How far to travel?

YOUR columns seems to add to the confusion that exists over the use of 'distance travelled' in determining the vexed question of bona fide navigation, writes Mike Todd.

Various judgments, including that involving Mayers, indicate that whilst distance travelled is not determinate it is relevant.

Confuses

This is an ancient distinction, well known to ancient Greek philosophers who gave it a clear formulation, but one which still confuses some media commentators and others with a pre-disposition to a specific outcome.

As the law currently stands and is being interpreted, it is not generally possible to say, "I have travelled x miles in the past month and therefore am compliant". However, the converse may be stated, "You have travelled less than y miles and therefore are not compliant" if y is less than a manifestly reasonable quantity. (Many people ignore the fact that 'reasonable' is a good and useful term used in courts to make sensible decisions).

Cited as evidence

The judge in Mayers case went further and stated that although the law does not permit CaRT setting a specific lower limit for compliance, the distance travelled and the nature of that travel may be cited as evidence that a boater was engaged in bona fide navigation. Again, this will necessitate the use of 'reasonable' in reaching decisions and that is what courts are usually very good at doing.

The judge, it seems to me, was being quite helpful all round. He realised that a specific distance may have unintended consequences (Beware what you wish for!) as some quite reasonable, certainly historical, activities may not fulfil this criterion. If it were established and then rigorously enforced there would probably be an even greater outcry over the outcome.

Not compliant

For example, a shortish journey between two points, repeated regularly would be compliant if it was a consequence of undertaking a properly justified canal-based activity such as transporting a cargo, being a fuel boat, or running leisure trips. The same journey would not be compliant if it was evidently only in order to avoid the need to navigate.

Equally there seems to be unnecessary criticism of the evident desire by CaRT to establish some generally accepted guidelines. It is crucial to bear in mind that courts only become involved once one party has initiated action. If no recourse to the courts is taken, then they cannot help. As a result, it can sometimes be very helpful all round if it is made clear that certain situations will be considered by CaRT as compliant. They do not have to do this and it is not binding and is always open to an individual to contest in court. However, it does mean that a much reduced number of cases end up in enforcement as most people are able to decide for themselves how to comply. Of course, there will always be those who push at the boundaries—one reason why hard limits can be counter-productive.

Draw breath

I believe that it would be in the interests of most boaters if the various organisations could draw breath for a little while and think through the consequences of what some are pushing for: CaRT in creating ever more complex guidance and boater organisations wanting hard criteria rather than softer ones that allow some wriggle room to permit sensible, sometimes compassionate, individual agreements. Time for Solomon rather than Atilla!