R v Goodwin

Factual and Procedural Background

On 15 May 2004, the Appellant was operating a Yamaha Waverunner jet ski at Bowleaze Cove, Weymouth, when he collided with another stationary jet ski, causing serious injury to its rider. The injured party sustained severe facial injuries requiring life support and reconstructive surgery. The Appellant was originally indicted under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, but shortly before trial, the Crown obtained permission to prefer a fresh indictment under section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The Appellant applied to have this indictment quashed on the basis that the Waverunner was not a "ship" within the meaning of section 58, relying on precedent that a jet ski was not a ship under similar legislation. The application was dismissed, and the Appellant pleaded guilty, accepting that he was the "master" of the Waverunner and had breached his duty by failing to keep a proper look-out. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment on 5 August 2005 and subsequently appealed both conviction and sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Waverunner constituted a "ship" within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
2. If so, whether the Waverunner was a "sea-going ship".
3. Whether the Appellant was the "master employed in" the Waverunner.
4. Whether section 58 applied to negligent navigation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Waverunner was not a "ship" under section 58 because it was not a "vessel used in navigation".
• Relied on the decision in Steedman v Scofield where a jet ski was held not to be a ship under an essentially identical definition.
• The Waverunner was not employed as a "master" and thus section 58 did not apply.
• The Appellant contended the Waverunner was not a sea-going ship.

Crown's Arguments

• The Waverunner fell within the definition of a "ship" as it was a "vessel used in navigation".
• Relied on statutory interpretation and regulations extending section 58 to certain unregistered ships.
• Argued that the Waverunner was a sea-going ship as it was used on the sea and that the Appellant was the master employed in it.
• Contended that section 58 applied to negligent navigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining the statutory definition of "ship" in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes "every description of vessel used in navigation." It contrasted the Waverunner with the jet ski in Steedman v Scofield, noting the Waverunner's boat-like hull and seating arrangement, but emphasized that construction alone was insufficient to classify it as a "ship".

The critical question was the meaning of "used in navigation". The court reviewed authorities, including Steedman v Scofield, which defined navigation as planned or ordered movement from one place to another, usually involving transport of persons or property. The court considered the opposing views and authorities such as Von Rocks and Perks v Clark, which supported a broader interpretation allowing specialized vessels to qualify as ships even if navigation was incidental.

Ultimately, the court concluded that "used in navigation" excludes craft used merely for pleasure or fun without a journey or ordered progression, a category into which jet skis plainly fall. The Waverunner, used for racing and recreational purposes in a confined area, did not meet this standard. The court rejected the Crown's argument that following a channel demonstrated navigation.

Regarding whether the Waverunner was a "sea-going ship," the court found it was not, as the craft did not undertake voyages to sea but operated within port limits and coastal waters, and was not seaworthy for heavy weather.

The court also considered whether the Appellant was a "master employed in" the Waverunner and concluded that he was not employed as such, which was necessary for section 58 to apply.

Finally, the court addressed whether section 58 criminalizes negligent navigation. Citing Deacon v Evans, it held that simple negligence in navigation is not a criminal offence under the relevant provisions.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was ALLOWED.

The court held that the Waverunner was not a "ship" within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as it was not "used in navigation" in the statutory sense. Consequently, section 58 did not apply to the Appellant, who was also not employed as master of the Waverunner. The prosecution under section 58 was therefore misconceived. The decision resulted in quashing the conviction and sentence. No broader precedent was set beyond clarifying the statutory interpretation of "ship," "used in navigation," and the scope of section 58 with respect to recreational craft and negligent navigation.