R v Goodwin [CA Crim]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Phillips LCJ,Rafferty,Mackay JJ |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Crim 3184 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 07 December 2005 |
Shipping - Collision - Water ski-ing - Jet skier in collision with stationary jet ski - Whether jet ski “vessel used in navigation” - Whether “sea-going” - Whether “ship” within Merchant Shipping Acts - Whether jet skier “master” of jet ski -
The defendant was riding a jet ski when it collided with another jet ski seriously injuring its rider. He was charged with the doing of an act by the master of a ship which caused or was likely to cause serious injury, contrary to section 58(2)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995F1. His application to have the indictment quashed on the ground that the jet ski was not a “ship” for the purposes of section 58, as it was not a “vessel used in navigation” within the definition in section 313(1), was dismissed, and he pleaded guilty on the basis that he was the “master” of the jet ski. The defendant appealed on the ground, inter alia, that, although by virtue of regulation 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 (Unregistered Ships) Regulations 1991F2 section 58 of the 1995 Act extended to unregistered “sea-going ships” and to “masters … employed in them”, the jet ski was not such a vessel and he was not a master so employed.
On the defendant's appeal—
Held, allowing the appeal, that, while it was not possible to conclude on the basis of its construction alone that the defendant's jet ski was not a “vessel” and thereby incapable of falling within the definition of a “ship” in section 313(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the words “used in navigation” excluded craft, such as the jet ski, that were simply used for having fun on the water without the object of going anywhere; that, further, although jet skis were used on the sea in proximity to land, they did not go to sea on voyages, nor were they likely to be seaworthy in heavy weather and, therefore, could not be described as “sea-going” for the purposes of regulation 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 (Unregistered Ships) Regulations 1991; that, further, section 58 of the 1995 Act only applied to a master who was “employed” as such, and the defendant was not employed as master of the jet ski; and that, accordingly, section 58 of the 1995 Act did not apply to the defendant (post paras 17, 33, 39–41, 46).
Per curiam. Failure to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 is made an offence by the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 and the offence carries the same maximum penalty as section 58 of the 1995 Act. Where allegations are made of conduct which infringes the 1996 Regulations it would seem simpler and more appropriate to charge this offence rather than to allege breach of section 58 (post, para 45).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court:
Clark v Perks (No 2)
Curtis v Wild [
Deacon v Evans [
European and Australian Royal Mail Co Ltd v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co (
Southport Corpn v Morriss [
Steedman v Scofield [
Von Rocks, The [
Weeks v Ross [
Wells v Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No 2 [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Addison v Denholm Ship Management (UK) Ltd [
Andalusian, The (
Bankers Insurance Co Ltd v South
Butler, The C S (
Champion, The [1934] P 1,
Chandler v Blogg [
Cook v Dredging and Construction Co Ltd [
Corbett v Pearce [
Craighall, The [1910] P 207,
Dependable Marine Co Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs [
European and Australian Royal Mail Co v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co (
Ferguson, Ex p (
Handyside v United Kingdom (
Harlow, The [1922] P 175
Hedges & Son v London and St Katharine Docks Co (
Hodge v Higgins [
Jenkin v Godwin [
Lighter No 3, The (
Mac, The (
Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomquist (Engineers) Ltd [
Merchants Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protection and Indemnity Association (
Mudlark, The [1911] P 116
Oakes v Monkland Iron Co (
Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [
R v Carrick District Council, Ex p Prankerd [
R v King
R v Morling [
R v Simmonds [
R v Taylor (
Raft of Timber, The (
SW v United Kingdom (
St John Pilot Comrs v Cumberland Railway and Coal Co [
St Machar, The (
Salt Union Ltd v Wood [
Upcerne, The [1912] P 160,
APPEAL against conviction and sentence
Following an incident on 15 May 2004 when the unregistered Yamaha Waverunner jet ski which he was riding was in collision with a stationary jet ski, seriously injuring its rider, the defendant, Mark Goodwin, was charged that as the master of a vessel he caused injury to another vessel and its rider contrary to section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The defendant applied to have the indictment quashed on the ground that the jet ski was not a “ship” for the purposes of section 58. Mr Recorder Anthony Davies QC dismissed the application, and on 5 July 2005 in the Crown Court at Salisbury the defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of doing an act which caused or was likely to cause serious injury. On 5 August 2005 he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment by Judge Beashel sitting in the Crown Court at Bournemouth.
Pursuant to permission granted by Clarke J on 22 September 2005, the defendant appealed on the ground that the judge had erred in law (1) in ruling that a jet ski fell within the definition of a ship in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995; (2) in ruling that a jet ski was a vessel used in navigation as defined by the Act; and (3) in concluding that the defendant's rights under article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the
The facts are stated in the judgment of the court.
Lionel Persey QC and Charlotte Rees for the defendant.
Nigel Teare QC and Robert Grey for the Crown.
7 December. LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS CJ handed down the following judgment of the court.
1 On 5 July 2005 in the Crown Court at Salisbury the appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of doing an act which caused or was likely to cause serious injury, contrary to section 58(2)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. On 5 August 2005, at the same court, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He now appeals against conviction and sentence by leave of the single judge who, on 22 September 2005, granted the appellant unconditional bail pending appeal.
Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995
2 The following provisions of section 58 are material:
“(1) This section applies—(a) to the master of, or any seaman employed in, a United Kingdom ship; and (b) to the master of, or any seaman employed in, a ship which—(i) is registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom; and (ii) is in a port in the United Kingdom or within United Kingdom waters while proceeding to or from any such port.
“(2) If a person to whom this section applies, while on board his ship or in its immediate vicinity—(a) does any act which causes or is likely to cause—(i) the loss or destruction of or serious damage to his ship or its machinery, navigational equipment or safety equipment, or (ii) the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other ship or any structure, or (iii) the death of or serious injury to any person, or (b) omits to do anything required—(i) to preserve his ship or its machinery, navigational equipment or safety equipment from being lost, destroyed or seriously damaged, or (ii) to preserve any person on board his ship from death or serious injury, or (iii) to prevent his ship from causing the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other ship or any structure, or the death of or serious injury to any person not on board his ship, and either of the conditions specified in subsection (3) below is satisfied with respect to that act or omission, he shall (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) be guilty of an offence.
“(3) Those conditions are—(a) that the act or omission was deliberate or amounted to a breach or neglect of duty; (b) that the master or seaman in question was under the influence of drink or a drug at the time of the act or omission.
“(4) If a person to whom this section applies—(a) discharges any of his duties, or performs any other function in relation to the operation of his ship or its machinery or equipment, in such a manner as to cause, or to be likely to cause, any such loss, destruction, death or injury as is mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above, or (b) fails to discharge any of his duties, or to perform any such function, properly to such an extent as to cause, or to be likely to cause, any of those things, he shall (subject to subsections (6) and (7)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Environment Agency v Mr Christopher Gibbs and Another
...of the jetski in that case (p.166); and the quality of "buoyancy" identified by Lord Phillips C.J. as a characteristic of the jetski in R. v Goodwin [2006] 1 W.L.R. 546, which made it impossible to conclude that the jetski there was not a vessel (paragraphs 15 to 17)). 32 Inherent in the de......
- Leroy King Claimant v [1] The Attorney General [2] Minister of Foreign Affairs Defendants
-
King v Attorney General and Minister of Foreign Affairs
...Development Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2003 SKN; Solomon v. Shuster Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2014 Monts.; Sharma v. Browne-Antoine [2006] 1 WLR 780 ISSUE NO. 3 – WHETHER THERE IS AN ARGUABLE CASE ON THE MERITS THAT THE DECISION OF THE SECOND DEFENDANT IS BAD IN LAW? SHOULD A DECISION MAKER CO......
-
Guardian Offshore AU Pty Ltd v Saab Seaeye Leopard 1702 Remotely Operated Vehicle Lately On Board The Ship 'Offshore Guardian'
...Inc [1994] HCA 54; (1994) 181 CLR 404 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd (1942) 74 Ll L Rep 157 R v Goodwin [2005] EWCA Crim 3184 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362 Tab......
-
To what extent can unmanned ships comply with COLREGs 1972 and how will the liability of such vessels be assessed?
...mean the owner, charterer, manager or operator of a seagoing ship’. 244 Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 313. See also R v Goodwin [2005] EWCA Crim 3184 and Michael v Musgrove t/a YNYS Ribs (The Sea Eagle) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37, it was held that the absence of a cabin onboard was not decisi......
-
Determining A Comprehensive Test for Defining a Ship
...2 Lloyd’s Rep 163, 166; R v Goodwin [2006] 2 All ER 519. 54 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163; See also R v Goodwin, [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 432. 55 Keys Jet Ski, Inc. v. Kaye, 893 F. 2d. 1225 (11th Cir. 1990). 56 The Von Rocks, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 198. 57 The Von Rocks, [1998] 2 L......
-
Merchant Shipping Act 1995, S. 58: Statutory Interpretation
...controversial aspect of the original case.Nick TaylorMerchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 58: StatutoryInterpretationR vGoodwin [2005] EWCA Crim 3184, [2005] All ER (D) 111The defendant was convicted in Salisbury Crown Court of doing an actwhich caused or was likely to cause serious injury, contr......
-
Table of Cases, Volume 79, 2006
...EWHC 146 (Admin) 282–284R v Chan Fook [1994] 99 CAR 373R v Davis; R v Ellis and Others [2006] EWCA Crim 1155 370–372R v Goodwin [2005] EWCA Crim 3184 194–196R v Holley [2005] UKPC 23 280–282R v Imad Al-Khawaja [2005] EWCA Crim 2697 90–92R v J [2005] 1 AC 562 93R v James, R v Karimi [2006] E......