nicepix
Well-known member
As for the continuation of PRN through Acts of Parliament; if that was so then there would never have been a legal definition of 'navigable waterways'.
The man is an idiot!
Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
As for the continuation of PRN through Acts of Parliament; if that was so then there would never have been a legal definition of 'navigable waterways'.
The man is an idiot!
I don't need to.
I, the local police at a senior level, and in all likelyhood the poster of the rubbish on that website all know that the police are not interested in people canoeing down a river. In addition, unlike many rivers where we are reliant on historical usage, there is actually a statute law on the Hampshire Avon which enshrines a right to navigate. The local police won't intervene unless and until someone makes threats or commits other criminal offences and contrary to the nonsense that one reads here it is very unlikely to be the paddlers that initiate this.
I've been told lots of times here that my actions in paddling down a river are criminal, I know absolutely that they are not and believe me I am basing that on opinions of the people who matter not a bunch of armchair lawyers on a forum extrapolating hypothetical theories. This is contrary to the rubbish you are all being fed by the militants among you who stir up trouble by publishing stuff about "prosecuting paddlers".
Strange that you chose to address my comment with an invitation to initiate a confrontation, rather than comment on the written advice from a police force to an angling club that set out very clearly their view on exactly what we are talking about here.
The problem is that at some point some ordinary angler on a river is going to get himself into hot water when he starts jumping up and down swearing and making threats because they've read on a forum or blog post that 'canoeing on "my" river is a crime'.
Hi Twotrucks,
I'm sure you're aware that different constabularies have different priorities, and I'm sure there are plenty who see this as a complete waste of their time (as they do with many other non-significant/harmfull to human health "offences"). In this part of Hampshire, the police, and the locally powerful, landowners have a very close relationship (estates I fish on are often used for training/ exercising police dogs). There is a dedicated wildlife crime officer who works closely with Nat England and the land owners to protect the SSSI status of the valley. If a CROW offence is believed to being committed (or obviously any other offence that has/ or has not been committed as per the previous 50odd pages of this thread!) then the local police do attend....
As to the confrontation, this would be avoided if you made your intention public first, by say, writing to the estate and the local police force and abiding by the response that you received..... (In fact, thinking about it, if you don't, I might and I could then post the response (with consent) here?)
(by the way I'm a keen paddler myself including a recent foray into the D-W.)
I'm sure you're aware that different constabularies have different priorities, and I'm sure there are plenty who see this as a complete waste of their time (as they do with many other non-significant/harmfull to human health "offences"). In this part of Hampshire, the police, and the locally powerful, landowners have a very close relationship (estates I fish on are often used for training/ exercising police dogs). There is a dedicated wildlife crime officer who works closely with Nat England and the land owners to protect the SSSI status of the valley. If a CROW offence is believed to being committed (or obviously any other offence that has/ or has not been committed as per the previous 50odd pages of this thread!) then the local police do attend....
As to the confrontation, this would be avoided if you made your intention public first, by say, writing to the estate and the local police force and abiding by the response that you received..... (In fact, thinking about it, if you don't, I might and I could then post the response (with consent) here?)
(by the way I'm a keen paddler myself including a recent foray into the D-W.)
It doesn't matter how cosy the relationship between the local police and landowners is, their job is to enforce the law. If their relationship with local landowners gets in the way of their objectivity in enforcing the law then this is inevitably going to be escalated to their senior officers.
So please tell me what "CROW offence" is committed by a paddler accessing a river from public land or a public right of way and paddling to another similar spot. To eliminate any spurious argument, please assume that this is done in a responsible manner: enough water to ensure that no contact is made with the river bed and at a time of year when nesting birds are unlikely to be disturbed.
richiekelly
Well-known member
How much longer is this going to go on? both sides think they are right with the paddlers spouting about their rights but being unwilling to take their argument to court to prove they are right probably because they know they will loose, the other side don't have to go to court to prove anything they already know the score, anglers pay a lot of money for the rights to fish rivers, paddlers don't and dont want to, they want it for nothing or for the same price as a rod licence. all I can see the constant repeating of the paddlers doing is to cause a hardening of attitude from anglers to paddlers when they are seen to be where they shouldn't be.it will go on and on until a landowner looses a substantial amount of money from an angling club that has given up fishing rights because of paddlers who wont pay the landowner the same as an angling club or anything near being on a river on their land.
If paddlers are so sure they are right do something about it, anglers don't need to, the law is already on their side, if they don't want to then shut up and keep off rivers where you don't belong your repeating the same drivel over and over wont make it become the truth.
If paddlers are so sure they are right do something about it, anglers don't need to, the law is already on their side, if they don't want to then shut up and keep off rivers where you don't belong your repeating the same drivel over and over wont make it become the truth.
So please tell me what "CROW offence" is committed by a paddler accessing a river from public land or a public right of way and paddling to another similar spot. To eliminate any spurious argument, please assume that this is done in a responsible manner: enough water to ensure that no contact is made with the river bed and at a time of year when nesting birds are unlikely to be disturbed.[/QUOTE]
CRoW isn't just about the access, it is about protecting wildlife (as it subsumed the countryside and wildlife act 81), so if in the eyes of the estate owner/ wildlife crime officer any negative impact was occurring on "designated features" such as the SAC status wading birds then a CRoW Act offence has occurred. So, again to avoid spurious responses.... Are you suggesting only paddling when there are no wading birds (winter) and no nesting birds (spring to summer), I guess in a normal year, you might then get a couple of weeks in late September.
I take it you won't be writing to the estate and local police to clarify their position (I can supply the addresses if you like?).
CRoW isn't just about the access, it is about protecting wildlife (as it subsumed the countryside and wildlife act 81), so if in the eyes of the estate owner/ wildlife crime officer any negative impact was occurring on "designated features" such as the SAC status wading birds then a CRoW Act offence has occurred. So, again to avoid spurious responses.... Are you suggesting only paddling when there are no wading birds (winter) and no nesting birds (spring to summer), I guess in a normal year, you might then get a couple of weeks in late September.
I take it you won't be writing to the estate and local police to clarify their position (I can supply the addresses if you like?).
B
Berty
Guest
Historically some river navigation was for personal transport, and this would have contributed to navigation rights being passed.
Really? name me one instance.
oh, and by the way you and Berty seem to be accepting that the navigation rights do exist, as long as the people using them claim to be travelling for trade purposes, which would allow hire companies and coaching sessions on the rivers.
Nope, i didn't say that, now stop telling lies!.......i said that trade was the origin of navigation rights, there is a massive difference, but of course that suits you not one bit!
You don't like this one do you? ..... oh and hiring someone a kayak only allows them to either use it within or without the law.........not to trade on a river
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
You paddlers seem to have short attention spans. Windy - an ex-barrister - posted the following on page 10 of this thread. Please read it again.
So, what questions can I extract from this muddle that I think people are trying to ask and then try to answer.... tho its a lot easier if I don't have to guess.
1) Is the Magna Carta good law ?
Nope. It was repealed almost immediately after signature by Papal Bull. A Papal Bull had direct effect in English law at the time, was valid and final. Various provisions and clauses which were in the Magna Carta were re-enacted and re-framed in various charters and statutes thereafter. It is more than arguable that the effect of Papal Bull was to render such re-enactments void ab initio, but in any event almost all of the clauses so re-enacted have been repealed or over ruled by subsequent and more modern (ie. circa post 1700) statutes. Anyone invoking the Magna Carta in an argument about English law is IMHO just invoking a sub-division of Godwins law and loses credibility from there on.
2) Is there a general right of navigation over all the water in England and Wales that entitles you to paddle a canoe or kayak on ?
Answered in the extract posted by BennyG: No. Simples. Not so simples in application though.
---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------
3) Is a canoeist / Kayaker trespassing when navigating a water in which there is no general right of navigation ?
Yes.
Terry Wright's suggestion that there is no trespass because the person doing the navigating is floating in the water above and not touching the owned property of the riverbed below is wrong and misconceived.
The owner of land in England (and a quick pardon me to any other lawyers wincing at my simplifying this complicated issue) basically owns the rights to the land to the centre of the earth below and to the furthest extents of the water, air and universe above.
(Although in an amusing (to lawyers) (sad people that we are) it is worth remembering that the only person who in fact owns any land in England and Wales is the Queen. All other "ownership" as we mistakenly call it is simply a fee or other holding held of and from the Queen as original source. She owns it but allows us permanent rights to act as if we owned it).
---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------
4) Is a trespassing canoeist committing a criminal offence so that he or she may be prosecuted ?
Obviously not, as simple trespass is a civil wrong or tort which has nothing to do with the criminal courts or jurisdiction
The big weakness of simple Trespass however is that in general (a) the complainant needs proof of some actual damage (whether physical or inchoate, such as financial) to bring a suit, (b) in the absence of such damage the suit may not lie at all, or at best only nominal damages will generally be recovered and (c) nominal damages do not usually mean that the Defendant canoeist will be required to pay the Claimant's costs.
What is more important and potentially far more useful is the entitlement to obtain a general injunction to protect the legal right not to be the victim of trespass, the so called anticipatory restraining order, of the type used to prevent the uncontrolled invasion of Stonehenge every year at the solstice which used to happen. The way in which such an injunction operates is that it is addressed to one or two ringleaders advocating the trespass. Anyone not named in the order BUT who proposes to join in with or support that person in doing so is just as bound by the injunction as the named parties. That proposition was upheld in the House of Lords, remains good law, and means that the Claimant plagued by a horde of individually unidentified or anonymous activists does not need to identify the individual defendants or serve them personally with the order.
---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------
5) Is it possible that a trespassing canoeist can be guilty of a criminal offence, to wit Section 5 Public Order Act and / or Aggravated Trespass ?
Yes.
A trespassing canoeist who decides to paddle disruptively through a fishing match or similar causes real damage - required for the suit, but plainly sustained by each angler who has paid a fee or subs to fish the match, only to have the enjoyment of that right damaged and reduced in value.
Equally that damage is sufficient in my opinion to found a prosecution for Aggravated Trespass.
Ditto the intent or recklessness inherent in bloody mindedly trespassing in that way is bound to fall within the harassment provisions of Section 5, even as amended (please the Lord) to delete the word "insulting".
The fact that no such prosecutions or general injunctions (see Q4 above) seem to have been brought or sought by anyone as yet is irrelevant.
If fishing on a valuable water such as the Wye has been and is being ruined then, assuming that there is no general right of navigation established in the area of that ruination (and I don't know one way or the other about the Wye, just mentioned it as it has been used as an example of damage in this thread) then it is up to the owners of those waters, banks, subsoil and fishing rights thereon to pull their finger out and pursue the appropriate injunction. If they don't then it's their problem for not enforcing their rights. Breach of an injunction* does not require proof of any damage, is a Contempt of Court, and punishable as such, by every power available to a Judge, including fine and even imprisonment.
* (or restraining order in the new jargon, but pardon me for preferring and using the old lingo with which I am more familiar)
Geoff, you need to read it again, Windy clearly states that a canoeist is not committing a criminal offence.
It is possible to commit a criminal offence while canoeing, but the act of canoeing on it's own is not criminal, regardless of the existence of the PRN or not.
B
Berty
Guest
Neither is walking, but walkers cannot trespass!!!???? of course they can!!.........it's time you went to court instead of trying to court support where there is none!!!
Last edited:
nicepix,
You provided a quote to say that only 3 sections of the Magna Carta are still valid (and they are not to do with navigation). Windy (a Barrister) says none of the Magna Carta is valid.
Either way is irrelevant to the PRN case, the Magna Carta is simply an example of a historical document to show that the PRN existed in the past.
It doesn't need any current legal authority.
Is that your entire case against the PRN. Someone taking the time to legally define "navigable waterways" doesn't prove the PRN doesn't exist, it just proves the people who made that definition were not aware of the PRN (which may or may not exist)
As I said before, if some one can explain in detail why the PRN doesn't exist it will be a massive boost to your case.
The PRN case is in 2 parts, firstly the PRN did exist in the past, secondly it has never been removed so must still exist. (see post 506 for a fuller explanation)
If you can disprove the first point, the second point is irrelevant, or you can show how and when the PRN was removed.
You provided a quote to say that only 3 sections of the Magna Carta are still valid (and they are not to do with navigation). Windy (a Barrister) says none of the Magna Carta is valid.
Either way is irrelevant to the PRN case, the Magna Carta is simply an example of a historical document to show that the PRN existed in the past.
It doesn't need any current legal authority.
Is that your entire case against the PRN. Someone taking the time to legally define "navigable waterways" doesn't prove the PRN doesn't exist, it just proves the people who made that definition were not aware of the PRN (which may or may not exist)
As I said before, if some one can explain in detail why the PRN doesn't exist it will be a massive boost to your case.
The PRN case is in 2 parts, firstly the PRN did exist in the past, secondly it has never been removed so must still exist. (see post 506 for a fuller explanation)
If you can disprove the first point, the second point is irrelevant, or you can show how and when the PRN was removed.
sam vimes
Well-known member
Indeed he does, but you've chosen to ignore point five.
So, you are quite correct, Windy has indeed said that canoeing, while it is trespassing, is not a criminal act. However, as soon as you inconvenience, annoy, hinder a legitimate water user/owner in any way, it becomes one. So, if no one sees you do it, you don't screw anyone's day up, you are probably scot free.
Last edited:
nicepix
Well-known member
The Prevention of Harassment Act 1997
Under the terms of the National Crime Recording Statistics any person who states that they feel alarmed or distressed will be regarded as a complainant.
Under NCRS no police force in England & Wales can ignore your phone call as long as you tell the paddlers that they have no right to be there and use the magic words: 'Alarm' and / or 'Distress' to describe your feelings at having your day spoiled by canoeists. It will be up to them to prove that they have a right to be on the river. And of course, they can't.
Once Superintendents up and down the country start getting complaints about canoeists cluttering up their crime statistics they will do something about it.
Under the terms of the National Crime Recording Statistics any person who states that they feel alarmed or distressed will be regarded as a complainant.
Under NCRS no police force in England & Wales can ignore your phone call as long as you tell the paddlers that they have no right to be there and use the magic words: 'Alarm' and / or 'Distress' to describe your feelings at having your day spoiled by canoeists. It will be up to them to prove that they have a right to be on the river. And of course, they can't.
Once Superintendents up and down the country start getting complaints about canoeists cluttering up their crime statistics they will do something about it.
david perry
Active member
"Under NCRS no police force in England & Wales can ignore your phone call as long as you tell them, 'anglers', and use the magic words: 'Alarm' and / or 'Distress' to describe your feelings at having your day spoiled by anglers. It will be up to them to prove that they didn't make threats, casted weights at you, hooked you, threw rocks at you, insulted you threatened you and so on. And of course, they can't.
Once Superintendents up and down the country start getting complaints about anglers cluttering up their crime statistics they will do something about it."
With a little editing you can see it works both ways.
Once Superintendents up and down the country start getting complaints about anglers cluttering up their crime statistics they will do something about it."
With a little editing you can see it works both ways.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Watch my cyber-lips Barney because you obviously haven't been listening... A right of navigation is a permission to navigate which is granted by a riparian owner, who DOES own that right in Law, same as he owns the shooting rights and fishing rights. A Public Right of Navigation is an over-riding one which has been granted by the Crown and is documented in law. i.e. there is a piece of paper which says it exists. If there is no piece of paper, it does not exist. Get it? So to ask people to accept your assumption that a PRN has always existed everywhere, YOU have to show the proof in written law, not the other way around. All this has been told to you before in this thread. What part don't you get?
B
Berty
Guest
"Under NCRS no police force in England & Wales can ignore your phone call as long as you tell them, 'anglers', and use the magic words: 'Alarm' and / or 'Distress' to describe your feelings at having your day spoiled by anglers. It will be up to them to prove that they didn't make threats, casted weights at you, hooked you, threw rocks at you, insulted you threatened you and so on. And of course, they can't.
Once Superintendents up and down the country start getting complaints about anglers cluttering up their crime statistics they will do something about it."
With a little editing you can see it works both ways.
No it doesn't David, IF the CANOISTS are already TRESPASSING where the anglers have PROVEN RIGHT to be then anglers have the first claim to being caused distress and alarm.
I doubt very much if you will accept that though because like the classic dummy spitter, canoeists want what they have been told they can not have.
You can of course take it to court and legally get the edge on anglers......or could you?
Why not try it?......because we (anglers) don#t need to!
If the anglers really don't need to take it to court, then the paddlers can't be causing you a problem.
For an angler or landowner going to court would be fairly simple, a case for trespass wouldn't cost to much, and if you could get the police their quick enough a harassment case wouldn't cost you a penny. Why have neither of the above been done for over 30 years.
---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------
The law doesn't work like that, a right can exist without a specific law existing that creates it.
Lots of the rivers that anglers accept as being navigable don't have a piece of paper that says the right to navigate them exists. The "Navigation Acts" for many individual rivers don't actually grant the right to navigate. Yet that right still exists on them.
So in theory at least the general PRN could exist without law granting it's existence.
There are lots of written documents and laws that indicate the PRN does exist on all rivers.
---------- Post added at 18:00 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------
Walkers can trespass, canoeists can trespass, in fact anyone can trespass. But trespass is a civil matter not a criminal one.
I am not trying to court support here, I was trying to have a disscussion about 2 things.
Firstly the legal case for and against the PRN, so far all I have got on that from you guys is that you think the PRN doesn't exist, but can't say why. 2 people have brought up the fact that the Magna Carta is not legally binding, but that is not why it is mentioned in the case for the PRN.
Secondly I wanted a greater understanding as to why the PRN would cause such a big problem for anglers, there have been more answers on that one and I can see there would be some problems, but I think some people on this thread have exagerated them, and they could be solved or at least reduced.
I wasn't expecting anyone on this forum to agree that the PRN exists, but I did hope for a more intelligent conversation.
B
Berty
Guest
Hoping for a more intelligent conversation? what a pathetic way of spitting your dummy because others won't agree with your demands!
Seemingly it now has taken 54 pages of argument and counter argument and in the final analysis the paddlers are left with Mr. Benyon's (and thereby the Government's) comments as such:
"There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected."
So, there you are . . . . . . try your best to obtain Voluntary Access Agreements, where you can.
"There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected."
So, there you are . . . . . . try your best to obtain Voluntary Access Agreements, where you can.