BOATER Boater Mathew Jones, who was served with a ‘Section 8' by Canal & River Trust (CaRT) as a prelude to having his boat seized, has been given leave to appeal to a full hearing at the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Lewison, writes Allan Richards.
Will be stayed
The Community Law Partnership who are handling several other Section 8 cases on behalf of boaters says that these will be stayed pending the appeal. It is hoping that CaRT will ensure that all Section 8 cases where it is not representing boaters will also be put on hold.
The case will be heard sometime between September 2015 and January 2016 and will delay hearing of other ‘Section 8' cases where part of a boaters defence relies on Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Strike out
CaRT made a successful application to ‘strike out' the Article 8 part of Mr Jones' defence when the case was heard by His Honour Judge Denyer QC in Bristol County Court on 22nd September 2014. Mr Jones then made an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court which was heard by The Honourable Mrs Justice Mcgowan on 11th February 2015.
However, on 4th June, Mr Jones was given ‘Leave to Appeal' to a full hearing of the Court of Appeal.
Article 8
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states:
‘Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'.
Ironic
Mr Jones' Barrister, James Stark of Garden Court North Chambers states: ‘Permission to appeal has been granted as it is an important question whether the Canal and River Trust is entitled to the same exception as housing authorities to the general rule that a structured approach to proportionality should be applied and that it is for the public authority to demonstrate the strength of the legitimate aims it relies on and whether its actions are proportionate to those aims'.
The National Bargee Travellers Association states: ‘It is deeply ironic that CaRT is claiming that it should be treated in the same way as a local housing authority for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for one's home) when CaRT have consistently claimed it it not a housing authority'
Ironic indeed!