Canoes and access again!

The bad one · Mar 8, 2017

Seems David Hart QC's legal opinion/advice has stood up in court. So may be money well spent by ATr in seeking it?

Canoeists CANNOT paddle up fishing venues - Angler's Mail

Peter Jacobs · Mar 8, 2017

ABOUT BLOODY TIME TOO!

Now, lets see the Law being upheld.

“We hope that David Hart’s very clear legal advice and the costly experiences of Mr Povey and Mr Biddulph will now lead to a more sensible position from the canoeing governing bodies and the small minority of individual paddlers who have taken a militant approach to this issue in recent years.”

David Hart’s main 5 legal points

There is no general Public Right of Navigation on English and Welsh non-tidal rivers for canoeists.
A public right of navigation (PRN) can only be established by long use of vessels on the relevant stretch of river.
That use must have been regular and habitual, and must have made the river of substantial practical value as a channel of communication or transport.
The time for which that use must be established is ‘time immemorial.’
The law is entirely clear on the above issues.

maggot_dangler · Mar 8, 2017

A step in the right direction i believe .

PG ...

mikench · Mar 8, 2017

Sadly the type of person who will persist in this activity will not read my learned friend's opinion. I remember a recent post about the damage a 2oz:wh lead can do!

thecrow · Mar 8, 2017

Peter Jacobs said:
Now, lets see the Law being upheld

That will be the problem Peter unless anglers can identify the paddlers and their details there is no chance of doing anything about illegal paddlers. Who will stop them?

The EA have no interest in stopping it, they are far to busy not talking to their different departments and decimating bankside habitat to do anything.

Police? I can just imagine what type of response a report of illegal paddling would bring.

Imo the only way that anything can be done to send a clear message out is one that has been posted by Steve in the past, i.e. a concerted team effort from clubs and authorities to bring them to court, more chance of my hair growing back I reckon.

A bucket of paint tipped onto them from a bridge would enable identification at a later time wouldn't it?

thames mudlarker · Mar 8, 2017

thecrow said:
That will be the problem Peter unless anglers can identify the paddlers and their details there is no chance of doing anything about illegal paddlers. Who will stop them?

The EA have no interest in stopping it, they are far to busy not talking to their different departments and decimating bankside habitat to do anything.

Police? I can just imagine what type of response a report of illegal paddling would bring.

Imo the only way that anything can be done to send a clear message out is one that has been posted by Steve in the past, i.e. a concerted team effort from clubs and authorities to bring them to court, more chance of my hair growing back I reckon.

A bucket of paint tipped onto them from a bridge would enable identification at a later time wouldn't it?

Absolutely mate, well said :thumbs:

Mmm.....paint off of the bridge would identify em, sought of thing I'd do if I got seriously pi##ed off, except I'd probably mix schit with it aswell :wh...........

lols

sagalout · Mar 8, 2017

thecrow said:
more chance of my hair growing back

Mine has loads, oh, I thought you said growing on me back :w

geoffmaynard · Mar 8, 2017

The AM article says "“The EA are toothless and really need more powers to tackle the problem head on.” This type of reporting is a joke. The EA have all the powers in the country. They ARE the authority. They are also not suitable for purpose and their dept heads need a month in a re-education camp.

thecrow · Mar 8, 2017

geoffmaynard said:
They are also not suitable for purpose

Spot on Geoff, imo it will never change until licence money goes to an EA (or whatever it could be called) that stands apart from all the other EA departments

The bad one · Mar 8, 2017

The thread is about canoeing not whether the EA is fit for purpose or not!
And Geoff they, the EA, are the authority over the H2O and its movement through the system not the land and riparian rights (RR) it flows over. RR are the landowners responsibility and generally fall under the common law of the land not the criminal as you know.

What's needed is for the trespass on to any land based H2O to be made a criminal offence, (a change in the law) irrespective of who owns the land under it. Then they would be the Authority policing it. But as it stands under the common law the landowners are the only people who can police it.

Crow a fisheries stand alone dept (Total income 30m) would get eaten alive by flood defence, abstraction/discharge depts around 200m income. It was like that when the Water Authorities were in control 1970s and fisheries always lost out to the above mentioned depts. The cry then was for an integrated system. And I've seen nothing to suggest the same wouldn't happen again. In all honesty Govt are making suggestions that in 2 years + time "unnecessary legislation” will be changed after we leave the EU.

David Davis stated last night on the One Show we will adopt all EU laws into UK law and when we have left the EU and they are under UK law we'll get rid of the unnecessary ones. Be careful for what you wish for! Many Environmental Regulations from the EU have in many quarters of this Govt been seen as unnecessary and a draw on business.

thames mudlarker · Mar 8, 2017

The bad one said:
The thread is about canoeing not whether the EA is fit for purpose or not!
And Geoff they, the EA, are the authority over the H2O and its movement through the system not the land and riparian rights (RR) it flows over. RR are the landowners responsibility and generally fall under the common law of the land not the criminal as you know.

What's needed is for the trespass on to any land based H2O to be made a criminal offence, (a change in the law) irrespective of who owns the land under it. Then they would be the Authority policing it. But as it stands under the common law the landowners are the only people who can police it.

Crow a fisheries stand alone dept (Total income 30m) would get eaten alive by flood defence, abstraction/discharge depts around 200m income. It was like that when the Water Authorities were in control 1970s and fisheries always lost out to the above mentioned depts. The cry then was for an integrated system. And I've seen nothing to suggest the same wouldn't happen again. In all honesty Govt are making suggestions that in 2 years + time "unnecessary legislation” will be changed after we leave the EU.

David Davis stated last night on the One Show we will adopt all EU laws into UK law and when we have left the EU and they are under UK law we'll get rid of the unnecessary ones. Be careful for what you wish for! Many Environmental Regulations from the EU have in many quarters of this Govt been seen as unnecessary and a draw on business.

Very informative info there, thank you for sharing :thumbs:

Peter Jacobs · Mar 9, 2017

This is absolutely correct and should be read carefully.

Thanks Phil for posting it.

The bad one said:
The thread is about canoeing not whether the EA is fit for purpose or not!
And Geoff they, the EA, are the authority over the H2O and its movement through the system not the land and riparian rights (RR) it flows over. RR are the landowners responsibility and generally fall under the common law of the land not the criminal as you know.

What's needed is for the trespass on to any land based H2O to be made a criminal offence, (a change in the law) irrespective of who owns the land under it. Then they would be the Authority policing it. But as it stands under the common law the landowners are the only people who can police it.

Crow a fisheries stand alone dept (Total income 30m) would get eaten alive by flood defence, abstraction/discharge depts around 200m income. It was like that when the Water Authorities were in control 1970s and fisheries always lost out to the above mentioned depts. The cry then was for an integrated system. And I've seen nothing to suggest the same wouldn't happen again. In all honesty Govt are making suggestions that in 2 years + time "unnecessary legislation” will be changed after we leave the EU.

David Davis stated last night on the One Show we will adopt all EU laws into UK law and when we have left the EU and they are under UK law we'll get rid of the unnecessary ones. Be careful for what you wish for! Many Environmental Regulations from the EU have in many quarters of this Govt been seen as unnecessary and a draw on business.

mikench · Mar 9, 2017

Can I just say that trespass remains a civil offence and whilst actionable one has to show damage! It is not a criminal offence hence the common notice that " trespassers will be prosecuted" is factually incorrect! It should be "trespassers will be sued"!

Not as off putting

binka · Mar 9, 2017

mikench said:
Can I just say that trespass remains a civil offence and whilst actionable one has to show damage! It is not a criminal offence hence the common notice that " trespassers will be prosecuted" is factually incorrect! It should be "trespassers will be sued"!

Not as off putting

That is correct as I understand it Mike.

Also,

It can easily escalate into a criminal offence if the civil trespass is accompanied by abusive language and or/threatening behaviour, amongst other things, but I list those as examples as that is what is often the result when these militants are challenged.

This is by definition of the CPS themselves and can be directed at the land owner or any authorised 'agent' on their land.

I posted a link to the CPS website with the relevant wording back in the other thread.

Either way I think a complaint to the Police concerning criminal trespass of this type will be met with about as much interest as the EA and CaRT show towards the matter.

None!

binka said:
Trespass and Nuisance on Land: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

mikench · Mar 10, 2017

binka said:
That is correct as I understand it Mike.

Also,

It can easily escalate into a criminal offence if the civil trespass is accompanied by abusive language and or/threatening behaviour, amongst other things, but I list those as examples as that is what is often the result when these militants are challenged.

This is by definition of the CPS themselves and can be directed at the land owner or any authorised 'agent' on their land.

I posted a link to the CPS website with the relevant wording back in the other thread.

Either way I think a complaint to the Police concerning criminal trespass of this type will be met with about as much interest as the EA and CaRT show towards the matter.

None!

You are right Steve! The police cannot be bothered with reports of burglary, assaults or fly tipping! I cannot see a report about someone paddling their own canoe , both literally and metaphorically , will excite plod

Neil Maidment · Mar 10, 2017

All well and good but this is The Angler's Mail "reporting" stuff well out of date again.

This case (Mr. Povey being the paddler concerned) was highlighted in the ATr statement back in January. It was an injunction to restrain him from paddling outside the terms of an Access Agreement. He initially thought he would fight that application but quickly changed his mind and gave an undertaking to the High Court to only paddle within the Agreement. He is supposedly contributing towards the costs of the clubs and organisations involved.

As discussed in the other Forum Thread, the ATr wrote to the Canoeing Governing Bodies with six "demands".

The silence remains deafening!

:wh

wyncroft · Mar 10, 2017

binka said:
That is correct as I understand it Mike.

Also,

It can easily escalate into a criminal offence if the civil trespass is accompanied by abusive language and or/threatening behaviour, amongst other things, but I list those as examples as that is what is often the result when these militants are challenged.

You're right, plain trespass is a civil offence, trespass with intent to disrupt a lawful activity could be charged as aggravated trespass. I remember this from shooting in days past, to deal with interruptions from saboteurs/protesters. The difference is though, and as confirmed in the link you provide "[trespassers]... may disrupt a lawful activity (for example, rounding up sheep) by doing so, but unless they have the relevant intention, they do not commit the offence. Proof of this specific intent is necessary for conviction."

With a shoot saboteur it's a fairly easy case to prove, however unless there's specific and proven intent to disrupt fishing activity, rather than disruption as a by-product of passing by people fishing under a falsely perceived PRN, there still has been no crime committed.

binka · Mar 10, 2017

wyncroft said:
You're right, plain trespass is a civil offence, trespass with intent to disrupt a lawful activity could be charged as aggravated trespass. I remember this from shooting in days past, to deal with interruptions from saboteurs/protesters. The difference is though, and as confirmed in the link you provide "[trespassers]... may disrupt a lawful activity (for example, rounding up sheep) by doing so, but unless they have the relevant intention, they do not commit the offence. Proof of this specific intent is necessary for conviction."

With a shoot saboteur it's a fairly easy case to prove, however unless there's specific and proven intent to disrupt fishing activity, rather than disruption as a by-product of passing by people fishing under a falsely perceived PRN, there still has been no crime committed.

Thanks wyncroft, I understand what you are saying.

I still think the answer to this lies with a partisan approach between the EA and the Angling Trust, I feel as though the Angling Trust are now pulling their weight on this particular issue but without action at ground level it's meaningless because nothing actually changes, it certainly hasn't on the affected stretches of river which I fish and where the abusive militants continue to stick two fingers up at the ruling.

The Angling Trust already work closely enough with the EA to be able to suggest 'stings' on troubled stretches of rivers, the equipment in the form of a launch is already with the EA as they use them to check licences (something ironic there imo if they won't also deploy them for use against illegal paddlers) and it's a simple case of having a PCSO on the bank so that details can be verified before an attempt at a prosecution begins.

The fact that Canal and River Trust are aware of the problem too but have no plans to inform the paddlers which they actively encourage onto waterways is beyond a joke.

I actually wonder if there is something negligent in that, based on it being a statutory duty to inform paddlers of their legal obligations with regards to trespass?

mikench · Mar 10, 2017

I would have thought that an initial approach could be , on particularly troubled stretches of river ,to affix notices in prominent positions on the bank( where canoeists usually enter and exit the river) that they have no rights to navigate the river and trespassers will be sued( prosecuted as they may not be aware ) !

There will not be one solution that either works or fits all, there never is , but a start should be made. The same notices could say "Anglers rights are to be respected; they pay for the upkeep of this river and the right to fish you do not"

thecrow · Mar 10, 2017

mikench said:
I would have thought that an initial approach could be , on particularly troubled stretches of river ,to affix notices in prominent positions on the bank( where canoeists usually enter and exit the river) that they have no rights to navigate the river and trespassers will be sued( prosecuted as they may not be aware ) !

There will not be one solution that either works or fits all, there never is , but a start should be made. The same notices could say "Anglers rights are to be respected; they pay for the upkeep of this river and the right to fish you do not"

Maybe 2 notices one each side of the river.

With a cheese wire stretched between them

Canoes and access again!

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Content Editor

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

binka

Guest

Well-known member

Moderator

Member

binka

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member