M Pigneguy’s Concocted Evidence Repeated before Judge Davis
Mark Davies, Crown Law, Meredith Connell Auckland starts his cross- examination of Bolton who confirmed that Seaway was approaching from the starboard side of Classique but at the point of Photo 1 there was no risk of collision.
Mark Davies can’t realize how unfeasible the evidence is that he’s about to quote – Now I’m going to put to you – I’m going to read out to you the evidence of the other people that were there, about that. this is what the captain of Seaway said. He was asked “Are you able to say whether either Photos 1 or 2 were taken around the time that you emitted blasts on the horn?” “I started sounding the blasts when they were about, when he was about 80 mtrs away which is probably close to where that 2nd Photo was taken because it’s obvious from there that the bearing was changing very little from the relative bearing in photo 1 & I still maintained within 1 or 2 degrees my original course & speed.
And he was asked, “So what’s the situation you were faced with at that point in time? And the captain said, “We were faced if I didn’t do anything we were going to collide with Classique, there was no doubt at all.” So that’s the captain’s evidence between Photos 1 & 2, in his mind there was no doubt at all that there was going to be a collision Mr Bolton. You understand that’s his evidence?
Bolton – “If that was in his mind, so be it but it wasn’t a risk of collision at all.”
Analysis of M Pigneguy’s evidence reveals his ignorance of Maritime Collision Regulations governing the approach of vessels.
1: The blasts & horn terminology used was deliberately misleading to Judge Davis as neither the blasts nor the hand held aerosol horn M Pigneguy used complied with Appendix 3 regarding sound & signaling equipment
2: Starting to sound blasts at a very unrealisic 80 mtrs away is in violation of Rule 22.34.4. which required them to be IMMEDIATELY M Pigneguy had doubt & that was at least 1 nmile away, well before Photo 1 which was only 0.5 nmile off.
3: M Pigneguy’s estimation of 80 mtrs being near Photo 2 raises questions as to his intention to deceive Judge Davis. 80 mtrs is practically at Photo 3. Photo 2 is at about 462 mtrs away.
4: That bearing M Pigneguy refers to is his relative bearing which wasn’t changing much because he was bringing it up with him as Seaway turned towards the path of Classique – it is the most unreliable method of determining risk of collision.
5: M Pigneguy’s saying that he’d maintained his course within 1 or 2 degrees is the only time he has admitted anything other than he “never altered course” at all. This is conflicting evidence & if he’s admitted 1 or 2 degrees he’s more than likely turned the 5 degrees seen between Photos 1 & 3 as well as the 6 degrees before Photo 1.
6: For M Pigneguy to say that if he didn’t do anything there was going to be collision, is quite senseless considering all he had to do was to stop turning towards the path of Classique & there would be no collision & that’s apart from the action Bolton could’ve taken if the Rogue ferry turned up any further.
7: It seems as if M Pigneguy’s mind was fully occupied with getting as close as he could to Classique with his camera recording the manufactured close quarters evidence to use in court.
8: The drama M Pigneguy endeavours to portray is also a violation of Maritime Rule 22.8 – Action to avoid collision is to be made in ample time. The entire intention of Maritime Rules Part 22, Collision Prevention, is to avoid the very situation M Pigneguy was responsible for creating through his own negligence.