Merchant Marine deserters

[yperman]

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 S.222 empowered a Master, Mate or owner to arrest a MM sailor who deserted or was AWOL  and return him to his ship. If Police were required to assist the sailor had to be taken before a Magistrate or Summary Court. On the other hand a sailor off a fishing boat could be arrested for desertion or being AWOL by his Captain or boat's owner and taken aboard. If Police assisted the offender had to be taken before an officer with power to issue a warrant for his arrest. "Officer" included an officer of the Board of Trade who could issue a warrant for his arrest which expired after 96 hours.The officer of the Board of Trade could if necessary send him before a summary court (SS 380,381). Why "if necessary"? Denial that he was a fishing boat crewman?

 

I will be very grateful for help on the following points:

1) Why distinguish between fishing boats and deep sea?  and 2) what penalties would be incurred by the AWOL/Deserting sailors in the Courts and on board?

 

Many thanks, Yperman 

[ss002d6252]

From a quick scan through the legislation,

A fishing vessel, is broadly, defined  in the legislation as any vessel which has gone out on a fishing trip, wherever this may be. I suspect that difference is aimed at the fact that a merchant vessel would not ordinarily sail out and then return back to it's home port, it would have a destination port and therefore there was far more risk (and difficulty caused by) a crew member going AWOL.

 

s380 covers fishing vessels specifically so there was far more chance that a BoT official would be involved than if it was a merchant vessel sailing abroad.

The BoT official was effectively granted powers of a magistrate - that to hear an information and issue a warrant of arrest in response to it. The warrant then had full standing as a warrant actionable by a police officer (the seaman could also be brought to the BoT officer by a owner or skipper without a warrant, the warrant could then issued on appearance to get the process under-way). The idea seems to be that If the seaman agreed to return to the vessel then charges would be dropped at that point otherwise he would be brought in front of a magistrate for sentencing/trial as required

 

The offence for a fishing vessel under s376 for desertion/awol was far less severe than that for other vessels under s221 which I think reflects the difference in the situation. . s376 covers the offences and the penalty for fishermen on summary conviction - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/57-58/60/section/376/enacted

 

Craig

[yperman]

6 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

From a quick scan through the legislation,

A fishing vessel, is broadly, defined  in the legislation as any vessel which has gone out on a fishing trip, wherever this may be. I suspect that difference is aimed at the fact that a merchant vessel would not ordinarily sail out and then return back to it's home port, it would have a destination port and therefore there was far more risk (and difficulty caused by) a crew member going AWOL.

Thank you very much Craig. That clears up the penalties and as you say the key was discretion by the Master/BoT officer. In the context of the Dover Patrol the culprits would have presumably  gone via Dover Borough Police to the Kent Police cells till brought up before the bench. I see what you mean that as a merchant vessel would not usually arrive at the starting port and that would be a more serious offence. I have often wondered how many jumped ship Stateside.

Many thanks

Yperman

[DavidOwen]

An early newspaper article from 1914 shows 3 apprentices who didn't wan't to be "blown up" FMP Link

 

Also a fisherman failed to turn up for the Cheshire's (GY 742) last voyage, sadly the man who replaced him died when the boat hit a mine.