The Norfolk BroadsThe Norfolk Broads
Username Password
Norfolk Broads Weather

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 7:20 am BST- Light Rain
5 Day Forecast

Wind 2.0 mph @ 40°
48.0°F/8.89°C Humidity 93% Pressure 29.65 (S)

Welcome to The Norfolk Broads Forum
This is THE Worlds Largest Forum devoted to the Norfolk Broads, here you can discuss issues about the Norfolk Broads. Or just somewhere to chat with others interested in the Norfolk Broads area. In 2015 forum members spent 2,048 days afloat on the Broads

Please Help Support The Norfolk Broads Forum
OR

The Norfolk Broads Forum / Broads Authority Issues / Suspended sentence for Suffolk man
login
join
Graphics Off
Search
Forum Members - Book your Hoseasons holiday today, Just call 0345 498 6296

This is a moderated forum Reply to this DiscussionReply to Discussion | Start new discussionNew Discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Discussion Topic: Suspended sentence for Suffolk man

Similar Threads That Might Help :
Sentences you never want to hear from your Skipper| School boys sentenced after crime spree at Chedgra| Pete's Norfolk and Suffolk Broads site| Norfolk & Suffolk Boating Association| Suffolk Pictures| Norfolk AND Suffolk Broads?|

-- Page: 1 2

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

steve
Sep-01-2017 @ 5:09 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Posts: 10085
Joined: Jan 2005
steve
          

Suspended sentence for Suffolk man following serious vessel collision August 2016

steve and vicky
( apparently a moaner)


Attached File
View Full Size Image

steve
Sep-01-2017 @ 5:10 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Posts: 10085
Joined: Jan 2005
steve
          

No2

steve and vicky
( apparently a moaner)


Attached File
View Full Size Image

mamadi
Sep-02-2017 @ 5:03 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 155
Joined: Jun 2013
mamadi
          

Add To Ignore List
Sorry but I think he should have done time.

Many thanks

Alone1
Sep-02-2017 @ 5:41 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 319
Joined: Aug 2010
Alone1
          

Add To Ignore List
I also think he should have been put away. EDP report says he was doing 30mph. In the dark?! Ridiculous!!!
Mad  boat-sail

Bob Huppendoun

There would be no life without water!!!

Karen&Mike
Sep-02-2017 @ 8:39 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Miss Clipboard
Posts: 5482
Joined: Mar 2005
Karen&Mike
          

Agreed - considering the number of lives he put at risk ( and the injuries he caused), the excessive speed and the alcohol, as well as the issues of no lights etc, I was surprised at the suspended sentence. How does this compare with a similar reckless and drunk driving offence on the roads?

Karen

"Wind up the elastic band Karen - we're setting off!!"

Paladine
Sep-02-2017 @ 11:48 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 7085
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

The Court has heard all the evidence and has given its judgement. We have only heard (read) Press reports and hearsay. Trial-by-Forum is never very pleasant. Less so after a trial by the courts.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

Dykedweller
Sep-02-2017 @ 5:22 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Knows Their Stuff
Posts: 112
Joined: Apr 2011
Dykedweller
          

Add To Ignore List
Well said Palidine. Punishment has five recognized purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution.
The court will have listened to and taken all of the facts, previous good character, mitigation etc into consideration before coming to its decision. Again we can only go on what the press reports but in this instance I think that probably the court got this one about right.

Paladine
Sep-02-2017 @ 5:58 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 7085
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

Has it actually been said anywhere that Mr Barrett was helming?  All the MCA report says is: “Mr Barrett, together with his partner and their two young daughters aged 10 and 8, were travelling at high speed across the Broad...”

The offence for which he was convicted is one committed by the owner of the vessel, who wouldn't even have to be aboard it to be culpable.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

Karen&Mike
Sep-02-2017 @ 11:45 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Miss Clipboard
Posts: 5482
Joined: Mar 2005
Karen&Mike
          

Passing comment is not trial by forum in my opinion.

Personally, I am interested in how this compares with a similar driving incident on the roads.

Karen

"Wind up the elastic band Karen - we're setting off!!"

Paladine
Sep-03-2017 @ 7:55 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 7085
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

No two cases, brought under the same legislation, are ever the same, so trying to compare sentencing results for cases brought under entirely separate statutes is impossible. However, for the sake of discussion, let’s compare Section 100 Merchant Shipping Act 1995 with Section 5 Road Traffic Act 1988.

S.100 (1) MSA says: It shall be the duty of the owner of a ship to which this section applies to take all reasonable steps to secure that the ship is operated in a safe manner.

The penalties are:
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

S5(1)of the RTA says: If a person-
(a) drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.

The penalties are:
On summary conviction, up to 6 months imprisonment, a fine and disqualification from driving.

The main differences that I can see are that:

1.   S.100 offences are triable at Crown Court and carries a higher maximum custodial sentence than do S.5 offences, which are only triable at Magistrates’ Court.

2. The owner, who may or may not be present on the vessel, is culpable in relation to S.100. The driver of the vehicle, who may or may not be the owner, is culpable in relation to a S.5 offence.

On the face of it, it rather appears that our legislators considered that operating a ship in an unsafe manner warranted greater maximum penalties than drink/driving offences.


"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

PAGE: 1 2

Home Photo Gallery Days Afloat Contact Us
Chat Room Downloads Norfolk Broads @ Amazon Make My Logo
Shops & Businesses Members Gear Norfolk Broads @ EBay Holiday Calendar
Pub Guide Tide Tables SOS List Popular Threads
2017 Calendar Contest Make A Donation Links Hireboat Info
Norfolk Broads @ CafePress FAQ Broads Quiz Forum Events
Advertise With Us Forum Shop Boating Bits Stickys and FAQs Boating Bits Hirecraft List

 

 

 



Copyright © 2005 Y2KInternet, All Rights Reserved.