Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[JumbleDuck]

All of which is a total red herring since the solution to not being Cat 0 is not to make the boat Cat 0 but to ship it/not do the trip at all/organize an ARC style psuedo race/change flag.

I would not be surprised if The Eye of Authority now turned to the ARC's curious race-when-it-suits-them status. Everybody has had great fun ignoring the rules, but now that four people have died things are likely to be stricter in the future. I hope that individuals will still be free to take risks in their own boats, but commercial exploitation of that dispensation probably has to stop.

I'm sure the actual owner could also have contracted a third party to bring the boat back. Then made an out of court settlement with Stormforce for the cost. Stormforce could then have charged to bring another school's boat back.

In that case, bing would go any claim that it was a pleasure trip.

 

[capnsensible]

Fair point - If you're going to hypothetically modify/change the boat you can hypothetically modify/chage the crew.



Probably. Although based on zero evidence I'm wondering if the Schools/Charter Firms care about the legal side of this. It's seems clear they're not going to be prosecuted unless there's a disaster

But there has been at least one that has been prosecuted. The MAIB Enforcement Branch have been aware of this for years.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Delivering a boat for a private owner is explicitly non-commercial, albeit I've heard of delivery skippers fixing things or fitting kit before they've considered the boat safe enough.

Delivering a boat for an unrelated commercial enterprise, that's a question.


PS just playing around with the colours to see what pops-up.

Yes you are right in the case of a vessel that is effectively on charter to an organisation though even if the owner made the arrangement then I think it would be regarded as commercial. All ties between the two would need to be severed and demonstrably so.

Nice colours eh

 

[lpdsn]

I would not be surprised if The Eye of Authority now turned to the ARC's curious race-when-it-suits-them status. Everybody has had great fun ignoring the rules, but now that four people have died things are likely to be stricter in the future. I hope that individuals will still be free to take risks in their own boats, but commercial exploitation of that dispensation probably has to stop.

Which authority? I guess the UK has a better chance of having a quiet word with ISAF (or WS as they're now known) than other countries, but in general the ARC is outside their jurisdiction and the exemption about racing is quite clear. Remember also that racers are excluded from the RCD.

In that case, bang would go any claim that it was a pleasure trip.

It would never be a pleasure trip, the question is whether it would be a legitimate delivery which is also exempt.

 

[Mark-1]

I would not be surprised if The Eye of Authority now turned to the ARC's curious race-when-it-suits-them status. Everybody has had great fun ignoring the rules, but now that four people have died things are likely to be stricter in the future.

You'd think, but the four people died in spring 2015 and no crackdown has happened.

Rightly or wrongly perhaps they think there are better ways they can improve safety. Off the top of my head I'm thinking (say) resource spent on cycle safety for kids would save far more lives than a crackdown on people getting free sailing trips.

 

[Mark-1]

But there has been at least one that has been prosecuted.

I haven't seen that, linky?

 

[lpdsn]

Yes you are right in the case of a vessel that is effectively on charter to an organisation though even if the owner made the arrangement then I think it would be regarded as commercial. All ties between the two would need to be severed and demonstrably so.

If the private owner contracted Stormforce I think there would be a fairly strong argument it was commercial. But if it was an entirely unrelated Blackbeard the Pirate Deliveries Inc then the argument would be that that was an arrangement outside the relationship with Stormforce.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Which authority? I guess the UK has a better chance of having a quiet word with ISAF (or WS as they're now known) than other countries, but in general the ARC is outside their jurisdiction and the exemption about racing is quite clear. Remember also that racers are excluded from the RCD.



It would never be a pleasure trip, the question is whether it would be a legitimate delivery which is also exempt.

The problem arises if the boat is chartered to another organisation like CR was to Stormforce it would be argued that the boat was being relocated for commercial reasons. The link between owned and the other party would need to be severed. See my previous post.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

If the private owner contracted Stormforce I think there would be a fairly strong argument it was commercial. But if it was an entirely unrelated Blackbeard the Pirate Deliveries Inc then the argument would be that that was an arrangement outside the relationship with Stormforce.

No the argument stands that if the agreement is still in place then the boat is being relocated for commercial reasons.

 

[capnsensible]

I haven't seen that, linky?

In fact there were two prosecutions on the same day in Southampton, February 2011.

In one case, as I have already mentioned, RTC recognition was withdrawn immediately the charges were framed and not months or years later when it finally came to court.

One case at least was somewhat controversial so Im gonna stop there!

 

[lw395]

How did other operators bring similar boats back this Spring?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

How did other operators bring similar boats back this Spring?

They possibly contravened the regulations and got away with it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Which authority? I guess the UK has a better chance of having a quiet word with ISAF (or WS as they're now known) than other countries, but in general the ARC is outside their jurisdiction and the exemption about racing is quite clear. Remember also that racers are excluded from the RCD.

The UK has no jurisdiction over the ARC, of course, but it does have some jurisdiction over British-flagged yachts taking part and might wish to take a view on whether the racing aspect is a legal fiction designed to circumvent regulations

It would never be a pleasure trip, the question is whether it would be a legitimate delivery which is also exempt.

Would Company A get away with "delivering" Company B's boat at the same time as Company B was "delivering" Company A's boat. It seems unlikely to me, but IANAL. Can delivery companies charge crew members for the experience?

 

[JumbleDuck]

You'd think, but the four people died in spring 2015 and no crackdown has happened.

So far. It was probably sensible to wait for a trial precedent to be set.

 

[Mark-1]

In fact there were two prosecutions on the same day in Southampton, February 2011.
In one case, as I have already mentioned, RTC recognition was withdrawn immediately the charges were framed and not months or years later when it finally came to court.
One case at least was somewhat controversial so Im gonna stop there!

Thanks, found them:
Quay Three & Summer Breeze of Haslar

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/303238/mca_prosecutions_2011.pdf

They weren't claiming a non-commercial return trip, they just took paying customers in non-Cat 0 boats, not much ambiguity there.

It was probably sensible to wait for a trial precedent to be set.

In which case before this trial the MCA weren't really sure if the trip was legal or not. I'm starting to wonder if the RYA failed to remove Stormforce's status until the trial for exactly the same reason.

 

[JumbleDuck]

In which case before this trial the MCA weren't really sure if the trip was legal or not. I'm starting to wonder if the RYA failed to remove Stormforce's status until the trial for exactly the same reason.

The only real certainty would be a case argued all the way to the Supreme Court, however firm counsel's opinion.

 

[Slycat]

There is no doubt in law regardless of whether they were being paid or not that the skipper and the intern were members of Stormforces staff i.e. they were employees. There is case law regarding the status and rights of volunteer and unpaid workers in UK law. ergo the vessel was on a commercial voyage.

Just because you work commercially, and even if the boat is or has been commercially coded, that does not make it a commercial voyage.

Regs state that owners/skippers can sail for pleasure and are then not bound by the regs for that trip.

If money changes hands its fairly black and white.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Just because you work commercially, and even if the boat is or has been commercially coded, that does not make it a commercial voyage.

Regs state that owners/skippers can sail for pleasure and are then not bound by the regs for that trip.

Sure. So the question is perhaps whether Mr Innes would have been entirely happy if his two employees had decided not to bring Cheeky Rafiki back, but to go on a walking holiday in the Lake District instead.

 

[Mark-1]

The only real certainty would be a case argued all the way to the Supreme Court, however firm counsel's opinion.

If I'm honest I don't know what most of that sentence means, but I'm starting to think it would be nice if there was an appeal so we could find out what three judges think "only for sport or pleasure" is (probably) intended to mean instead of 12 random people.

 

[lpdsn]

Seen that link already posted. Post deleted.