Ignoring COVID-19 regulations

[DJE]

You're second statement is manifestly true, you're first "reasonable excuse" argument debatable. So I asked a lawyer. His sense is that you are most likely right, assuming you were only aboard with members of your own household.

According to the new regulations, "No person may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place other than the place where they are living". The regulations cite examples of what might constitute reasonable excuse, but these are explicitly non-exhaustive. Which means that only the courts can determine whether a particular excuse passes the reasonableness test and there is currently no case law. Nor do the new regulations explicitly address the question as to whether staying on a boat - which is not acting as a home - may be construed as part of the limitless outdoor exercise in which one is now entitled to engage.

With the additional assumptions that you have complied with all relevant bye-laws, local regulations, and colregs, that you observe the guidance on social distancing, keep your boat in good nick so as to avoid raising the risk for emergency crews, that the vessel in question is privately owned, and taking into consideration the rapidly changing and often subjective regulations, then his sense is that prosecution would be messy and unlikely.

Which in practice means it won't happen; you may receive a fine as the police aren't sure of the rules either, which it would naturally be best to just pay.

Please pass on my thanks to your learned friend.

 

[ip485]

On a side point, I have received many barristers opinions (professionally) and have yet to see one that gives 100% guarantee on what the Court would decide. There arent many that put the odds at better than 75%, and these are in the cases were you might think the outcome would be 100% certain. The fact of the matter is even Barristers find it very difficult to second guess what a Court will decide, and in the absence of any case law, that mission becomes even harder. In short treat any Barrister's pronouncement as his opinion, a professional opinion yes, well informed, I have no doubt, but never the less, just an opinion. You can get insurance to cover an opinion so if it is wrong the insurnace company pays your losses - try it sometime, and see how much the premium is, even when you have a very good opinion in your grasp. As is usully the case you can bet the insurance boys have the best risk assessment in the game.

All an aside, and personally, and FWIW, the opinion seems very reasonable and sensible.

 

[dom]

Please pass on my thanks to your learned friend.

Will do, although dunno about the learned bit! Still, sounds like you're a dab hand at the old law, p'rhaps a call to the bar beckons?

Different to the usual one that is

 

[Mudisox]

I just wish a degree of common sense prevailed. The non actions are guidance to those folk who lack it. If applied by jobsworths, I am sure that most of the cases that are quoted would be seen as ok, by higher authority. It does however lay us all up to those that think "rich sods who do not think that" laws" apply to them"- so we need to be careful and quiet about our movements. Turn off AIS etc.

 

[canvey]

Your second statement is manifestly true, your first "reasonable excuse" argument debatable. So I asked a lawyer ...

Good response, basically nails it. As does the "wrote to be deliberately vague" comment.

So I think we've got it down to ...

Legally, you're allowed to sleep *on* or *under* your boat, as it's part of the great outdoors that you're allowed unlimited access to - especially if you have a fishing rod beside you, but not *in* your boat.

You can, however, sleep *in* someone else's boat if it's owned by [your own] limited company or your friend and you're "working" at something you can't do from home.

Hope that helps. It doesn't. It's just all very silly.

Clearly we need a yottie Gina Miller. What sort of court case at which level are we talking?