Usually when CRT wins a Section 8 case it publishes the judgement (if there is one) on its web site. However, it made an exception in the case it won against Geoffrey Mayers, the reason being that this judgement confirms that it would be unlawful for CRT to set a minimum distance that continuous cruisers must travel to comply with the law. The Judge also stated that a boat with a home mooring does not have to actually use its mooring, something else that CRT would prefer us not to know about.
Posts Tagged ‘Paul Davies’
An enforcement officer on the Grand Union Canal recently emailed a boater without a home mooring telling them how far they should travel in order to comply with s.17 3 c ii of the 1995 British Waterways Act. He said “… if your craft is seen to be travelling in excess of 17km, moving from place to place every 14 days (unless local restrictions apply) turning around to genuinely cruise in the opposite direction there should be no issues”.
BW claimed in its reply to the River Lea mooring plan consultation responses that it had case law to support its statement that its draconian proposals for mooring restrictions did not threaten boat dwellers’ human rights. Boater Simon Robbins made a Freedom of Information request to BW in September asking for copies of the relevant judgements. BW refused Simon’s FOI request. You can read the correspondence here.
Christopher Stoner make much use of a case Moore vs British Waterways Board to define their view of ‘bona-fide for navigation’.
We notice that this case is now in the process of appeal;
And so should add an interesting twist or two.
BW have recently amended their Guidance for Continuous Cruisers
and published here
BW’s covering statement in the press release;
“The existing 2004 ‘mooring guidance for continuous cruisers’ has been refined to be more easily understood and to reflect the Judgment in the case of British Waterways v Davies, in which the Court found that moving up and down within a 10 mile stretch of the Kennet & Avon Canal with no home mooring did not amount to bona fide navigation.”
Seems to be a malicious, though not unexpected, rewriting of Judge O’Malley’s judgement which specifically states that this is not the case.