A Jetski: Vessel, Boat or Ship?

• Author: Megan Ashford
• Position: Megan Ashford holds a BA(Hons) in Classics and Ancient History. She will complete her LLB in 2006 before joining the State Solicitor's Office as Articled Clerk in 2007. Megan is a student editor for A&NZ Mar LJ in 2006
• Pages: 64-68

A JET SKI; VESSEL, BOAT OR SHIP?

R V GOODWIN [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432

Me ga n Ash ford∗

R v Goodwin1 concerns an appeal by the accused to the Criminal Division of the United Kingdom Court of

Appeal from a plea of guilty in the Crown Court of Salisbury. The accused originally pleaded guilty to a

single count of doing an act that caused or was likely to cause serious injury to a person under section

58(2)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (UK). The appeal was successful.

The case is noteworthy because the court gave a detailed discussion of whether a jet ski could be

considered a ship or a vessel capable of navigation.

The Facts

The appellant, Mr Goodwin, was riding a Yamaha ‘Waverunner’ jet ski (‘the Waverunner’) in Bowleaze

Cove, Weymouth when he collided with another stationary jet ski. Mr Facer, who had been sitting on his jet

ski, was seriously injured.

The Issue s

Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (UK) (MSA) applies to a master or employee of a United

Kingdom ship or a foreign registered ship in United Kingdom waters, who does any act that causes or is

likely to cause serious injury to a person, or omits to do any act that would prevent serious injury to a

person. Consequently, the court addressed a number of issues; whether mere entitlement to registration was

sufficient to satisfy section 58 MSA, whether Mr Goodwin was technically the Master of his Waverunner,

and most importantly for our purposes, whether the Waverunner constituted a ship or a vessel used in

navigation.

Re gistration

It is clear from the facts that the Waverunner was neither registered in the United Kingdom nor anywhere

else.2 The respondents argued tortuously3 but successfully that mere entitlement to registration was

sufficient to satisfy this element of section 58, relying on a combination of section 17(2)(a) and (b) of the

Interpretation Act 1978 (UK) and regulation 4 of Statutory Instrument 1991 No 1366. By this, section 58

extends to sea-going ships (excluding fishing ships) wholly owned by United Kingdom residents and which

are entitled to be registered.4 The Waverunner was jointly owned by Mr Goodwin and a friend, both United

Kingdom residents. The Waverunner was capable of registration; the operations manager of the register of

ships established under section 10 MSA gave evidence that numerous ‘wet bikes’ are registered.5

Consequently, the court decided that this was sufficient to satisfy section 58.6

Having addressed the matter of registration, the court went on to hold that the Waverunner failed to pass

two essential elements of section 58. First, the court accepted the appellant’s arguments that the

∗ Megan Ashford holds a BA(Hons) in Classics and Ancient History. She will complete her LLB in 2006 before joining the State

Solicitor’s Office as Articled Clerk in 2007. Megan is a student editor for A&NZ Mar LJ in 2006.

1 [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432.

2 Ibid, 434.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid, 435. In the register, the term ‘wet bike’ is used in preference to jet ski for copyright reasons.

6 Ibid, 435.

(2006) 20 A&NZ Mar LJ

64