Parry on Mayers

IT IS PLEASING to see Canal & River Trust (CaRT) Chief Executive, Richard Parry, enter the debate concerning the Trust's failure to publish the court's findings in the case of Geoff Mayers (CaRT court orders and judgments), writes Allan Richards.

Whilst his executive team have all, at one time or another, contributed to narrowboatworld it is true to say that his predecessor, Robin Evans never did. However, I suspect that many readers will find his claim that ‘As a general rule we don't publish the detailed Court Judgments on our site because they typically include details on the individual concerned' does not bear scrutiny'.

Part 8

Quite simply, the Trust does not publish most judgments because they have no substantive findings. As the Trust's normal method of initiating court proceedings is by use of 'Part 8' which maximises the opportunity of the case being undefended, judges can do little but acquiesce to CaRT's demands. Where cases are defended, such as Moore and Ward then CaRT have published the judgments.

Furthermore, those judgments do include 'details on the individual concerned' that Mr Parry claims as a reason for not publishing.

Maggie

Regular readers of narrowboatworld will remember the case of 'Maggie', the boater with a known history of mental illness, who CaRT evicted from her home and was last heard of living in a tent. It seems that the Trust was happy to publish a court order that gave her real name and also the name that she preferred to use—‘Lucifer'.

Sorry Richard, but your excuse for not publishing on confidentiality grounds simply does not hold water.

Davis and Mayers

Perhaps the question as to whether CaRT should have published the Mayers judgment is best considered by reviewing the Davies case. The Davis case was a few years ago but it appears that no other records exist of any defended ‘continuous cruiser' case. This is somewhat surprising when you consider that CaRT's trustees have been told that almost half of those without home moorings are non-compliant because they do not move a sufficient distance.

The two cases have parallels in that the judges did not need to consider BW/CaRT's guidance to boaters without a home mooring to find in CaRT's favour. However, in both cases the judges, commented on the guidance.

In the Davis case, the judge commented on the guidance because BW asked him to comment (this is stated in the judgment). In the recent aborted judicial review concerning CaRT's guidance for boaters without a home mooring, the Trust was anxious that the case proceeded because it wanted to hear the judges views. It follows that there was a high probability that it asked the judge to comment in the Mayers case.

So why are CaRT attempting to suppress those comments by not publishing the full document?

Published Davis judgment

It was narrowboatworld that highlighted the importance of the ‘defended' Davis case to boaters without a home mooring. The importance being that BW asked the judge to comment on its guidance being a reasonable interpretation of the law and felt duty bound to act on those comments.

Here is part of BW's reply to a Freedom of Information request made via the whatdotheyknow.com website asking that a copy of the Davis judgment be placed in the public domain:

'.... We very much welcome continuous cruising on our canals and rivers and are, as a result of the Learned Judge's findings, refining our Mooring Guidance. The refined Guidance which is based on professional legal advice, including from Leading Counsel, will be published on our website and we will shortly be inviting representatives of national boating user groups to discuss these'.

BW not only provided a copy of the Davis judgment via the whatdotheyknow.com website but also published it on its own site. CaRT subsequently published the Davis judgment on its website but it has now been removed.

Why?

Differences

Whilst the the Davis and Mayers cases have parallels, the reader will have noted that the response to the judgments differs completely.

BW not only published the Davis judgment, it subsequently changed its mooring guidance (indeed the mooring guidance makes direct reference to the case).

On the other hand, CaRT hid the Mayers judgment for over a year and is still making excuses for not publishing it. It has not altered its guidance or stated why it feels that it does not need to do so. Furthermore, it has been having discussions with boating user groups with a view to making changes which are contrary to the judges findings whilst hiding those findings from the user groups.

Unfortunately, with the departure of CaRT's ‘legal director' this mess can only be laid at Richard Parry's door.

Get it sorted Richard!

[We have received many emails concerning our spelling of the word judgment, and would point out though the spelling judgement is in general use, when appertaining to court matters it is spelt without the first 'e', hence judgment.]