Judicial Review published
Misled the public
The document confirms, once and for all, that CaRT's predecessor British Waterways misled the public in the case of BW vs Davies by claiming that the case set a binding precedent. It also confirms that CaRT misled regarding the awarding of costs in the Judicial Review itself.
Furthermore, the claim that CaRT welcomed the the decision by Nick Brown to discontinue the action (on the advice of the judge, Mr Justice Lewis) is not confirmed by the transcript. Indeed, the truth of the matter is that CaRT argued strongly that the case continue because it wanted the court's agreement that its guidelines were a good interpretation of the law!
Judge's comments
However, the main issue is the judge's comments regarding the meaning of 'place' and 'bona fide navigation' which might be persuasive in future cases.
Did CaRT attempt to prevent publication because the transcript opens a new can of worms regarding its third interpretation of a few simple words in the 1995 Act?
..... or was it really problems of copyright?
Change it
Two months back narrowboatworld stated:
Will CaRT change its guidance to reflect Mr Justice Lewis's comments on 'place' and 'bona fide navigation?
Will it scrap its guidance as being of no use to boaters in understanding the law?
Will it promote an amendment to that Act to make it clearer?
It seems that CaRT have chosen to do nothing as the court did not require this. However, it bears repeating (and it is made very clear in the transcript) that the Davies 'case', that the significant changes made to the guidance were based on comments passed by the judge despite the case not setting a binding precedent.
.... and like it or not the comments of Mr Justice Lewis are now in the public domain!
[The Freedom of Information Request for documents relating to the judicial review can be found at:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/brown_v_canal_and_river_trust
A link to the transcript and other documents made available by Nick Brown are at the bottom]