Racing Rules of Sailing v IRPCS

[st599]

My RFU membership card used to say by joining, I accepted the principle of Violenti non fit injuria. Presumably by entering a race I do too.

 

[benjenbav]

My RFU membership card used to say by joining, I accepted the principle of Violenti non fit injuria. Presumably by entering a race I do too.

‘Volenti’, perhaps? But ‘violenti’ is even better.

 

[Mark-1]

Thanks BJB, that took me to R v. Barnes (2004) and some general googling of contact sports shows you absolutely can opt out of the law if you're an organised sport and the harm isn't too bad and is within the rules of the sport. Sailing clearly meets those requirements in spades. (Although it still isn't totally clear to me how this is decided - seemingly retrospectively. )

It would be nice of this was really spelled out somewhere. I suppose in the moment it's obvious. The two IRPCS I can immediately think of that don't apply are requirement for the stand on boat to hold their course and overtaking boat, I'm sure there are others.

 

[benjenbav]

Thanks BJB, that took me to R v. Barnes (2004) and some general googling of contact sports shows you absolutely can opt out of the law if you're an organised sport and the harm isn't too bad and is within the rules of the sport. Sailing clearly meets those requirements in spades. (Although it still isn't totally clear to me how this is decided - seemingly retrospectively. )

It would be nice of this was really spelled out somewhere. I suppose in the moment it's obvious. The two IRPCS I can immediately think of that don't apply are requirement for the stand on boat to hold their course and overtaking boat, I'm sure there are others.

Most criminal acts require two elements to be present. These are usually referenced as ‘actus reus’ (literally, the guilty action) and ‘mens rea’ (state of mind).

In R v Barnes, for example, it was decided that there was no intention to cause injury, so the necessary state of mind for conviction was not present.

At a criminal trial the prosecution will present evidence to demonstrate both that the act occurred and that the accused had the necessary intention for it to constitute the relevant crime.

The defence will seek to rebut this evidence, if the accused has entered a not guilty plea.

These arguments will be informed by precedents set by earlier judgments of certain of the higher courts and the proceedings will be marshalled by the judge.

In a jury trial the jury will then consider all of the arguments advanced and make up their minds whether they consider that the prosecution case has been made beyond reasonable doubt.

You could say that it seems a bit of a Heath Robinson business, knocking arguments back and forth, referencing the past and leaving it up to a dozen lay folk to decide the verdict.

This is how it works in England. And, perhaps surprisingly, it works pretty well most of the time.

We do have the safety valve of appellate courts where decisions can be reviewed by a panel of experienced expert judges.

Other countries do things differently: many prefer an inquisitorial approach to our adversarial system.

 

[Mark-1]

Most criminal acts require two elements to be present. These are usually referenced as ‘actus reus’ (literally, the guilty action) and ‘mens rea’ (state of mind).

In R v Barnes, for example, it was decided that there was no intention to cause injury, so the necessary state of mind for conviction was not present.

At a criminal trial the prosecution will present evidence to demonstrate both that the act occurred and that the accused had the necessary intention for it to constitute the relevant crime.

The defence will seek to rebut this evidence, if the accused has entered a not guilty plea.

These arguments will be informed by precedents set by earlier judgments of certain of the higher courts and the proceedings will be marshalled by the judge.

In a jury trial the jury will then consider all of the arguments advanced and make up their minds whether they consider that the prosecution case has been made beyond reasonable doubt.

You could say that it seems a bit of a Heath Robinson business, knocking arguments back and forth, referencing the past and leaving it up to a dozen lay folk to decide the verdict.

This is how it works in England. And, perhaps surprisingly, it works pretty well most of the time.

We do have the safety valve of appellate courts where decisions can be reviewed by a panel of experienced expert judges.

Other countries do things differently: many prefer an inquisitorial approach to our adversarial system.

Yeah, I instinctively want the law to be a spec so we know exactly where we are, and much of it is, but I guess tons of it is actually decided on an ad hoc basis by a judge after the fact.

Anyway, I'm pretty content. This is a coll regs thread that has come to a universally agreed conclusion which is 99.99% likely to be correct. A thing to cherish.

 

[benjenbav]

Yeah, I instinctively want the law to be a spec so we know exactly where we are, and much of it is, but I guess tons of it is actually decided on an ad hoc basis by a judge after the fact.

Anyway, I'm pretty content. This is a coll regs thread that has come to a universally agreed conclusion which is 99.99% likely to be correct. A thing to cherish.

Yeah, I instinctively want the law to be a spec so we know exactly where we are, and much of it is, but I guess tons of it is actually decided on an ad hoc basis by a judge after the fact.

Anyway, I'm pretty content. This is a coll regs thread that has come to a universally agreed conclusion which is 99.99% likely to be correct. A thing to cherish.

If law was a spec… How often would each of us want to find an exception?

All the best…