Cross-examination Of Ian Howden Evasively Concludes

Cross-examination Of Ian Howden Evasively Concludes
To every question Bolton asked Ian Howden, no answer sounded honest.

1: “Why is there such bias & prejudice in the interviews that I’ve had with you & the communications I’ve had? I would’ve appreciated perhaps a searching for the truth rather than a sort of agenda. Was that normal interviewing procedure?”

2: “Why was there no discretion exercised as to whether you should withdraw this claim way back, discretion that could’ve been used perhaps to withdraw this prosecution?”

3: “Could you tell me who the ‘Public Interest’ is that Catherine Taylor, (ex Director Maritime New Zealand) said was behind this prosecution – I haven’t been able to find out who it might be referring to?”

4: “ The little aerosol horn we have here, I was asking for it to be tested in accordance with Appendix 3 in the Maritime Rules, audibility, frequency, range & that sort of thing” Ian Howden after having had this essential point raised at the outset & during the lead up to the Hearing over perhaps 12 months, as if he’s still ignorant of this requirement, answers irresponsibly – “I would have to look at Appendix 3 & just determine what the requirements  are for Appendix 3 before I could comment on that Mr Bolton. I looked very briefly at Appendix 3 & it is my understanding that for a vessel of the length of Seaway, it was required to have a whistle that was audible at a distance of 1 nmile. That was my knowledge of Appendix 3, I haven’t studied at length the requirements…  (As to whether  that little horn would measure up to an authorized ship’s whistle?) … Well,  I have no idea. I don’t know because we haven’t – I believe that horn, because of my experience with horns of that nature, when properly charged, wouldn’t be audible at a distance of 1 nmile or more.”

5: “Would you agree the Photo 3, which we now know was zoomed, according to (& confirmed by) M Pigneguy’s evidence, has an effect on the measurement … between the vessels?”  Judge Davis cuts in saying that he didn’t think it was M Pigneguy’s evidence at all & that it was Bolton’s claim in the transcript but it was pointed out to him as being on Page 24 Line 6 of M Pigneguy’s evidence during Bolton’s cross-examination. Ian Howden didn’t answer.

6: “Has there been any pressure from Keith Ingram & Phillip Wardale for Maritime New Zealand to prosecute me?”  Hearing Ian Howden say “ Absolutely not.”  deserves a resounding – Yeah Right. Phillip Wardale used to ring up Maritime New Zealand every time Bolton booked space at Bayswater Marina before each of his Kermadecs trips – about 16 were made & Ian Howden would either be out to Classique on her mooring before Bolton came back from the office or be at Classique in the Marina as cost  share crew were boarding, to interview them but Ian Howden couldn’t recall whether he had a formal arrangement. Wardale later trespassed Classique. Keith Ingram had been pressuring Maritime New Zealand over many years to prosecute Bolton over his Cost Share Crewing arrangements & in frustration, set up his Professional Skipper ‘Roll of Dishonour, Net the Pirates’ with Classique as its prime entry & was emailing Ian Howden after M Pigneguy’s claim was made.

7: “After all those trips you made out to Classique, you became quite familiar with her wheelhouse layout, so during that interview I was wondering why such unfamiliarity was expressed regarding the layout of Classique – confused as to whether I went down into enclosed situations, saloons etc – it seemed strange when I thought you knew Classique well inside & out?” (Bolton could also have reminded Ian Howden that he’d been out to Classique before the interview, taking many photos of Classique’s wheelhouse & deck layout for his file) So Ian Howden’s excuse that given the time that’s passed, his memory of Classique had faded, didn’t sound at all true especially as there’d been surprise expressed in email from Keith Ingram to Ian Howden that Classique had  a wheelhouse –(where Bolton had been responsibly navigating  &  monitoring Seaway) Brain fade is probably another name for his intention to mislead Judge Davis.

8: “So when I’ve had no previous convictions, incidents, damage, fatalities & there was clearly doubt as to the feasibility of M Pigneguy’s claim, why didn’t Maritime New Zealand consider alternatives to prosecution?” (eg. Censure) Ian Howden, with a proverbial washing of his hands type reply, blames it on the Director of Maritime New Zealand “My role is that of an investigator & I provide her with information on what has happened & I’m not a party to determining whether or not you should be prosecuted. I’m not involved in that process, I merely gather information & provide it to the director for her consideration. I make recommendations where I consider it appropriate but in this case, I referred the file to Wellington for a test of evidential sufficiency.”  It doesn’t appear that the director was given the true facts by Ian Howden & she instead of deciding about prosecution or not, was legally to have notified TAIC – Transport Accident Investigation Commission. Wellington also failed to test it for ‘Evidential Sufficiency’ – something Ian Howden could easily have done in Auckland, found it sadly lacking & not wasted everyone’s time & resources.
Cross-examination Of Ian Howden Evasively Concludes                        

  “He’s at a shareholder’s meeting – deflecting questions” Cross-examination Of Ian Howden Evasively Concludes2014-08-17_2121

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge