PWC Conviction Appealed

[Rogue Wave]

they can lose the lot apart from the TV licence ! they'd best keep that cos they won't be going anywhere will they!

[tim griffin]

I heard the MCA were going to appeal

I think the judge did not consider it a sea going vessel in that it was not capable of any passages , and it's ability to cope in rough water.

I think they can and do make passages and round the Island spings to mind and as it's ability to cope in the rough ,hmmmm ever heard of a Surf lifesaving RWC as used by the RNLI Beach Lifeguards , Austrailian Lifeguards, Hawaian ? Life guards , Canadian Lifeguards to name bt a few. It's one of the best rescue craft with a sled attached in the world for inshore work.

It is someones interpretation of the IRPCS and I think the MCA will win thier appeal.

It may increase local byelaws that could have a knock on effect for other craft we will have to see.
Any way thats my two pennies worth .

[codprawn]

I think to compare it to a vessel they should look at the other kinds of vessel out there.

Personally I think that a jetski has far more in common with a canoe than an oil tanker.

Most craft are restricted by some extent by ability to manoeuvre - restrictions of draft etc etc - the jetski has none of these limitations.

I must add I have never had a jetski and dont really want one - it is just that I don't have any prejuidice against them.

As long as they don't hurt anyone other than their own kind let them carry on - if they injure somone else come down on them in exactly the same way you would on anyone else including a surfer who accidently hits a swimmer.

[Rogue Wave]

I hope they do win the appeal, You can't go around injuring people on the water and getting away with it!

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

I hope they do win the appeal, You can't go around injuring people on the water and getting away with it!

Sharks do!!!

[Rogue Wave]

I think you might find more people are killed by surfboards than sharks!

The only shark that has any relevance to this thread is the Fkkr that got the jetskier off

[hard1]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

The only shark that has any relevance to this thread is the Fkkr that got the jetskier off

[The Jackeens]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

The only shark that has any relevance to this thread is the Fkkr that got the jetskier off

Sue, Grabit & Fleece?

missus

[Rogue Wave]

them's the fellas

[Powerboat]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Seek and ye shal find..

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-do...h=12&year=2005

Shaggy

Cheers Shaggy,

We have a few similar cases pending over here in Ireland.

As UK case law can be taken into acount here the case has potential implications for us as well.

Best wishes,

Stuart

[Richard B]

Interesting to observe that he pleaded guilty to the original charge.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Richard B

Interesting to observe that he pleaded guilty to the original charge.

Richard, my understanding (I have been following this for a few months) is that:

He doesn't deny causing the accident.
His lawyers initially contested that a PWC was not a ship and therefore he had not broken the Merchant Shipping Act.
The Judge at the trial was asked to make a judgement. Since the Judge decided a PWC was a ship, he pled guilty.

The appeal looked at the validity of the decision by the Judge that a PWC is a ship. The appeal is summarised here:

http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2005/CACRIM/dec0.1.htm

The act defines a ship as "every description of vessel used in navigation" the confusion seems to be whether a PWC is used in navigation (the accepted meaning seeming to involve travelling from one place to another), although you will note the ruling is more extensive and seems to be attempting to apply the act really only to commercial vessels.

There may be other legislation he has broken, e.g. if he killed someone it would be manslaughter. Presumably since there was a collision he did break the col. regs.

Neil

[codprawn]

That is a good link - and the comments made by the judge make a lot of sense!!!

For a start they come under the "Merchant shipping act" - how the hell could that cover a jetski???

[DJL]

I can’t believe that you think that PWCs shouldn’t be covered by the Merchant Shipping Act.

Its not uncommon for a modern PWC to weigh close to half a ton, be capable of speeds around 40 mph and to be powered by 100+ HP engines. Not much different to a small RIB really.

Surely Codprawn you would agree that a PWC is a potentially dangerous piece of equipment?

I certainly would, and I don’t think its particularly unreasonable for someone in charge of a PWC to “prevent his ship from causing the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other ship or any structure, or the death of or serious injury to any person not on board his ship” as required by the Merchant Shipping Act.

[Doug Stormforce]

The merchant shipping act defines a vesel as

Every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water

The MCA defines a vessel as

any contrivance used or capable of being used for navigation upon water, whether or not capable of self-propulsion, including foreign and domestic vessels engaged in commerce upon the waters of this State, passenger or other cargo carrying vessels, privately owned recreational watercraft or any other floating craft

Seems quite clear to me a surfboard, a PWC, a raft are all vessels

[mark-f]

[QUOTE=codprawn] I think to compare it to a vessel they should look at the other kinds of vessel out there.

Personally I think that a jetski has far more in common with a canoe than an oil tanker.


me thinks if it has an engine and is capable of planning speeds a pwc is a powerboats simple as that, does not mater how small it is

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Doug Stormforce

The merchant shipping act defines a vesel as

Every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water

The MCA defines a vessel as

any contrivance used or capable of being used for navigation upon water, whether or not capable of self-propulsion, including foreign and domestic vessels engaged in commerce upon the waters of this State, passenger or other cargo carrying vessels, privately owned recreational watercraft or any other floating craft

Seems quite clear to me a surfboard, a PWC, a raft are all vessels

Hell, from that description a skip is a vessel...why should jetskis be exempt?!

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by DJL

I can’t believe that you think that PWCs shouldn’t be covered by the Merchant Shipping Act.

Its not uncommon for a modern PWC to weigh close to half a ton, be capable of speeds around 40 mph and to be powered by 100+ HP engines. Not much different to a small RIB really.

Surely Codprawn you would agree that a PWC is a potentially dangerous piece of equipment?

I certainly would, and I don’t think its particularly unreasonable for someone in charge of a PWC to “prevent his ship from causing the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other ship or any structure, or the death of or serious injury to any person not on board his ship” as required by the Merchant Shipping Act.

Well obviously the judge is as wrong as I am!!!

Seriously though the MAIn point I think people are missing is the term "MERCHANT" which basically means commercial.

For a ship to come under the merchant shipping act it has to be registered as a commercial ship and comply with all the regs - would be funny seeing a jetski flying the red duster!!!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

Seriously though the MAIn point I think people are missing is the term "MERCHANT" which basically means commercial.

For a ship to come under the merchant shipping act it has to be registered as a commercial ship and comply with all the regs

This is NOT true. The definition of a ship does not require it to be registerred or opperated commercially.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Doug Stormforce

The merchant shipping act defines a vesel as

Every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water

I don't think so, the act: (the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) ) which is what the prosecution was brought about under:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995...50021_en_1.htm

This doesn't define the term vessel. It also doesn't make it "illegal" to use a vessel dangerously. IT DOES MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO USE A SHIP DANGEROUSLY. And the term SHIP is defined (as described in the link or my earlier email).

I think the definition you gave for a vessel from the Merchant Shipping Act, may be the definition used in the US act?

The nature of the law is that it is (usually) very specific, and clearly constructed so that it is enforcable. So it doesn't matter if everybody thinks a PWC is a ship - if the Act says a ship has to be used for Navigation and a PWC is not being "navigated" from one place to another then they are not covered by the Act.

I have heard of a few PWC's being used to make trips from A to B so they could still be covered. (I think there is also a tenuous argument that if you take a PWC 100 yards off shore and back again you have navigated it to do so). Its not clear to me that just because someone else navigates a PWC that all PWC are covered.

Interestingly if you have a small rib that you only use to muck about in local waters in (e.g. toobing etc) then it is probably also excluded from the act. But if you ever make a journey from a to b then I think it is different.

And Codprawn - if a RIB is included then a sea kayak almost certainly is too, as it is navigated from A to B.

Originally Posted by Doug Stormforce

Seems quite clear to me a surfboard, a PWC, a raft are all vessels

I agree - and I think it SHOULD be illegal to cause or negligently risk causing injury through the misuse of any of these - or a RIB, just as it would with an oil tanker. Do we need new legislation - i wouldn't have thought so - presumably there is already legislation on land which prevents me from doing bloody stupid things likely to harm others?

Anyway thats enough rambling for now...

NEIL