|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 30, 2018 17:54:02 GMT
I wonder if the rather officious sounding volunteer in this case would have denied the OP his public right of navigation through the lock had he refused to comply. If they had refused passage, the situation would be the same as described in the thread concerning the Thames Locks at Brentford; ignorance of the law is no excuse – they would have committed a criminal offence, and been subject to prosecution for the same. The classic case involving use of locks to prevent passage along a public navigable river is :– Conservators of the River Thames v Smeed Dean & Co: CA 1897 2 QB 334 Ratio: The erection of a lock or pound lock otherwise than for the maintenance or improvement of navigation would be ultra vires by a Navigation Authority and in all likelihood a nuisance. Chitty LJ said: ‘The Conservators are a statutory body brought into existence for the purpose of preserving, improving and maintaining the navigation of the River Thames . . but the powers granted to them by the 1894 Act are all subservient thereto and except for these purposes no powers are granted to them at all. It might seem an old case, but it was cited with approval as recently as 2005 in the case of Jones v Environment Agency, as it had been in the 2003 Court of Appeal case of Rowlands v Environment Agency. The 2003 case approved the judgment below, wherein, amongst other things, a particular obstruction of navigation was described as “the original criminal offence”. The same Appeal Judgment noted that as early as 1884 a Select Committee had stated : - “ the rights of the public to move in boats over any and every part of the river through which Thames water flows, as in an ancient and free highway, wherever they are not of necessity and, for the time, excluded by the requirements of the navigation, should be clearly declared:” The proper course of action for the lock-keeper if convinced that a boat was violating the law, would have been to record the incident without refusing passage, and lodge the details with their superiors for them to take such action as they deemed appropriate; refusal of passage could never be a legal option under the circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 18:26:36 GMT
The Rowlands case was interesting as I spent a couple of years on my narrow boat living on the Thames around Cookham in 1995/6. Hedsor water was claimed to be private and signage erected to indicate such. A while later (2003 it would seem) someone objected in court and it was found that the water is not private. Navigation rights were restored all the way up to Hedsor weir. Cookham has two weirs - Odney and Hedsor. Slight problem is it is very shallow under the footbridge close to Cookham lock so caution is advisable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 18:30:37 GMT
The proper course of action for the lock-keeper if convinced that a boat was violating the law, would have been to record the incident without refusing passage, and lodge the details with their superiors for them to take such action as they deemed appropriate; refusal of passage could never be a legal option under the circumstances. Might be interesting to test that Another time
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 30, 2018 20:06:08 GMT
A while later (2003 it would seem) someone objected in court and it was found that the water is not private. The 'someone' was Josie Rowlands herself, who became incensed at speed boats 'intruding' into 'her' exclusive waters. It rather backfired on her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 20:18:43 GMT
Yes. The widow of the "lovely" tiny Rowland en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_RowlandFor some reason I was rather pleased when the " private water " scam was exposed. To be fair (if its worth it) I believe the justification did go back a bit so they may have genuinely believed the water was private. As well as being scumbags obviously.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 30, 2018 22:53:53 GMT
Just by way of adding a couple of points of minor, historic interest to this, back in the days when companies such as Willow Wren were still occasionally using the Thames with pairs of (cargo carrying) narrowboats the lock keepers could, and did, exercise discretion in waiving insistence on complying with the byelaw on stopping engines in locks, even after all the Bolinders, Seffles, and Nationals had been replaced with electric start Petters and Listers.
One other little known fact, which may or may not still apply, is that back then Thames lock keepers had the same powers of arrest as a serving police officer.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 7:47:18 GMT
I notice that there is a designated offence - other than the general one of obstructing PRN’s, applicable to any member of the public - that relates specifically to employees on the Thames, with a fixed applicable penalty. It is created under the Thames Conservancy Act 1932, and I have been unable to discover any repeal of this in the subsequent relevant Acts and Orders.
78. If any officer or servant of the Conservators shall give undue preference to or unnecessarily retard or obstruct any vessel passing into through by over or out of any lock or from any one part to any other part of the Thames . . . he shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 7:50:08 GMT
One other little known fact, which may or may not still apply, is that back then Thames lock keepers had the same powers of arrest as a serving police officer. Do you have an authority for that Tony? I haven't seen it in any of the Acts from 1932 on, though I could easily have missed it, and I haven't checked back through earlier Acts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 7:58:25 GMT
Its interesting. Another related thing is that Thames patrol boats (upper Thames EA formerly NRA formerly Thames Water formerly Thames conservancy) carry blue lights.
As I understand it the officers aboard do not have arrest powers the blue light is there in case police need to commandeer the vessel for any reason.
The suggestion of lock keepers having had limited police powers does make some sense as some of the Thames locks are very isolated specially before the advent of motor vehicles and particularly in winter.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 31, 2018 8:08:10 GMT
The suggestion of lock keepers having had limited police powers does make some sense as some of the Thames locks are very isolated specially before the advent of motor vehicles and particularly in winter. This is an interesting suggestion that maybe cart can follow. If they trained up all the volunteer lock keepers as community police officers, then they could hassle the government for some of the policing budget as well as some of the health budget.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 8:11:48 GMT
.... the blue light is there in case police need to commandeer the vessel for any reason. I suspect that they are able to use the blue light when responding to emergencies (without the need for police presence), similar to coastguard/mountain/cave rescue organisations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 8:13:47 GMT
That would make sense AI.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 8:39:01 GMT
Its interesting. Another related thing is that Thames patrol boats (upper Thames EA formerly NRA formerly Thames Water formerly Thames conservancy) carry blue lights. As I understand it the officers aboard do not have arrest powers the blue light is there in case police need to commandeer the vessel for any reason. The suggestion of lock keepers having had limited police powers does make some sense as some of the Thames locks are very isolated specially before the advent of motor vehicles and particularly in winter. Flashing blue lights are regulated by the byelaws; they do not need to be only for use by police if commandeered, the Authority, fire, and ambulance services may also use them, and they may only be used even so, with approval of the Authority - Lights for public service vessels
14 No vessel other than vessels being used by the Authority, and by the police, fire and ambulance services and being previously approved for the purpose by the Authority may exhibit a blue flashing light by day or by night.
Use of flashing lights
15 No vessel other than vessels described in Byelaw 14 may exhibit a flashing light or any kind by day or by night unless the prior written consent of the Authority has been obtained.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 8:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 31, 2018 9:26:02 GMT
One other little known fact, which may or may not still apply, is that back then Thames lock keepers had the same powers of arrest as a serving police officer. Do you have an authority for that Tony? I haven't seen it in any of the Acts from 1932 on, though I could easily have missed it, and I haven't checked back through earlier Acts. I can't direct you to any specific legislation on this, Nigel, but the info came from someone who I would think would be a reliable source. He was a trainee lock keeper working for what was then the Thames Conservancy and learned of this after witnessing the lock keeper he was working under board a Salters Steamer to arrest the drunken engineer after vessel failed to go astern and crashed into the gates on entering Sonning Lock.
|
|