Aussie Legal Hurdles (RTW) ???

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Section 68 seems to refer to vessels and masters departing Australia for a place outside Australia. Chris isn't doing this. Chris is departing a mooring in a small bay to sail back to the very same mooring.

As for the Customs act, it Chris has no intention of leaving Australia; Chris is going from Australia to Australia. In fact, he is not even at any recognised port.

Say some more about Ways and Means

That's funny, I'd love to be in court when Chris tries that one on the judge..

68 Unregistered ships not to leave Australia
(1) An unregistered ship shall not depart from an Australian port to a place outside Australia.

'A place outside Australia' is immediately at 12.05 miles from shore.. This is not Dr Who where you go into a third dimension. You can't leave Australia and not be somewhere.. And you certainly can't sail around the world and not be leaving Australia to do it..

Within an Act, the heading is part of the legislation. In this part, the intention of the legislators is very clear and they have written it into the specific section, 'unregistered ships not to leave Australia'.. boom, fine up to $2000.. though probably be less than $500 for this type of thing.

Mind you, there's probably fines for not paying the $48 departure tax and the $385 bio security fee..

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Chris thanks you for your input
Regarding the requirement that the boat be registered, the AMSA link that SWL posted was pretty clear it was required under International Law but beyond that it wasn't specific.

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as "international law". What there is are local laws that are the consequence of international treaties and conventions.

In Australia many conventions and treaties concernint the high seas have been implemented in the Navigation Act of 2012 it appears...

And that is thus the law you have to comply with.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

It is required internationaly under (local) law(s).... front anywhere paperless and you will be in the pooo

Remembering in this hypothetical exercise, Chris isn't fronting anywhere. Chris is leaving the mooring and returning to the same mooring without entering any other country or even any other territorial waters. Why is a passport needed?

Of course, should Chris actually entered another country paperless then some paddling up the proverbial creek in a barbwire canoe will occur but that is a different hypothetical, not this one

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Say some more about Ways and Means

Every State and Federal police have a 'Ways and Means Act'. 1979 was the day the Federal Police began in Australia, so I just used that. But police around the world, especially in the USA have a 'Ways and Means Act', basically 'where there's a will, there's a means'

In my first year out as a coppa I arrested this drunk once and I thought he was too drunk to remember anything and when he asked for the 20'th time why he was being arrested I said, for breaching section 29A of the Ways and Mean's Act.. Some months later I just happened to be in the courts doing court duty when he got called up as he had not paid the fine and so was called to court. The magistrate asked him if he desires to plead Not Guilty and he said, "you bet ya I'm not guilty, I looked it up and there's no such thing as a Waÿs and Means Act'". I must have turned bright red because both the police prosecutor and the magistrate both looked over at me and rolled their eyes. Then the magistrate suggested he has misunderstood and told him he's been charged with being 'drunk and disorderly' and asked the prosecutor to read out the facts.. To which the guy sheepishly said, "I didn't know I did all that your honour, I must had forgotten that.. I guess I better plead guilty then" and then added, "I could have sworn the coppa said I'd broken some 'ways and means Act' ..

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as "international law". What there is are local laws that are the consequence of international treaties and conventions.

And that is thus the law you have to comply with.

Shhhh, there are some on CF who insist there are 'International Laws', and for example insist the Colregs are 'International Law' and then this leads to all sorts of barnies..

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Why is a passport needed?

Because under the Customs Act, the Customs office has the authority to require you to produce any document they so desire and they do so require you to produce a passport if you are leaving Australia.. And on entry, they require you to produce your passport as well.

And in addition, there is an offence for leaving Australia with Commonwealth property without approval, such is a passport.. Though you can avoid this particular offence by not taking it with you when Chris does not advise he's leaving Australia.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as "international law". What there is are local laws that are the consequence of international treaties and conventions.

In Australia many conventions and treaties concernint the high seas have been implemented in the Navigation Act of 2012 it appears...

And that is thus the law you have to comply with.

Yep, it looks the Navigation Act 2012 applies, especially sect 16

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Because under the Customs Act, the Customs office has the authority to require you to produce any document they so desire and they do so require you to produce a passport if you are leaving Australia.. And on entry, they require you to produce your passport as well.

And in addition, there is an offence for leaving Australia with Commonwealth property without approval, such is a passport.. Though you can avoid this particular offence by not taking it with you when Chris does not advise he's leaving Australia.

I not up to speed with the Customs Act but is there a concise defintion of "leaving Australia"

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Yep, it looks the Navigation Act 2012 applies, especially sect 16

I might be lost, ( am I still in this game )

But I can't see how this act has any relevance for Chris.. The Act is specifically about maritime safety, sea farers and the prevention of pollution of the marine environment. Section 16 is a definition for this purpose, not for other purposes, so how does Chris come under this Act?

(it is a game isn't it )

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I not up to speed with the Customs Act but is there a concise defintion of "leaving Australia"

( I'm still playing )

Not that I can see, but given our 'waters to which we have sovereign' are to 12 miles, which seems to be what the Quarantine Act refers to then, I'd suggest rather than there being a 'definition' the courts simply take note of it.. But not really sure on that one.

But regardless, the courts do use common understanding in determining things that are common, and thus I think the court would consider that 'leaving Australia' is when you leave the lands that are sovereign to Australia.. And that's 12 miles. And yes, 12 miles of ocean in included in Australia's lands. I'm surmising all of this. I don't really know.

[Pelagic]

This is kind of like the challenge.. "If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it.....does it make a sound?"

if no one documented that Chris left, how would we know if he really left?...... and what if he changed his name to Madé?.... just thinking

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This is kind of like the challenge.. "If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it.....does it make a sound?"

if no one documented that Chris left, how would we know if he really left?...... and what if he changed his name to Madé?.... just thinking

What genus of tree?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This is kind of like the challenge.. "If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it.....does it make a sound?"

if no one documented that Chris left, how would we know if he really left?...... and what if he changed his name to Madé?.... just thinking

If he did clear out then he must be still here . We ask him in 9 months

You last bit about changing his name went over my head...any chance of some more explanation or at least a hint...

[valhalla360]

I don't know a specific statute but most countries exercise control of people crossing thier border. In particular those coming in.

So when he comes back from international waters, he has to cross the border. I'm presuming Austrailia requires a passport to cross the border, hence he would not have the required documentation.

Could he sneak in...possibly but if he wants to meet the law, how can he cross the border without a passport.

Of course once they pick him up for crossing the border with no passport, they will look into the other requirements and most countries consider lying to an offical illegal. If his goal is to stay legal, he will have to admit where he was and thus there is clear documentation that he didn't complete all the other paperwork required to leave and return from austraila.

Seems pretty clear cut to me even without being able to quote a statute.

[grantmc]

Something to add to the mix. All the responses have assumed Chris is an Ozzie national. It’s likely too that Australian law allows a yacht to be registered on another countries register and owned by a national.

There was an example of something similar here in NZ in 2012. Jarle Andhoy (a Norwegian national) sailed his yacht Nilaya from Auckland to Antarctica without permission. They left Auckland without clearing Customs and the crew included a kiwi Busby Noble.

The sailed to Antarctica. The New Zealand authorities tried to halt the yacht but Andhoy made it to McMurdo where he tried to find traces of his previous yacht, Berserk, that had disappeared in a storm with the loss of three men in 2011.
Nothing was found and Andhoy took Nilaya to Chile where he and Noble and another young crew member were briefly arrested.
In Norway Andhoy was prosecuted and Judge Unni Sandbukt of the Nord-Troms District Court convicted Andhoy of sailing into Antarctica without permission of the Norwegian Polar Institute.
He was found to have lacked permission and failed to meet strict demands for insurance and preparedness for environmental consequences when he set sail from New Zealand.
Andhoy argued that an international treaty governing Antarctica applies only on land, not at open sea. The court found him guilty of violating the treaty, though, fining him.
The last I heard Andhoy’s lawyer was filing an appeal on the basis McMurdo Sound, is open sea and not covered by the treaty rules that only apply to land.
In the meantime Andhoy refuses to pay the fine.

Just my own view. I don’t think the NZ Govt wanted to catch the yacht and so they didn’t try very hard. Too much hassle and stopping any ship on the high seas creates all sorts of issues.