{"id":253,"date":"2005-12-07T22:31:04","date_gmt":"2005-12-07T22:31:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2005-12-07T22:31:04","modified_gmt":"2005-12-07T22:31:04","slug":"statutory-interpretation-a-wet-bike-is-not-a-ship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=253","title":{"rendered":"Statutory interpretation: a “wet bike” is not a “ship”."},"content":{"rendered":"

To suggest a jet ski – a “wet bike” called a Waverunner – was a ship was worthy of comic fiction, so held the Court of Appeal today (R v Goodwin<\/em> [2005] CA)<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

On 5 July a jet ski had been held to be a “ship”. <\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal considered the question and determined that it was neither used in navigation nor was it sea-going. On none of the points did it find the jet ski was a “ship”. Nor they said could it be described as a vessel. Even though they said that the suggestion that the Waverunner was a sea-going ship is worthy of A.P.Herbert, the matter is to be allowed to go to the Lords.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To suggest a jet ski – a “wet bike” called a Waverunner – was a ship was worthy of comic fiction, so held the Court of Appeal today (R v Goodwin [2005] CA). On 5 July a jet ski had been held to be a “ship”. The Court of Appeal considered the question and determined […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}