Evidential Sufficiency Test & Ian Howden’s Information

Evidential Sufficiency Test & Ian Howden’s Information
which he says was passed in his file to Wellington for their determination.

This Evidential Test is part of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S  PROSECUTION GUIDELINES to ensure New Zealand prosecutors provide a professional, open, fair and responsible prosecution service.
Prosecutions ought to be initiated only where the prosecutor is
satisfied that the Test for Prosecution is met & is sufficient to provide
a reasonable prospect of conviction – the Evidential Test;
It is necessary that these elements be fully examined when
considering the evidential sufficiency test.

1: Credible evidence
This means evidence which is capable of belief.
Prosecutors may be required to make an
assessment of the quality of the evidence.
Where there are substantial concerns as to the
creditability of essential evidence, criminal
proceedings may not be appropriate as the
evidential sufficiency test may not be capable of being met.

2: Could reasonably be expected to be satisfied
What is required by the evidential sufficiency test is that
there is an objectively reasonable prospect of a
conviction on the evidence. The apparent
cogency and creditability of evidence is not a
mathematical science, but rather a matter of
judgment for the prosecutor. In forming his or
her judgment the prosecutor shall endeavour to
anticipate and evaluate likely defences.

3: Beyond reasonable doubt
The evidence available to the prosecutor must
be capable of reaching the high standard of
proof required by the criminal law

4: Commission of a criminal offence
This requires that careful analysis is made of the
law in order to identify what offence or
offences may have been committed and to
consider the evidence against each of the
ingredients which establish the particular
Analysis of what appears to have been perpetrated.
a : M Pigneguy’s claim is in no way credible, in fact it shows the many Maritime Rules he violated as he caused the alleged close quarters.

b: Consequently it had no cogency or credibility. Bolton’s accident report was not made official & neither was his evidence considered – that he was not guilty.

c:  What was beyond reasonable doubt was that M Pigneguy manufactured his close quarters & colluded with his trainee watch-keeper Phillip Sweetman  to concoct evidence which might be sufficient to mislead a city Judge Davis.

d: Maritime New Zealand in Auckland & Ian Howden in particular did not  properly consider the evidence provided or Maritime Law at all as to what offences M Pigneguy committed.

The overwhelming conclusion seems to be that the true facts were withheld from Wellington who were left with a whitewashed version which suited Ian Howden & Jim Lott’s intention to get a prosecution of Bolton approved .

 A diagram Wellington MNZ was not shown – of M Pigneguy not keeping to his stated 286 degree course but steering towards the path of Classique to manufacture his alleged close quarters
& where he took his photo 1 in lieu of having a complying ship’s whistle to sound
Evidential Sufficiency TestSituationDiag

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