EA Enforcement Convictions

boatone

boatone

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Jul 2001
Messages
12,845
Location
Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
www.tmba.org.uk
Following News Release just received:

Environment Agency News Release 17 May 2012 NS/016/12

Boaters ordered to pay £3,239 for flouting boat registration laws

Four River Thames boaters without valid registrations have been convicted by magistrates after prosecutions brought by the Environment Agency.

The separate cases were heard at High Wycombe Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday 16 May, Oxford Magistrates’ Court on Friday 4 May, and Staines Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday 25 April. All the registration offences were contrary to non-registration charges under Articles 4 and 18 of the Environment Agency’s (Inland Waterways) Order 2010.

Slawek Szkupinski of 8 Magna Court, Costons Lane, Greenford, Middlesex, pleaded guilty by post that his unlicensed vessel ‘Captain Morgan 11’ was kept in the Harleyford Marina with a failed engine. Mr Szkupinski was fined £400 and ordered to pay compensation of £438.48 which was the registration fee for 2011, contribution to prosecution costs of £60 and victim surcharge of £15, a total £913.48.

James Watkins of Villiers House, School Lane, Middleton Stoney, was charged after an Environment Agency officer found his boat ‘Quackers1V’ moored against the Trout Inn Carpark without a valid registration. Mr Watkins was prosecuted in his absence and was fined £400, ordered to pay compensation of £172.26, £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge by Oxford Magistrates’ Court.

In the second case on that day, Derek Wilby of Harcourt Arms, Main Road, Stanton Harcourt pleaded guilty by post and was fined £250, ordered to pay compensation of £187.92, £60 costs and a £15 victim surcharge for not registering his boat ‘Deli’ after being caught at on the River Thames near Bablock Hythe, Northmoor, Witney.

At Staines Magistrates’ Court, Brian Crook living onboard the Abbot, Tims Boat Yard, Timsway, Staines was found without a valid registration for his boat ‘the Abbot’ whilst the boat was moored at Tims Boat Yrd, Staines Reach. The defendant was found guilty in his absence and fined £200, ordered to pay compensation of £328.86, £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

Matt Carter Waterways Operations Manager, said:

“Owners have a responsibility to ensure their boats are registered even if it is moored in a marina or boatyard or doesn’t move and we regularly challenge people using boats on the river without registration plates displayed. In response to customer feedback, we continue to do routine patrols and marina and lockside checks. In addition we carry out targeted enforcement exercises and these prosecutions are a direct result of such action.


“The income we raise from boat registration is very important for the community and the environment. It contributes directly to maintaining waterway structures such as locks and lay-bys, as well as providing facilities like visitor moorings, water points, rubbish and sewage disposal and electric boat charging hook-ups.”

ENDS
Click to expand...
 
Getting the cash out of them is the next issue. Seizing 'river pikey' boats in lieu of payment will breach their Human Rights for sure:mad:
Still well done to the enforcement teams.
 
oldgit said:
Just need to keep up the good work........
Click to expand...
And treble the fines. Really doesn't look like much of a deterrent to me.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't even see a consistent approach in the cases either. Surely a £1,000 fine for neglecting to pay a £200 licence, and pro rata increases beyond that would not be unreasonable, and possibly a lot more effective.

Out of interest, a tv licence costs £145, and the fine for non payment is £1,000. Are the EA really serious, Or just paying lip service?
 
I think the court decides the fine , not the Agency.

The Agency are deadly serious , a TV licence is a fixed price for all , whereas boat registrations are not.
 
yes, Mr TL. You are quite right, and I'm happy to modify my comment accordingly. I'm pleased the EA are serious and fully support their enforcement activities and efforts. My comment about the size of fine being too small to be a serious deterrent still stand though - but perhaps I should have directed them to the courts....
 
:)

Before the Court determines the fine , i think they take into account the means and income of the perp , no point in fining them £10k , as it is unlikely to ever get paid.

Many of them will be unemployed , or perhaps may be in 'cash' jobs , so income appears to be small , hence the level of fine.
 
That's four prosecutions out of how many cases awaiting court I wonder.

I heard (not necessarily from someone in the know) that there was a backlog of several hundred cases but the courts considered them low priority compared to other pending cases.

I applaud the EA for pursuing these cases and getting a result. Actually eradicating the problem and/or getting people to pay the fines may well be another issue.
 
Wavey said:
I heard (not necessarily from someone in the know) that there was a backlog of several hundred cases but the courts considered them low priority compared to other pending cases.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that. I understand that last year about 700 boats were warned of which some 90% then complied. The remainder were served with a further notice giving 14 days to comply and about half of those then did so. That leaves around 30 - 40 cases at the most requiring more serious action and I would expect court would be the last resort and only if there is a realistic chance of conviction.

I applaud the EA for pursuing these cases and getting a result. Actually eradicating the problem and/or getting people to pay the fines may well be another issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is no doubt that the current management team is taking this issue very seriously indeed and is supported by all the river user groups.

However, the legal processes do take a long time and these, and other recent cases, are the first evidence that the Inland Waterways Order which came into force last year is being used effectively.
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
I understand that last year about 700 boats were warned of which some 90% then complied. The remainder were served with a further notice giving 14 days to comply and about half of those then did so. That leaves around 30 - 40 cases at the most requiring more serious action and I would expect court would be the last resort and only if there is a realistic chance of conviction.
Click to expand...

That's a far better result than I was expecting.
 
One of the criminals - yes these are criminal actions not civil, so folks get a record as well as a fine - was on a mooring in front of me, a pleasant chap, not the sort that you'd think would cock a snook at Authority.

But he did.
He would have had warning(s) in writing to his registered address and presumably ignore them. Being in a marina where registration is required as part of the contract AND the mooring is on the River stream anyway He still ignored the requirement. Compared with the cost of the mooring, EA registration fees is small beer.
He's gone now and probably not on the River anymore, so I can make the above comments.

No excuse really.

What folks don't realise is that prosecutions actually cost the EA money nett. The fine goes to the COurt. The "costs" are a token only. EA have to bear the brunt of listing the action and their own legal fees.Thus they make a lot of effort to get payment rather than going to court.
 
TrueBlue said:
One of the criminals - yes these are criminal actions not civil, so folks get a record as well as a fine - was on a mooring in front of me, a pleasant chap, not the sort that you'd think would cock a snook at Authority.

No excuse really.

What folks don't realise is that prosecutions actually cost the EA money nett. The fine goes to the COurt. The "costs" are a token only. EA have to bear the brunt of listing the action and their own legal fees.Thus they make a lot of effort to get payment rather than going to court.
Click to expand...

That's interesting - I didn't know this and find it quite shocking.
I thought costs were meant to be the costs, not a contribution.
And I thought 'compensation' was meant to go to the plaintiff not the courts, as otherwise it is hardly correct to call it compensation!

Totally agree with your comment about giving the culprits a criminal record.

Bring back flogging for those that can't pay! :cool:
 
thames cruiser said:
That's interesting - I didn't know this and find it quite shocking.
I thought costs were meant to be the costs, not a contribution.
And I thought 'compensation' was meant to go to the plaintiff not the courts, as otherwise it is hardly correct to call it compensation!

Totally agree with your comment about giving the culprits a criminal record.

Bring back flogging for those that can't pay! :cool:
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "compensation" 'cos I don't know - so you are possibly correct. Anyway is it not "valuable" in the legal meaning of the word. If anyonce could bring a prosecution for £200 - give me his contact details!!
 
mikemanor said:
They are not all "river pikeys". It would seem that Derek Wilby of Harcourt Arms, Main Road, Stanton Harcourt runs a pub and post office. Not really conducive with now having a criminal record.

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/leisur.../8671597.The_Harcourt_Arms__Stanton_Harcourt/
Click to expand...

Agreed - but it will will be the 'river pikeys' who will put up with a little inconvenience and get away with it in the end by simply moving of one river/water course and returning when the dust settles. Happens all the time.
 
TrueBlue said:
What folks don't realise is that prosecutions actually cost the EA money nett. The fine goes to the COurt. The "costs" are a token only. EA have to bear the brunt of listing the action and their own legal fees.Thus they make a lot of effort to get payment rather than going to court.
Click to expand...

That's not right.

The costs of the investigation are recorded exactly at every stage of the investigation. The presumption is to recover costs in all cases and when presented in Court they are open to scrutiny by the defence team.

Cost recovery includes CDs used to burn pictures, photocopying, the cost of tapes used in interviews (yes tapes are still used!) everything!

Only in very unusual cases are costs waived - normally when the defendant is totally broke and they won't be able to pay the fine, let alone costs. However it is up to the Court to award costs, the Agency just make an application.

If the defendant made a profit the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) is also automatically used as well.

CJL
 
CJL said:
That's not right.

The costs of the investigation are recorded exactly at every stage of the investigation. The presumption is to recover costs in all cases and when presented in Court they are open to scrutiny by the defence team.

Cost recovery includes CDs used to burn pictures, photocopying, the cost of tapes used in interviews (yes tapes are still used!) everything!

Only in very unusual cases are costs waived - normally when the defendant is totally broke and they won't be able to pay the fine, let alone costs. However it is up to the Court to award costs, the Agency just make an application.

If the defendant made a profit the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) is also automatically used as well.

CJL
Click to expand...

OK help me with this one:-

Slawek Szkupinski of 8 Magna Court, Costons Lane, Greenford, Middlesex, pleaded guilty by post that his unlicensed vessel ‘Captain Morgan 11’ was kept in the Harleyford Marina with a failed engine. Mr Szkupinski was fined £400 and ordered to pay compensation of £438.48 which was the registration fee for 2011, contribution to prosecution costs of £60 and victim surcharge of £15, a total £913.48.

Do you mean that EA's costs were actually around £60? Ticketing the boat, letters to Mr.S, instructing counsel (whatever) and so on?

Just trying to understand - not to make a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top