Goodwin, R v

For the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, a vessel is used in navigation where it makes ordered progression on water from one place to another. It need not carry persons or property to an intended destination. A jet ski used simply for recreational high-speed activity, without the object of going anywhere, is not a ship.

Section 58 must also be read in its statutory context. It did not apply to an unregistered recreational craft which was not sea-going and whose owner was not employed as its master. The court left open whether section 58, as amended, criminalises negligent navigation.

The appellant collided with a stationary jet ski while riding a Yamaha Waverunner at Bowleaze Cove. The other rider sustained serious facial injuries. After an original indictment under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Crown obtained a fresh indictment. The appellant pleaded guilty under section 58(2)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and received six months’ imprisonment.

Before the Recorder at Salisbury Crown Court, he unsuccessfully argued that the Waverunner was not a ship. On appeal, the court considered whether it was a ship and a sea-going ship, whether the appellant was a master employed in it, and whether section 58 extended to negligent navigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The prosecution under section 58 was misconceived. The appellant’s conviction could not stand because the Waverunner was not a ship, was not sea-going, and the appellant was not employed as its master.
2. The definition of ship in section 313(1) includes a vessel used in navigation. Its application depends on the statutory context. Registration of similar craft under Part I did not conclusively establish that they were ships for the operational and penal provisions in Part III. The court distinguished the construction of the Waverunner from the jet ski considered in Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163, but held that construction was not decisive.
3. Navigation does not require the transport of persons or property to an intended destination. However, it requires planned or ordered movement over water from one place to another. The court applied the authorities supporting that distinction and held that a jet ski used merely to race around for enjoyment is excluded. Following a channel to reach open water did not change the recreational purpose of its use.
4. A sea-going ship is one which sets out to sea on a voyage. A jet ski operated at sea close to land was not, by any realistic description, sea-going. Regulation 4 of Statutory Instrument 1991 No.1366 therefore could not extend section 58 to this unregistered Waverunner.
5. Section 58, read with its Part III context and the Regulation, applied only to a master employed as such. It did not criminalise the owner of a recreational craft who was not so employed.
6. The court did not decide whether the extension in section 58(4) brought negligent navigation within the offence, notwithstanding Deacon v Evans [1911] 1 KB 571. It observed that alleged breaches of the collision regulations were more appropriately charged under the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and held that section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 did not apply to the appellant’s use of the Waverunner: [2005] EWCA Crim 3184.
• Crown Court at Salisbury: The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence under section 58(2)(a) and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Recorder had dismissed his application to quash the indictment.