| UK. Successful appeal puts personal watercraft outside the law |
|
|
|
| Sunday, 11 December 2005 | |
|
Marian Martin A PWC rider, who seriously injured another, has successfully appealed against a conviction to which he had previously pleaded guilty, leaving the law - as it applies to personal watercraft – in complete chaos. At a hearing Friday 5 August 2005, at Bournemouth Crown Court, Mark Goodwin was sentenced to a custodial sentence after he had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to riding his Yamaha Wave Runner in contravention of Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Goodwin’s Yamaha had hit another, stationary PWC, causing its rider serious injury. In sentencing, His Honour Judge Beashel said "Mr Goodwin was not taking proper care, he was responsible and the collision could have been avoided. Jet Skiers should be aware that jet skis are a potential lethal weapon and should keep a good look out at all times." Mr Mark Rodaway, Coastguard Area Operations Manager said "This punishment should act as a timely warning to all Personal Watercraft users that, irresponsible and dangerous behaviour will be investigated by the authorities and the perpetrators may well find themselves standing in front of a judge." At the preliminary hearing, on 5 July 2005, before Salisbury Crown Court, Mark Goodwin, was charged with an offence under s.58 of the Act namely, "conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals". He had been in charge of a PWC which collided with another PWC in Weymouth Bay causing injury. To establish the offence the Crown had to show that Goodwin's PWC was a "ship" within s.313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which provides the following definition: "ship" includes every description of vessel engaged in navigation. In an earlier civil case, Steedman v Scofield , Lord Justice Sheen had held that a Kawasaki Jet Ski was not "a vessel engaged in navigation", on the grounds that it was neither a 'vessel', nor was it 'engaged in navigation'. In R v Goodwin Mr Recorder Davies QC held there were sufficient differences in the design of Goodwin's PWC to differentiate it from the Kawaski Jet Ski under consideration in Steedman v Scofield. Following Goodwin’s original sentence, Sergeant A Hack, of Dorset Police's marine section, said "It is important that all those using personal watercraft recognise that they have the same responsibilities as all other water users in respect of Collision Regulations and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995." Goodwin subsequently successfully appealed against his conviction on a single count of “doing an act which caused or was likely to cause serious injury contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 s.58(2)(a)”. His argument was that the jet ski did not fall within the definition of a ship because, by reason of the nature of its construction, it could not be described as a vessel, and because it was not "used in navigation". Read The Appeal Court Ruling |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 12 December 2005 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|