Range not distance

IT SEEMS reasonably clear that the guidance (not rules) that CaRT have issued refers to the cruising range, not cruising distance, writes Mike Todd.

However, a number of articles, here and elsewhere, continue to misrepresent what appears to be expected.

Not meet the criterion

In this context it is meaningless to do the arithmetic. Range implies that a boater must be recorded at two places that are at least the specific distance apart. It says nothing (other than the implication that the cruising distance will therefore not be less than this). Repeatedly moving short distances, however frequent and however much they add up, will not of itself necessarily meet this criterion.

It is also important to take into account that even with the latest guidance there is no statement of what is necessary (not least because it currently seems common ground that the law would not permit that) but sets out the basis on which CaRT will prioritise enforcement action.

A kind of parole

As stated, its action is not in the first instance to seize or remove a boat. Rather, it is a 'refusal to licence' which subsequently will lead to more direct enforcement if the boater chooses not to take one of the options offered to demonstrate that they are able to 'satisfy the Board' that they are undertaking bona fide navigation.

If challenged in court, CaRT will have to show that not only is it entitled to conclude that an individual boater has not complied but also that its subsequent actions are fair and proportionate. Hence the decision to offer short term licences—a kind of parole!

Focusing on the obvious

Of course, cruising range, on its own, can cover a number of patterns and could be satisfied by someone making a single annual trip of 20km and then staying in one place for the rest of the year. However, nothing in the CRT statement suggests that demonstrating a 12 miles range will, on its own, automatically avoid enforcement action. CaRT are prioritising their activity, not limiting it, by focusing on the most obvious cases first. In so doing they may also have to satisfy a court that they have been fair and have not acted in a prejudicial way for reasons not related to the pattern of cruising.