Not in the public interest
THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) have refused to make public a copy of the judgment in the case of CaRT vs Mayers, writes Allan Richards.
Despite other judgments being published on its website, CaRT have refused to provide a copy, instead providing a link to a copy on the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) website.
Amended three times
The Trust provides guidance for boaters without a home mooring on its legal interpretation of Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Although the Act has remained unchanged, the ‘guidance' has been amended three times, the last being to reflect a judgment in the case of BW vs Davis.
With the collapse of a Judicial Review (despite CaRT arguing that it should go ahead) which might have brought some clarity to the guidance being a reasonable interpretation of the law, the Trust can only determine if the advice that they give boaters is sound by relying on comments made by judges when cases are defended.
Supressing
It would seem, however, that CaRT has attempted to supress the Mayers judgment because it contradicts the ‘guidance'. In particular, Judge Halbert suggested that, contrary to CaRT's guidance, distance was not important in complying with the law and that repeated journeys between two places may be sufficient to comply.
Compare that with British Waterways' guidance prior to the Davis case which states ‘the law requires a genuine progressive journey (a cruise) around the network or a significant part of it'.
.... and then we have the meetings with national boating associations where CaRT have attempted to gain endorsement for setting a ‘minimum distance'. One has to wonder if they would have been so keen to play along with this concept and indeed suggest that the minimum distance should be set high, if CaRT had made them aware of the judgment?
Apologise
Over a week ago, CaRT's chief executive, Richard Parry was asked if he would ‘apologise to boating groups for not making the Mayers judgment available to them before starting discussions on which it has a bearing'.
As is so often the case he did not answer the question directly but in a roundabout way suggested that he had nothing to apologise for as the guidance did not need changing. Specifically, he claimed, ‘...there was nothing in this case that changed our view of our Guidance. That's why we've not changed it'.
Not in the public interest
Asked to provide a copy of any document held that would support the chief executive's assertion that there was nothing in the judgment that changed CaRT's view of its guidance, the Trust have claimed such documents exist.
The Trust has, however, refused to publish the documents claiming that it is ‘not in the public interest' to do so.
Why?
[Here is Geoff Mayers account of CaRT's treatment—LINK]