Boating offences - disproportionate punishments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted User YDKXO
  • Start date Start date
Yes, it's the shipping lanes at Dover - to give it's proper name, the Dover Strait Traffic Separation Scheme. One of many around the world, a bit like a marine motorway.

The incident concerned a delivery skipper who went in the wrong direction (i.e. against the flow of shipping) for nearly an hour, at considerable speed.

The TSS is monitored by radar by Dover Coastguard (English side) and CROSS Gris-Nez (French coastguard). All vessels are monitored, but only those over a certain tonnage are required to advise the CG of their passage. Alongside the two main "lanes" are inshore traffic zones, which are not regulated in the same way and in which small craft can navigate as normal. When a radar target is picked up as doing something wrong, the Coastguard will attempt contact by VHF radio. If no response, the Islander aircraft from the UK will be scrambled to identify and overfly the vessel concerned.

If you want to cross the TSS, you have to do so at right angles to the direction of flow. You do not need consent to do so if you are under the tonnage limit.

More info here : http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home...ss_chartlet.htm

and

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home...ory_of_cnis.htm
 
May I join in ?

What have the Road Traffic Act penalties got to do with the penalties for contravention of the TSS regulations ?

The courts act on the information brought before them and decide on the culpability, or otherwise, of the defendant. Any penalties imposed, should the defendant be found guilty, and after mitigation, are based on the court's view of the severity of the offence and possible repercussions.

As the maximum fine on summary conviction for contravention of the sea lanes is £50,000 + costs many of these cases are heard to finality in the Magistrates' Court and so are usually heard in areas adjacent to the area in which the offence has taken place and the Magistrates concerned are well aware of the consequences and implications of the offence.

Where many of the large punishments are involved the court costs are a more than significant factor because the offence is not a common one and so may require more in the way of preparation.

Holding a subjective view on the severity or otherwise of the penalty imposed is everyone's right but, unless you were in court at the hearing, you have not reached that view with the benefit of hearing the facts in a public court and so must agree that the subjective view may well be flawed.

I have had the 'pleasure' of conning a VLCC (370 mtrs 13.8 mtr draft) with 0.9mtr UKC (Under Keel Clearance) on an extremely tightly planned passage when my way was hampered by a small group of MoBos insisting on the centre channel. It is not a pleasant experience and the choices limited, basically try and avoid them, run ashore and possibly dump 300,000 tonnes of oil in the water and hazard the crew, or run into them with all the risks to their safety. In this case the bow wave pushed them aside and I only had to listen to the invective as they passed close alongside.

Tom
 
Mike, I agree with your statement, and can feel the frustration you express in your post.
Had similar feelings in Holland and Kroatia where we got fines, totally disproportional with fines you got on road traffic.
We had fines for speeding (2x), but also for not having the latest documents on board, not having enough live vests in a zodiac, diving on a forbidden location, not carring the deadmans lanyard.
And alway's with an attitude "they can buy a boat so they have to be punished and get a very big fine"
 
Re: Short answer, no.

I think one point which may have been overlooked is that in the road scenario the fine is only one element of the punishment. The award of penalty points is a much bigger disincentive. That's not available as a punishment outside the environment where you need to maintain a licence to be able to drive the vehicle.
 
The Dover TSS is no different to any other except that it is very busy and watched over by the UK's Coastguard.

If you read the col regs, it explains that you can cross any TSS as long as you do so at right angles an keep clear of other vessels that are travellingg within the TSS. There is nothing that says that you cant actually use and travel along the TSS in a small boat as long as you obey the rules within TSS.

So, Dover is just like any other sea area except that its busy.
 
This case was not about CROSSING the lanes. This was going the WRONG WAY at speed. If you think thats OK I am glad I dont boat with you. I thought he got off lightly.

Comparison with the penalties for other offences always lead nowhere. The guy broke the law and the courts dealt with him on the facts of case.

This is absolutely nothing to do with the government and its current policies. There are no "little Hitlers" policing the TSS. They act under an international treaty jointly with the French and share resposibility for surveillance.

So off the "political" soapbox and keep the debate focused on maritime matters.
 
Keep your hair on

I wasn't at any time suggesting that it was OK to break the rules of the TSS and I never would do anything like that myself.

My point is, as you say, purely political.

The more money thats allocated to this sort of thing the more that we'll get the little "Hitlers" out there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Neither fine was "dealt out" by a government agency. In both cases, the matter was brought before the courts, who could have levied far lower fines if they thought appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very naive if you think that. Court penalties are controlled by tariffs set by politicians and civil servants. The court will have little choice about the level of fine they could have handed out
 
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of takes the wind out of your sails doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? Well you'll have to explain that one to me because it exactly proves my point that driving offences are potentially far more dangerous yet much more leniently dealt with
 
But the court held it was an offence for him to be going the wrong way in the big ship lane.

While I agree with many of the sentiments about creeping regulation (watch out for Eborders!) I dont agree with the emotive soap box language and in particular the attempt to use these two examples in the argument. They are nothing to do with the current government. The TSS was set up when GB ws barely out of short trousers and is designed to regulate big ships. The penalties for offences are therefore set at a level that fits big ship operations and all that means, not at leisure boaters. The scheme is obviously successful as the area is much safer and the number of prosecutions is very small.

The same goes for Harbour Authorities. These have been in existence for many years and Parliament gives them the responsibility to ensure safety in their area. It also gives them authority to establish bye laws to regulate the harbour. This may include speed limits and exclusion zones. The major multi use harbours such as Poole, Southampton, Portsmouth, Dover etc have a difficult job balancing the needs of different users, and mostly they do this by negotiation, education and friendly advice. They rarely resort to the courts as that is not their role. Again the safety record of our ports is excellent. Smaller authorities such as Hamble have different priorities balancing the needs of users in a very congested estuary. Speed limits have an important role in this. Prosecutions are rare because most people conform. There is no fixed penalty system which removes the punishment element to the courts, which are the bedrock of our legal system.

As we all know, recreational boating is virtually unregulated (but under threat) because participants are responsible people. Legislators find difficulty in getting support for controls because there is so little "crime".

There are plenty of other arenas where one can air ones views about government policy and fairness of penalties - but linking them to boating is not productive.
So far the RYA and other bodies have been successful in keeping the regulators at bay. The next and probably biggest challenge of all time will be Eborders. Let us hope government gets p****d off with the vast waste of money and cans it so that it can concentrate on the real issues the country faces.
 
-- Court penalties are controlled by tariffs set by politicians and civil servants. The court will have little choice about the level of fine they could have handed out --

The 'tariffs' you talk about are there to encourage consistency in sentencing nationally and are only to be considered as a starting point for a first time offender pleading not guilty, aggravation, mitigation, effects on the victim and personal circumstances all play their part. Courts can, and do, depart from these guidelines, both above and below, regularly.

If you don't have much of a life you can look at www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk and the actual Magistrates' Guidelines at http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/magistrates_court_sentencing_guidelines_update.pdf where you will find more about this than you really want to know !!

Tom
 
Yes, and if you look at the report of the TSS case you will see that the court specifically took into account the factors in the case. This is why in "unusual" cases such as this courts are the best place to ensure fairness as both sides can put their arguments.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of takes the wind out of your sails doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? Well you'll have to explain that one to me because it exactly proves my point that driving offences are potentially far more dangerous yet much more leniently dealt with

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple. Your first post was whining on about how "inadvertently" straying up a motorway the wrong way would only get you a £100 fine, isn't it terrible the poor little guy in the Dover TSS got fined so heavily, blah blah, little hitlers, blah blah..

Perhaps if you'd said "How can something as dangerous as driving up the M1 the wrong way be punished so lightly" more people might have agreed with you.

Hey ho.
 
There is a disproportionality in the punishment for both offences. That's exactly my point. I take it this means you agree with me?
 
The courts certainly cannot turn a £100 tariff into a £6000 fine so somebody has set a very high tariff on marine related offences. I just wonder whether it's the same people who are doing the prosecuting that influence the tariff?
 
Are you saying that the TSS penalty is too lenient? Think I would agree with that. However, the court was in a much better position to decide as they heard all the evidence. So any observation including mine is purely a subjective personal view.

That is why these sorts of debates never get anywhere.

I think all people that use hand held mobile phones while driving (illegal) should have said hands chopped off.

Discuss!

And you might hit the 100 post barrier and still be no further forward toward a rational position.
 
Tell me Deleted User, you allege lack of proportionality - so you must have a view as to what would be an appropriate penalty in each case.

What is this please and what are your reasons for reaching the decision ?

Just as well we are not subject to justice advocated at the pub bar !!

Tom
 
See my earlier post. This is not a tariff offence. This is an unusual case with its own specific features. I don't know exactly what the maximum is, but as it is set to penalise large ships who break the law, and their owners it is likely to be many times higher than £6k. Given he pleaded guilty and there was no accident, I guess the court set the fine as low as it could while still making the point. I don't recall any other leisure boater being charged with this offence so guess there is little precedent on fines.

This is one of the reasons why it is a bad example for you to use in making your point about increased regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top