CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[cotswoldsman]

Some might remember that a short while ago we did a Crowd Funding to obtain the transcript for the CRT v. Andy Wingfield case. The cost was estimated at £2,000 and this amount was pledged within 24 hours (thank you all those that pledged)

 

As people can imagine anything within the law is never easy. Anyway the process is that they do a rough estimate of how much they think it will cost and ask for a deposit to cover this and then send out a final invoice. The estimate was £1,200 and they will not start work until they receive this amount, so I forwarded that amount from my own funds (knowing most of the people who pledged).

 

I now have the transcript (plenty of reading to do!!) but still do not have the final figure but I do not think it will be much more than the £1,200 as they did not ask for more money before forwarding the transcript.

 

Anyway I would like all those that pledged to pm their email addresses so I can send my bank details and let you know what proportion of the pledge that is required once I have the final invoice. So for example if the final figure is £1,200 then those that pledged £200 would only have to pay £120 and those that pledged £100 would be £60 etc. I will also send the full transcript to those that pledged once the monies have been received.

 

In the mean time Nigel Moore is going through the transcript and will post any details he thinks might be of interest to the forum. They are very very long documents

 

A big thank you again to all those that pledged

[Dave_P]

well done John

[bassplayer]

Thanks John

[cotswoldsman]

Thanks John

 

Nigel Moore did the hard work I just acted as his Junior

[bassplayer]

 

Nigel Moore did the hard work I just acted as his Junior

Thanks Nigel

[NigelMoore]

Thanks Nigel

 

cotswoldsman did the hard work I just acted as his conduit.

 

 

Now with that mutual modest demurring dispensed with, there are some introductory comments to make. I can’t take the time just now to post detailed analysis, but brief preliminary notes are in order.

 

First off, Andy’s counsel never got to present her case; the judge urged an agreement as the most sensible way forward. CaRT did NOT, in fact, make the unilateral decision to withdraw; they were more gung-ho for carrying the case through regardless. It was the judge who became increasingly testy over the tardiness of proceedings, even on the last day when the two counsel were wrangling over the wording of the proposed agreement [and his criticisms were evenly distributed between the parties]:

 

“JUDGE PUGSLEY: I am awfully sorry, but I am beginning to feel that this is becoming a farce. This is a serious issue.”

 

Secondly, the introduction of CaRT’s case was characterised by an horrifyingly inaccurate and misleading presentation of the law and pertinent judgments from CaRT’s counsel. This is something I have come to expect to some degree, but have never come across so gross a distortion of matters. As I say, Andy’s counsel did not get to the stage where rebuttal of this was possible, but then again, one wonders whether she was in fact capable of doing so, even had she been given the opportunity.

 

In some ways this case highlights the problems arising when legal aid lawyers – with minimal exposure to the waterways legislation – come up against those with far greater experience in the field. She may never have even been able to see where the arguments went so badly askew of reality.

 

The judge was sharp enough however. An early interjection [in the middle of CaRT’s semantic contortions over an argument that the ’95 Act contradicted/redefined the ’71 Act] was:

 

“Sorry, are you trying to help me or are you trying to lead me further into a totally futile inane discussion?”

 

I thoroughly enjoyed the judge’s contributions in fact; he had a very ascerbic wit and was an exemplar of the type that does not suffer fools gladly. Examples:

 

[in response to CaRT saying “your Honour will immediately have noticed the relevance of that subsection.”] –

“Counsel always say that when they know you do not have a clue what you are talking about, but go on.”

 

And referring to my Appeal judgment -

“We are always fond of judgments from Lord Justice Mummery. They make so much more sense than the legislation does.”

 

It may have helped overall that this judge was one of those rarities with experience in the field. He had actually represented BW in court, some 20 or more years previously.

[Sabcat]

Excellent work.

 

PM sent CM.

[Ronniesonic]

Informative Nigel, thanks

 

This made me laugh out loud. Sarcasm at it's best (I think)!;

 

[in response to CaRT saying “your Honour will immediately have noticed the relevance of that subsection.”] –

“Counsel always say that when they know you do not have a clue what you are talking about, but go on.”

 

Sonic

[NigelMoore]

This made me laugh out loud.

 

Me too. In fact I guffawed many times throughout the reading.

 

I should reiterate that the judge embodied television's J.Judy's approach to jibes from the bench - "I am an ecumenical abuser".

[Dave_P]

Are you intending to release the transcript in its entirety?

[cotswoldsman]

The transcript will be sent to all funders but can not be put in public domain until we obtain permission.

That is to say in it entirety

[NigelMoore]

The single most hugely important thing to be learnt from this trial [for me anyway] is just how far CaRT have been developing the argument that ALL boats are ‘Houseboats’, the moment they wish to be rid of them.

 

I had to fight this in my own case, I am having to fight it in the Leigh Ravenscroft case, and it crops up in every live-aboard procedure – whereby CaRT issue BOTH s.8 AND s.13 Notices.

 

I have yet to see any awareness at all, amongst boaters or their legal representatives [where present], of the implications and dangers of this approach. I cannot sufficiently emphasise this however – YOU MUST NOT ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE A HOUSEBOAT.

 

There is one reason and one only, for anyone to want a Houseboat Certificate: if you genuinely ARE a static houseboat on a recognised BW/CaRT residential mooring, then you OUGHT to benefit from the Statutory provisions within the 1971 Act, whereby you gain a measure of security of tenure, inclusive of some ‘ownership’ of the transferable value of the boat/mooring combination.

 

Even then, however, you need to be aware of CaRT plans - long since set in train – to deny and abolish this sole benefit to the Certificate, via [yet again] amended T&C’s.

 

If you are NOT genuinely a static houseboat on a recognised BW/CaRT residential mooring, then all the downsides to being a houseboat apply. For all the applicable [but not immediately apparent] reasons, CaRT want the category of 'Pleasure Boat' abolished, and argue that the relevant section of the 1971 Act concerning Pleasure Boats HAS been affected under the doctrine of implied repeal.

 

If you think s.8 is draconian, then you should read up on s.13.

 

The worst of it is: judges appear in general, even at the highest levels, to be unconscious of the reductio ad absurdum of the BW/CaRT argument. Largely, no doubt, aided by the usual total failure of boaters to challenge this.

I suspect that HHJ Pugsley might just have seen through the logical absurdity – let alone the straining of all principles of construing Statutes - involved in the argument, though perhaps not seeing why it mattered. This was the context of his quoted remark that it was "a totally futile inane discussion".

 

I am not going to detail the whys and wherefores just now, because I don’t even have my morning coffee brewing, but wanted to flag this up for boaters’ attention while it was bothering my semi-comatose mind.

[blackrose]

Some might remember that a short while ago we did a Crowd Funding to obtain the transcript for the CRT v. Andy Wingfield case.

No, I don't remember and am unaware of the case, so none of this makes any sense to me at all.

[cotswoldsman]

No, I don't remember and am unaware of the case, so none of this makes any sense to me at all.

Ah well one less thread for you to follow then

[Bod]

Thanks Nigel

A question.

How would I know whether I had a "pleasure boat licence" or a "houseboat licence"?

Are they a different colour or shape, a different code number perhaps?

 

If this is to be the removal tactic, then an awareness must be put out to all.

 

Bod

 

If you can't do it with brilliance, then do it with bul.........(Male bovine excrement)

[blackrose]

Ah well one less thread for you to follow then

 

You would rather tell me which threads I should follow than provide some background about the case you're referring to so that I can catch up?

 

Not every forum member has time to follow every single thread on this forum.

 

To me your attitude doesn't really encourage people to participate in whatever cause you're collecting money for.

Edited August 29, 2015 by blackrose

[cotswoldsman]

 

You would rather tell me which threads I should follow than provide some background about the case you're referring to so that I can catch up?

 

Not every forum member has time to follow every single thread on this forum.

 

To me your attitude doesn't really encourage people to participate in whatever cause you're collecting money for.

 

I was simply answering your post

 

 

 

No, I don't remember and am unaware of the case, so none of this makes any sense to me at all.

 

You made a statement I seem to have missed the part where you asked for more information. The OP states the case concerned and the OP was aimed at people who had pledged money to obtain the Transcript I was not asking for more people to participate in any cause

[LoneWolf]

nice one cotswldman & Nigel

[Tony Dunkley]

Thanks Nigel

A question.

How would I know whether I had a "pleasure boat licence" or a "houseboat licence"?

Are they a different colour or shape, a different code number perhaps?

 

If this is to be the removal tactic, then an awareness must be put out to all.

 

Bod

 

If you can't do it with brilliance, then do it with bul.........(Male bovine excrement)

 

Don't worry Bod, if you had a Houseboat Certificate, you'd know about it. They're a completely different thing, issued only subject to having a concurrent residential mooring contract, and as far as I know there are nowadays only about 60 to 70 of them in force. This practice of claiming that a boat is a houseboat when it suits them to do so is another of BW / C&RT's nasty little ploys, used as a matter of routine to accompany Section 8 Notices, and as Nigel says, must be disputed from the outset of any action or proceedings.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[MtB]

 

Don't worry Bod, you won't have a Houseboat Certificate, they're a completely different thing. This practice of claiming that a boat is a houseboat when it suits them to do so is another of BW / C&RT's nasty little ploys, used as a matter of routine to accompany Section 8 Notices, and as Nigel says, must be disputed from the outset of any action or proceedings.

 

 

So do CRT argue the boat was incorrectly licensed as a pleasure boat then, when it had a pleasure boat licence?

 

And why does it matter when their first step in any action against a boater appears to be to cancel or refuse to renew a licence, so the boat in question in unlicensed anyway?

 

Basic questions, but ones which will get asked again and again until boaters begin to understand the houseboat Vs pleasure boat licence issue.

[bassplayer]

No, I don't remember and am unaware of the case, so none of this makes any sense to me at all.

Hope this helps..

 

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=74111&page=1

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

So do CRT argue the boat was incorrectly licensed as a pleasure boat then, when it had a pleasure boat licence?

 

And why does it matter when their first step in any action against a boater appears to be to cancel or refuse to renew a licence, so the boat in question in unlicensed anyway?

 

Basic questions, but ones which will get asked again and again until boaters begin to understand the houseboat Vs pleasure boat licence issue.

 

Some time spent studying and gaining an understanding of the 1971 and 1983 BW Acts will answer your basic questions.

[MtB]

AH that's all sorted out than. Thanks for your help.

[bassplayer]

AH that's all sorted out than. Thanks for your help.

Flipin' heck Mike... you're a quick reader!

[MtB]

I was asking on behalf of all boaters, if you read my post!!