Barry Young – Expert Witness Or Maritime New Zealand Hired Gun
As he’s sworn in, Crown Law, Mark Davies asks Barry Young to confirm that his Brief of Evidence is essentially his Evidence in Chief. Then Mark Davies has supplementary questions to ask him.
1: “You’ll recall that during the course of the hearing & maybe the interview, the situation that’s been called the incident is depicted in Photo 1, 2 & 3 has been described as something other than a crossing or an end-on situation, do you have any comment to make about that?”
Immediately the purposeful misleading begins of Judge Davis who later admits he has no knowledge of Maritime technical matters.
Barry Young has sworn to abide by his Code of Conduct as an Expert Witness & help to the Court but straight away he is acting more like a Hired Gun for Maritime New Zealand’s case when he answers – “There is no other possibility. When 2 power vessels are meeting there are only 3 possibilities that fall within the collision regulations. The 1st is a head-on situation. The 2nd possibility is a crossing situation & the 3rd possibility which doesn’t affect us here is an overtaking situation & from what I’ve seen, the situation that we are dealing with is clearly a crossing situation.”
Bolton had described the approach of Seaway towards Classique as originally that of a crossing with no risk of collision whereby each was obliged to keep its course & speed to pass safely starboard to starboard – not invoking Rule 22.15
Barry Young is therefore confusing the Court & not being helpful when he doesn’t explain that the majority of crossings & passings do not have any risk of collision & that there certainly was this other possibility that is not governed by Rule 22.15 ‘Crossing with risk of collision’ (Barry Young – Expert Witness aka MNZ Hired Gun)
Barry Young is only quoting the 3 possibilities of crossings with risk of collision which are not relevant in this case as the situation that existed on the day was not a crossing with risk of collision (until M Pigneguy made it look that way) so he is already misleading the Court by setting the stage as if it was – without differentiating between the two types of crossings, 1 with & the majority without risk of collision.
Furthermore, Crown Law Mark Davies & Barry Young are both being decidedly unprofessional in saying that the incident is only that depicted in Photos 1, 2 & 3 – over a mere ½ nmile, when M Pigneguy had given in his evidence what he had done as from turning towards Classique at Sth Motuihe 2.8 nmiles away.
The 3 situations covered by Rule 22.15 … Meeting, Overtaking & Crossing situations
which do not apply to the approach negligently created by M Pigneguy turning towards the path of Classique