to leave the Docks as it’s the boats that help to bring the whole place to life.

If berthing fees and the boat licence that help to look after the waterways haven’t been paid or if there are concerns about the safety of a vessel, then this isn’t something we can just overlook.

In the case of the Light Ship, especially given its historic links to the area, we’d be really happy to meet the owner to get things resolved.

 

... and in the CaRT letters of 15 April and 5 August already in the public domain.

 

There is other information not published, however I have sight of a communication dated 27 Sep from CaRT's legal department that says they rely on those two letters and a berthing agreement dated 1/1/2014 - 31/12/2014.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Because if the information is not available, then in my opinion the speculation that something could have happened, based on that data, assuming no breach of the DPA, is unreal and irrelevant to this discussion. Or could it be being suggested the CRT broke the DPA rules? I don't know which is why I found the suggestion concerning.

Having looked through the DPA perhaps you could identify exactly which section would apply to someone asking how much the lightship in Canning dock was paying in mooring fees (submitted under a Freedom of Information request from someone wanting to moor another boat there). The DPA is principally concerned with personal data and the correct handling of it. If CRT were to reply that no berthing fees had been received, what part of the DPA would that breach?or would it be preferable for CRT to lie and tell the enquirer that £10,000 pa was received when in fact nothing had been received? Provided that they did not identify from whom no berthing fees had been obtained there would be no breach as far as I can see. If I could be bothered to do so there is also the possibility of researching the accounts submitted to Companies House by CRT(something Mr Roberts various companies seem to have failed to do according to another poster(Post #312) but CRT are legally obliged to do) to see how much income had come from berthing fees at Canning Dock. Add to that the fact that CRT have apparently been pursuing the non-payment of berthing fees for over 12 months now the likelihood of the local businesses knowing this is, I would think, quite high.

[Geo]

Having looked through the DPA perhaps you could identify exactly which section would apply to someone asking how much the lightship in Canning dock was paying in mooring fees (submitted under a Freedom of Information request from someone wanting to moor another boat there). The DPA is principally concerned with personal data and the correct handling of it. If CRT were to reply that no berthing fees had been received, what part of the DPA would that breach?or would it be preferable for CRT to lie and tell the enquirer that £10,000 pa was received when in fact nothing had been received? Provided that they did not identify from whom no berthing fees had been obtained there would be no breach as far as I can see. If I could be bothered to do so there is also the possibility of researching the accounts submitted to Companies House by CRT(something Mr Roberts various companies seem to have failed to do according to another poster(Post #312) but CRT are legally obliged to do) to see how much income had come from berthing fees at Canning Dock. Add to that the fact that CRT have apparently been pursuing the non-payment of berthing fees for over 12 months now the likelihood of the local businesses knowing this is, I would think, quite high.

 

I think you will find that an FOI would not get you any details of rentals to that level if at all, I believe they would be classified as commercially sensitive and exempt. As for the CRT accounts last time I looked at them they did not take the information down to the level of detail, of course I could have missed it as I was not looking for that. No I think you are struggling to account for data that was not in the public domain. As for the DPA as the owner was a private individual and as far as can be ascertained there was no company involved in the period involved. I think you will find the data is personal as is the data of property I personally rent.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

It's fairly self-evident that the ship wasn't trading lawfully as it didn't have a licence to do so, and hadn't had for a considerable time. Perhaps CRT decided the only way to actually stop it trading was to take it somewhere it couldn't, as nothing else seemed to be persuading the owners to act within the law.

What penalties would be imposed on, say, a hotel narrowboat operating on the canal system with no licences, insurance, safety cert etc?

This is an area I'd be interested to know more about. I wouldn't necessarily like to say that it wasn't trading lawfully as I don't know whether it holds a Premises Licence for the sale of Alcohol, I would think that it probably does since the Police come down on them like a ton of bricks if they try to sell alcohol without one. Looking at the application protocol I cannot see for certain whether the opposition of the landlord (CRT) for the holding of a Sale of Alcohol licence on a moored boat would actually prevent them being issued with one, perhaps others could offer an opinion. Also I don't know whether or not the vessel has held a fixed location trading licence from CRT but again, I would have thought that it probably did although, given the lack of payment of berthing fees it may have been rescinded, again something that hasn't really been covered anywhere and I don't know one way or the other.

 

 

I think you will find that an FOI would not get you any details of rentals to that level if at all, I believe they would be classified as commercially sensitive and exempt. As for the CRT accounts last time I looked at them they did not take the information down to the level of detail, of course I could have missed it as I was not looking for that. No I think you are struggling to account for data that was not in the public domain. As for the DPA as the owner was a private individual and as far as can be ascertained there was no company involved in the period involved. I think you will find the data is personal as is the data of property I personally rent.

I think that you are confusing the FOI Act with the DPA, I can't find any reference to commercially sensitive information in the DPA and if CRT wished to pass out such information under FOI without claiming a commercially sensitive exemption I don't really see that there would be a problem. Section 41 of the FOI relates to information given in confidence to a public body, a failure to pay your berthing fees doesn't really fall into that category, it is more of a declaration of fact. But then merely declaring that no berthing fees had been received from the lightship doesn't prejudice anyone if the company concerned isn't identified.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Geo]

 

I think that you are confusing the FOI Act with the DPA, I can't find any reference to commercially sensitive information in the DPA and if CRT wished to pass out such information under FOI without claiming a commercially sensitive exemption I don't really see that there would be a problem. Section 41 of the FOI relates to information given in confidence to a public body, a failure to pay your berthing fees doesn't really fall into that category, it is more of a declaration of fact. But then merely declaring that no berthing fees had been received from the lightship doesn't prejudice anyone if the company concerned isn't identified.

 

No I am not confusing the two, the FOI has the exemption for commercially sensitive information and the rents paid by individual renters would be sensitive as not infrequently rents are different depending on a variety of things at the time of the setting of the rent.

 

As for the DPA I make no mention of commercially sensitive, think you need to read it again and work out when data becomes personal.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

No I am not confusing the two, the FOI has the exemption for commercially sensitive information and the rents paid by individual renters would be sensitive as not infrequently rents are different depending on a variety of things at the time of the setting of the rent.

 

As for the DPA I make no mention of commercially sensitive, think you need to read it again and work out when data becomes personal.

I wold tend to query whether the level of mooring/berthing fees is in any way commercially sensitive otherwise how would anyone know what to bid when moorings come up for auction? It is also for CRT to claim the commercially sensitive exemption, it isn't a given state, and why would they?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

No I am not confusing the two, the FOI has the exemption for commercially sensitive information and the rents paid by individual renters would be sensitive as not infrequently rents are different depending on a variety of things at the time of the setting of the rent.

 

As for the DPA I make no mention of commercially sensitive, think you need to read it again and work out when data becomes personal.

CaRT would claim that they are not liable under FOI for the information requested. They would not claim an exemption but simply say that they are only liable to provide information regarding statutory functions inherited from BW. As I explained in an earlier post the various BW Acts and Bye-laws do not appear to apply to Canning Dock.

 

Some, I feel, have been confused by the word licence. You do not need one in the dock. Use of Canning Dock is controlled by a 'berthing agreement' of up to 12 months duration.

 

It would appear that CaRT entered into a backdated agreement for the maximum period (1/1/2014 - 31/12/2014) for 2014 but have been unable to produce an agreement for 2015 or 2016.

 

My understanding is that, even if an agreement was in place, CaRT's actions are illegal.

[Geo]

I wold tend to query whether the level of mooring/berthing fees is in any way commercially sensitive otherwise how would anyone know what to bid when moorings come up for auction? It is also for CRT to claim the commercially sensitive exemption, it isn't a given state, and why would they?

 

Think you need to reread. I am sure these are not moorings that are put up for auction as you seem to think. This is a commercial rent for a boat owned by an individual that is trading in some form or the other. I suspect the mooring fees will be negotiated based on the commercial effect etc the boat would have on the dock.

CaRT would claim that they are not liable under FOI for the information requested. They would not claim an exemption but simply say that they are only liable to provide information regarding statutory functions inherited from BW. As I explained in an earlier post the various BW Acts and Bye-laws do not appear to apply to Canning Dock.

 

Some, I feel, have been confused by the word licence. You do not need one in the dock. Use of Canning Dock is controlled by a 'berthing agreement' of up to 12 months duration.

 

It would appear that CaRT entered into a backdated agreement for the maximum period (1/1/2014 - 31/12/2014) for 2014 but have been unable to produce an agreement for 2015 or 2016.

 

My understanding is that, even if an agreement was in place, CaRT's actions are illegal.

 

Thank you Allan

[NigelMoore]

The simple truth here is that CaRT were entitled to eject the boat from their property after due notice, and were entitled in the alternative, to retain possession of the boat within the dock until the sums owing were paid.

They have done neither; they have removed the boat from one of their premises up the coast to yet another of their premises [as Tony indicates, hardly qualifying as removing a trespassing vessel from their premises].

In doing so, their stated position is that they do NOT rely on holding a lien on the boat [although that would have been the sensible thing to do]; NOR are they taking an action to remove a trespasser [which could have been an equally sensible thing to do if they felt so strongly against the owner]. Rather, they claim to be acting according to the terms of the berthing contract.

Under those terms, CaRT claim they were entitled to do whatever they wished with the vessel, without any notice to the owner whatsoever, and say that they have in fact bent over backwards in giving him notice twice [as per the two letters Tony has copied earlier].

The contractual terms they cite as allowing them to do as they have, include clause 8 whereby any breach of the agreement entitles CaRT “at the licensee’s risk and expense but without prior notice to the licensee and without being answerable for any loss or damage of whatsoever nature occasioned thereby: - [8.5] to take such other action of whatsoever nature in relation to the Vessel as the Harbour Master may in his sole discretion determine.” [my bold]

So there is the legal basis for their action according to them.

 

It would seem on the face of it that some challenge under the Unfair Contracts Act 1977 would certainly succeed. For one example: seeking to remove all liability for loss or damage for a boat in their care would violate s.2 of the Act.: -

 

s.2 (2) In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

s.2 (3) Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or restrict liability for negligence a person’s agreement to or awareness of it is not of itself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk.

 

Other potentially pertinent sections:

13.(1) To the extent that this Part of this Act prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevents—

( a ) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;

( b ) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;


29.(1) Nothing in this Act removes or restricts the effect of, or prevents reliance upon, any contractual provision which—

( a ) is authorised or required by the express terms or necessary implication of an enactment;


What they have done is remove the vessel at considerable cost to themselves, to a distant dock in their control [the vessel is still “trespassing” on their property], while forbidding access to the owner, holding the same until payment of the sums owed, plus whatever they spend playing with the boat, in an exercise utterly pointless other than to increase the costs liability to the owner, while still being responsible for the vessel. That is not only beyond logic in terms of what is most beneficial to CaRT, it is overly punitive in terms of punishing the owner.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

CaRT would claim that they are not liable under FOI for the information requested. They would not claim an exemption but simply say that they are only liable to provide information regarding statutory functions inherited from BW. As I explained in an earlier post the various BW Acts and Bye-laws do not appear to apply to Canning Dock.

 

Some, I feel, have been confused by the word licence. You do not need one in the dock. Use of Canning Dock is controlled by a 'berthing agreement' of up to 12 months duration.

 

It would appear that CaRT entered into a backdated agreement for the maximum period (1/1/2014 - 31/12/2014) for 2014 but have been unable to produce an agreement for 2015 or 2016.

 

My understanding is that, even if an agreement was in place, CaRT's actions are illegal.

That does clarify some issues, from my understanding of what you are saying, no licence is required to moor in Canning Dock so presumably no Fixed Location Trading Licence would be needed either. Clearly a Premises Licence would be needed for the sale of alcohol and I would assume that the vessel legitimately held one (although the status of applying for one if the 'landlord' objected still remains unclear, but I think you'd probably still get one if all other conditions were met). The fact that CRT cant produce an agreement for the last two years however doesn't really help the case since the need to produce an agreement lies with the owner of the vessel. All that it seems to suggest is that Mr Roberts may have not been paying for his berthing fees for even longer that has been suggested. If however Mr Roberts could produce a signed agreement for the period of the last two years and banking evidence of having paid the allegedly outstanding fees that would throw a whole different light on the matter.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Wanderer Vagabond

[NigelMoore]

For those interested in such things, the oldest legislation we have [i.e. Statute, as distinct from the far older common law] has direct relevance to all such goings on, as Leigh is arguing in his own case.

The Statute of Marlborough, 1267

Section I “It is Provided, agreed, and granted, that all Persons, as well of high as of low Estate, shall receive Justice in the King’s Court; and none from henceforth shall take any such Revenge or Distress of his own Authority, without Award of our Court, though he have Damage or Injury, whereby he would have amends of his Neighbour either higher or lower.

And upon the foresaid Article It is Provided and granted, that if any from henceforth take such Revenges of his own Authority, without Award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by Fine, and that according to the Trespass; and likewise if one Neighbour take a Distress of another without Award of the King’s Court, whereby he hath Damage, he shall be punished in the same wise, and that after the Quantity of the Trespass; and nevertheless sufficient and full Amends shall be made to them that have sustained Loss by such Distresses.”

Section IV “None from henceforth shall cause any Distress that he hath taken, to be driven out of the County where it was [taken]; and if one Neighbour do so to another of his own Authority, and without Judgment, he shall make Fine, as above is said, as for a Thing done against the Peace; nevertheless, if the Lord Presume so to do against his Tenant, he shall be grievously punished by Amerciament.

Moreover, Distresses shall be reasonable, and not too great; and he that taketh [great] and unreasonable Distresses, shall be grievously amerced for the Excess of such Distresses.”

There is one remaining section still valid, that is applicable to Leigh’s case but irrelevant here, that prohibits levying distress on the King’s Highway.

 

What is so remarkable for me, is the emphasis so early on within our constitution, on reasonableness and proportionality, and the necessity of applying to the Court for authority to interfere with rights of the common man, rather than a man in some authority exercising unilateral power "at his sole discretion". This Statute pre-dates Magna Carta as Statute, and for me has far greater significance.

Edited September 28, 2016 by NigelMoore

[Tony Dunkley]

 

This is in a nutshell the whole problem with this thread. We can read what is in the public domain. Tony is giving us some of the owners argument (and medical history!). You cannot hear what CRT's side of the story is.

 

 

That is simply not so, . . . . other than mentioning that the Lightship owner is quite ill and affected by quite serious side-effects of medication, at no point on this forum or anywhere else have I said one single word in his defence, and what I have said has not been very complimentary, for example, this was post #186 : ~

 

"The owner of the Lightship has been guilty of a great many wrongs in the lead up to this regrettable state of affairs, as I have already said in an earlier post, and is undoubtedly the main architect of a good many of his own difficulties, but he is NOT the party to the dispute that is knowingly indulging in continuing illegal, or even criminal, activity in the course of it."

 

As far as C&RT's side of things goes, the reason there's little to see on here is quite simply because there just isn't very much to it.

 

I published pretty much all there was in post #110 some six days ago :~ " I can confirm that C&RT are not acting in pursuance of the S.8 powers in the 1983 Act. They are, however, relying on two clauses in the berthing agreement, one of which is a somewhat misleading overstatement of that which they legally may do under the provisions of the 1977 Torts Act.", and post #113 on the same day : ~ " Whilst the vessel in question remained in/on their waters within Canning Dock they were completely within their rights as bailees to exercise a lawful lien on it in respect of monies owed for berthing fees, but rather than do so, they elected to shoot themselves in both feet by converting what was lawful possession into an illegal seizure and removal accompanied by clear declaration, in the last paragraph of the following E-mail, of intent to use what had now become unlawful possession as a means of debt recovery."

 

There are now some more E-mails and C&RT responses to post up tomorrow, establishing beyond question that they have been, and intend to continue, acting and behaving as if their Berthing Agreement T&C's prevail over statute.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Geo]

For those interested in such things, the oldest legislation we have [i.e. Statute, as distinct from the far older common law] has direct relevance to all such goings on, as Leigh is arguing in his own case.

 

The Statute of Marlborough, 1267

 

Section I “It is Provided, agreed, and granted, that all Persons, as well of high as of low Estate, shall receive Justice in the King’s Court; and none from henceforth shall take any such Revenge or Distress of his own Authority, without Award of our Court, though he have Damage or Injury, whereby he would have amends of his Neighbour either higher or lower.

 

And upon the foresaid Article It is Provided and granted, that if any from henceforth take such Revenges of his own Authority, without Award of the King’s Court as before is said, and be convict thereof, he shall be punished by Fine, and that according to the Trespass; and likewise if one Neighbour take a Distress of another without Award of the King’s Court, whereby he hath Damage, he shall be punished in the same wise, and that after the Quantity of the Trespass; and nevertheless sufficient and full Amends shall be made to them that have sustained Loss by such Distresses.”

 

Section IV “None from henceforth shall cause any Distress that he hath taken, to be driven out of the County where it was [taken]; and if one Neighbour do so to another of his own Authority, and without Judgment, he shall make Fine, as above is said, as for a Thing done against the Peace; nevertheless, if the Lord Presume so to do against his Tenant, he shall be grievously punished by Amerciament.

 

Moreover, Distresses shall be reasonable, and not too great; and he that taketh [great] and unreasonable Distresses, shall be grievously amerced for the Excess of such Distresses.”

 

There is one remaining section still valid, that is applicable to Leigh’s case but irrelevant here, that prohibits levying distress on the King’s Highway.

 

What is so remarkable for me, is the emphasis so early on within our constitution, on reasonableness and proportionality, and the necessity of applying to the Court for authority to interfere with rights of the common man, rather than a man in some authority exercising unilateral power "at his sole discretion". This Statute pre-dates Magna Carta as Statute, and for me has far greater significance.

 

 

Thank you Nigel. I did not realise that anything reasonable existed pre Magna Carta. I think I agree with you as to its significance, those in power will be fair and will use the Court to adjudicate. No one will abuse their position whether high or low, I find that particularly interesting.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

That is not so, . . . . other than mentioning that the Lightship owner is quite ill and affected by quite serious side-effects of medication, at no point on this forum or anywhere else have I said one single word in his defence, and what I have said has not been very complimentary, for example, this was post #186 : ~

 

"The owner of the Lightship has been guilty of a great many wrongs in the lead up to this regrettable state of affairs, as I have already said in an earlier post, and is undoubtedly the main architect of a good many of his own difficulties, but he is NOT the party to the dispute that is knowingly indulging in continuing illegal, or even criminal, activity in the course of it."

 

As far as C&RT's side of things goes, the reason there's little to see on here is quite simply because there just isn't very much to it, other than the information I published in post #110 some six days ago :~ " I can confirm that C&RT are not acting in pursuance of the S.8 powers in the 1983 Act. They are, however, relying on two clauses in the berthing agreement, one of which is a somewhat misleading overstatement of that which they legally may do under the provisions of the 1977 Torts Act.", and post #113 on the same day : ~ " Whilst the vessel in question remained in/on their waters within Canning Dock they were completely within their rights as bailees to exercise a lawful lien on it in respect of monies owed for berthing fees, but rather than do so, they elected to shoot themselves in both feet by converting what was lawful possession into an illegal seizure and removal accompanied by clear declaration, in the last paragraph of the following E-mail, of intent to use what had now become unlawful possession as a means of debt recovery."

 

The owner of the Lightship has been guilty of a great many wrongs in the lead up to this regrettable state of affairs, as I have already said in an earlier post, and is undoubtedly the main architect of a good many of his own difficulties, but he is NOT the party to the dispute that is knowingly indulging in continuing illegal, or even criminal, activity in the course of it.

When was breach of contract made legal? (I assume that he once had a berthing contract requiring payment).

[MtB]

Very interesting Nige.

 

What was the significance of Marlborough? I.e why was it the statute of Marlborough in particular?

 

Useless at history, moi...

[Geo]

When was breach of contract made legal? (I assume that he once had a berthing contract requiring payment).

 

Think you missed the point it limits the revenge element, things must be reasonable and fair in the eyes of the Court. It does not say dues do not have to be paid.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Geo

[Allan(nb Albert)]

When was breach of contract made legal? (I assume that he once had a berthing contract requiring payment).

 

He had an agreement limited to a maximum of 12 months in 2014. The copy produced by CaRT clearly shows that it was backdated to commence 1/1/2014. The end date (which appears to have been altered more than once) is 31/12/2014.

 

In January 2015, Mr Roberts sent CaRT a cheque for the period 1/1/2015 - 31/12/2015 (I have seen a photostat). This was not cashed with CaRT claiming that they had not received it.

 

CaRT have been unable to show that they have a current agree with Mr Roberts and thus rely on the 2014 contract to remove Planet.

 

***** Edited to add - this is a side issue. The real issue is does the agreements 8.1 override other legislation.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[NigelMoore]

 

I think I agree with you as to its significance . . .

 

I really wish more did! The Law Commission awhile back published a Report in which they recommended repeal of all but a portion of the first clause in Marlborough. The introductory blurb said:

 

“The Law Commissions of England and Wales, and of Scotland, are committed to cleaning up and modernising our legislation. The statute book is littered with dead law from down the centuries. Obsolete provisions from as far back as the 13th century continue to survive long after they have ceased to serve any useful purpose.”

 

There are, without any doubt, many old laws which fall into that category, but it is shameful to include Marlborough in amongst them. The contributors have signally failed to appreciate the currency of the provisions, one of which is almost uniquely appropriate to the navigation authorities, while others can hardly be said to be over-ridden by modern conditions or legislation.

 

In particular, the ban on removal out of the County was dismissed as hardly relevant in this day and age of cheap easy transport – and yet, as this discussion item portrays, the tactic is a favoured one of CaRT, who seek thereby to massively increase the burden of “revenges” on those displeasing them.

 

I did write, back in May last year, to Lord Scott of Foscote and others about this, urging them to reject the Law Commission recommendations, and attaching a copy of Leigh’s Statement of Case to illustrate that the provisions were still live within current court proceedings.

 

Whether that got noticed anywhere I don’t know, but to have it relied on within a current High Court case will hopefully mean more legal and parliamentary minds will be alerted to it. There are, as yet, no outstanding provisions affecting the Statute, which can be read online within the government's legislation site.

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

What was the significance of Marlborough? I.e why was it the statute of Marlborough in particular?

 

It was so named because it was passed by Parliament in the presence of Henry III, while they were sitting at the town of Marlborough in Wiltshire.

[NigelMoore]

Just as a matter of passing interest, Mr Stoner QC at Leigh's last hearing brought the subject of Marlborough up, and commented that even he had to go and look it up when he read Leigh's Statement of Case. It is legislation that does not deserve such obscurity - and poor form of Mr Stoner to call for the Statement to be struck out that had afforded him an increase in education!

 

It is going to be part of the case regardless, so that will be interesting.