VIP caving trip to GG - press release

David Rose

Active member
I gotta say, I do detect a certain resemblance between our press release and the story in the Craven Herald. That is to say, it's identical apart from the first paragraph. But I suppose like all local papers, they are thinly resourced, and it's good they used it. The Defra quote in the Post story is disappointing.
 

bograt

Active member
David Rose said:
I gotta say, I do detect a certain resemblance between our press release and the story in the Craven Herald.

I thought that was what press releases were for?
 

Wayland Smith

Active member
It does seem that now DEFRA and a few weeks back National Resources Wales
have stated their position in a clear (if disappointing) manner.

"CROW does not apply to caving, now go away and stop bothering us."
"Go back to parliament and get them to sort it out!"  o_O
 

Rhys

Moderator
Wayland Smith said:
It does seem that now DEFRA and a few weeks back National Resources Wales
have stated their position in a clear (if disappointing) manner.

"CROW does not apply to caving, now go away and stop bothering us."
"Go back to parliament and get them to sort it out!"  o_O

Or alternatively "See you in court".
 

Rhys

Moderator
Wayland Smith said:
Rhys said:
Or alternatively "See you in court".

I think the problem would be pushing (and paying) for this to go through the judicial system
far enough to get a binding result.

Agreed. Also, a judge might dodge the "open-air" issue altogether and throw an individual case out on different grounds entirely, if they get the chance.
 

ah147

New member
I think we should crowdfund a private case against DEFRA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

martinr

Active member
ah147 said:
I think we should crowdfund a private case against DEFRA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/funding/costs-information said:
Costs ...... vary a lot but we usually advise clients to budget around ?3,000-6,000 plus VAT for the permission stage. It can be lower - but seldom less than ?1,500. Larger and more complex cases can take up much more time and therefore cost a lot more.

These costs get you to the stage of the judge deciding on paper whether you have permission to proceed or not.

If you are refused permission but renew to an oral hearing, the costs of this will normally be in the region of ?3,000 to ?4,000 plus VAT including counsel's fees. Rules of court make it unlikely that you will be exposed to the other side's costs even if they turn up and successfully oppose you at the oral hearing. However you are exposed to the costs that the defending party has been put to in providing written so-called "summary grounds for contesting the claim". We have experience of a huge variability in the level of what other parties claim and can give you more detailed advice if required, but amounts actually awarded should be relatively small.  It is sensible to budget a figure in the ?1,000-3,000 bracket.

Once permission is granted, we normally estimate the costs from then on to the conclusion of a one-day hearing in the High Court at ?10,000-15,000 plus VAT for each side. It can [be] less than this range, and sometimes much  more, but this is a useful guide. The exact amount will again depend upon many factors, including what the other side says by way of evidence, what level of barristers are used and the complexity of the issues. For example, use of a QC in addition to one's junior barrister will increase costs to considerably above that bracket. The level of costs is something to keep under continual review.

If you lose, it's ?30,000 And that only covers the first day in court. I can well imagine this lasting several days, so potentially it could cost ?100,000 or more?

Good luck crowdfunding that amount
 

ah147

New member
?30000 is a fiver a caver. ?100000 is approximately 20.

I'll put up a hundred!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

martinr

Active member
ah147 said:
?30000 is a fiver a caver. ?100000 is approximately 20.

I'll put up a hundred!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good luck, let me know when you've set up the crowdfunding page
 

David Rose

Active member
There is more than one way to skin this legal cat, and it may well be possible to get a costs protection order - which would mean the risks and costs would be much lower than one might imagine. I'm still hoping that persuasion and lobbying will work. If not: watch this space.
 

tony from suffolk

Well-known member
I really wouldn't worry too much about that predictable response from the DEFRA spokesperson, like all government departments they'll cling on like limpets to their decisions, no matter how ludicrous they subsequently appear. Just watch 'em backpedal once a few more MPs see the sense of the pro-CRoW for cavers lobbying.
 

bograt

Active member
Agree with Tony, don't forget DEFRA are civil servants employed to interpret government legislation, they don't make the rules and are frequently at a loss as to how they should be interpreted, surely the way forward is to persuade their taskmasters (The MP's) to clarify whether caving, as an 'outdoor pursuit' should be included--

Initiatives like this can only serve to benefit this cause, well done Tim!  (y)
 

ianball11

Active member
I usually ignore paper articles and on websites about the winch meet once again taking people so very deep into the earth.  So I didn't bother reading this one either, but then noticed I've met one of the people in it which is cool and realised it was a trip through Bar Pot!  that's pretty cool well done guys.
 

martinr

Active member
bograt said:
.......the way forward is to persuade their taskmasters (The MP's) to clarify whether caving, as an 'outdoor pursuit' should be included.........

I don't think that's how our legal system works. Once a law is enacted, it's up to the courts to interpret the legislation, all the way up to the Supreme Court. All MP's can do is enact an amendment, and somehow I don't think the govt will see this as a priority so the best you can hope for is a private member's bill. I'm not holding my breath....
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Until it goes to Court is it not a case that everything else is just posturing, sabre-rattling and wishful thinking? If so, BCA will need to commence proceedings presumably, if it really wants to establish and prove this topic. A perilous path that could bring about an interesting future.
 

tony from suffolk

Well-known member
Sorry, I beg to differ. The interpretation of the CRoW Act as it might relate to caving is purely a point of view from a government agency and with ministerial pressure this can readily be altered without going through the courts. Perhaps Ms Rose could clarify this?
 

Simon Wilson

New member
Cap'n Chris said:
... BCA will need to commence proceedings presumably, if it really wants to establish and prove this topic.

I don't think so. Defra do not decide the law, all they can do is give an opinion. My opinion is that caves are included, the QC's opinion is that we can enter caves under CRoW and Defra's opinion is also that we can enter caves - with the minor caveat that Defra are unwilling to say exactly how far into a cave we can go. In my opinion that is enough of a green light. What part of 'GO' do some people not understand?

I don't expect anybody to take me to court. I feel fairly confident that the major landowners are not bothered and I don't know why some people seem to be assuming they are.
 

Wayland Smith

Active member
Sorry Simon but YOUR opinion, and the QCs opinion counts for nothing in law.
National resources Wales, and DEFRA have both recently stated their position that CROW does not apply to caving.
These are the organizations that administer the legislation.
Until the legislation, or the guidelines change caving is not covered by CROW.
 
Top