Crown Law, Meredith Connell Auckland, Mark Davies

Crown Law, Meredith Connell Auckland, Mark Davies –
when introducing  Barry Young – purported Expert Witness – asks after he’s sworn in …
“We produced as Exhibit 8 a very basic extract at the start of the Hearing from the (Coastguard) rules of the road at sea textbook? … does that accurately explain in general terms the relevant rule that’s at play in a crossing situation?”

Barry Young dutifully in his apparent roll of Hired Gun for Maritime New Zealand affirms – “Yes clearly. The only difference would be that the angles depicted in the diagram are a little bit different to the angles that actually existed but it is the same situation.”

This is like a staged theatrical played out before Judge Davis who has no idea of what they’re talking about. It’s not likely that Crown Law Mark Davies has any nautical knowledge either but he’s been instructed by Ian Howden  Maritime New Zealand who probably supplied the Page 9 of the Coastguard handbook illustration Exhibit 8 referred to. This is no basic extract but a clear diagram showing the conventional right angled approach of 2 vessels – 1 the stand-on vessel, the other being the give-way vessel. Although Barry Young waffles about angles being the only difference he’s misleading the Court as to the true situation which existed on the day when M Pigneguy created the angles  he wanted to be able to complain about.

Barry Young has ignored the entire evidence M Pigneguy inadvertently provided which revealed his negligence & violations of Maritime Collision Regulations.
It’s even more ridiculous when we’ve been lead to believe so many Maritime New Zealand adult staff in Auckland & Wellington are meant to have considered this claim before & during its Evidential Test assessment.

Bolton, when Nth of Browns Island, saw Seaway more than 3 nmiles away, even before it reached Sth Motuihe – so far away that Seaway was only an unidentifiable  blur of Red & White. There has been no disagreement over the speed each vessel was doing – Seaway travelling at twice the speed of Classique. M Pigneguy stated he saw Classique coming out from Nth Browns Island as he turned at Sth Motuihe which was more than 2 nmiles away. M Pigneguy provided his evidential chart with his course drawn  showing the point of incident as at 020 degrees True x 0.25 nmile off Browns Light. That position marked on his chart indicates according to M Pigneguy that Classique has only travelled 0.3 nmiles in the time Seaway travelled more than 2 nmiles which means according to M Pigneguy’s calculations Classique was travelling at less than 1 knot which is obviously not the case. Classique was travelling at about 7 knots  & would have been well to the East of that point marked by M Pigneguy.

Therefore a very different situation existed from that pictured in the Page 9 diagram  – M Pigneguy altered  the classification of the approach by his negligent turning towards the path of Classique.

Page 9 diagram compared with the actual situation
created by the turning of Seaway towards the path of Classique
Crown Law, Meredith Connell Auckland, Mark Davies2014-08-20_2204

 

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