Protection Of Wreck Act 1973 Case Study

1636 Words 7 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Any individual who intentionally interdicts around with a vessel that is not ownership of it, will be punished. s. (1)(a) ‘damages or removed any part of a vessel lying wrecked on or in the sea bed’. It is a criminal offence to interfere with a wreck designated under section 1 of the act without a licence required to s.1(1) (b) uses any equipment constructed or adapted for any purpose of diving’ indicating that a license would have to be given in order to do so to dive the wreck site. However, there are factors which would be seen as not committing an offence in the Act.s. (3) (3) ‘Sole purpose of dealing with an emergency’. This suggests that any individual does not have a license to deal with the wreck in a restricted area of the wreck and has reasons for doing so- for example in cases of emergencies; where an individual needs to survive, would be not be committing an …show more content…
It would be fair to say Ada has satisfied all the necessary requirements set out in the Act. First the requirements of s.1 (3)(c) ‘if it were to fall on the site of the wreck, (whether it so falls or not) would wholly or partly obliterate the site or obstruct access to it, or damage any part of the wreck;’ Since Ada had been asked to lead a group on a diving trip- unless she was licensed to undertake this operation to access the wreck, it is likely that she did not grant a license after this operation, to lead a group to visit the wreck after Fred’s expiration date of his license, suggesting that Ada had known this and therefore would be committing an offence stated under the …show more content…
s.1(c) ’he deposits, so as to fall and lie abandoned on the sea bed, anything which, it if were to fall on the site of the wreck, (whether it so falls or not) would wholly or partly obliterate the site or obstruct access to it, or damage any part of the wreck’. It is possible to say that Arthur had been deceitful and went to the visit the wreck due to the sole purpose the wreck being historical, leading to an intention to gain more information about the wreck as he runs a diving company. He does not have a license to view the wreck, and by visiting a property belonging to another, he would be committing an offence under the

Related Documents