Misconstruing Of Evidence Is Mark Davies, Crown Law’s Forte

Showing up Ian Howden & Jim Lott in the process

Misconstruing Of Evidence Is Mark Davies, Crown Law’s Forte
He wants to get back to the point Bolton raised about Seaway changing course towards the path of Classique & refers to parts of the Interview before Ian Howden & Jim Lott.  Bolton had not detected an alteration of course & thought Seaway had maintained a straight course on the actual day of the alleged incident manufactured by M Pigneguy.
Mark Davies – “You don’t say he’s changing his course by 11 degrees at that point in the interview do you?”
Bolton – “No, I say it started before he took the 1st Photo – he gave me 6 degrees prior to that point & then increased on that by another 5.”
Mark Davies – “When you were talking about the Photos, you say to Mr Lott, ‘No in this case my line of sight, rule of thumb, indicates he’s still going to go astern of me. If there’s any need to increase the clearance, my best bet is to increase my speed.’ Mr Lott said ‘Hang on, you’re saying your rule of thumb said there was no risk of collision?’ You said ‘Yes, because he was going to go astern of me.”
Mark Davies in repetitious manner continues– “And yet shortly after this time by his testimony, he had to go astern with his engines in order not to hit you & Photo 3 shows that there was very much a close quarters situation?” and you said “Well I didn’t see any change of course or speed on his part?” Then Mr Howden said, ”well look at Photo 3, if we accept what he says that he reduced sped & had he not reduced speed, would you not agree, he would’ve passed a lot closer than we see as at Photo 3” You said “Well in my opinion he didn’t slow down & I couldn’t detect any change of course or speed on his part.”
Mark Davies showing his ignorance of maritime matters thinks he’s on to something. In the process he also implicates Ian Howden & Jim Lott who should’ve known better –“On 3 occasions Mr Bolton,you’ve actually said that you didn’t notice any change in the ferry’s course at all?”
Bolton explains but Judge Davis didn’t get the practical significance of this point – “That’s what makes this so important to understand. We are told in Rule 22.8.2 that a vessel must not change its course in small increments because they are very hard & in my case, I didn’t detect because they were so incremental. I only had the sensation that Seaway was coming up. Any movement has to be done ‘positively, in ample time & such that they can be readily observed by the other vessel. That’s the point of these rules & regulations. You must not do these things in small increments, they must be positive, done in ample time & sufficient to be able to be clearly observed by the other vessel.”
Mark Davies continues with his head in the sand – “Well Mr Pigneguy says that he observed the rules of the road, maintained his course & speed until such time as a collision was imminent & he had to take emergency action. You understand that’s his evidence don’t you?”
Bolton emphasized – “And I don’t believe one word of it, that’s why I think the incident has been created.”
“A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules” by Cockcroft & Lameijer covers Rule 22.8 thoroughly & can be viewed by clicking here – Collision Avoidance Rules
Misconstruing Of Evidence Is Mark Davies, Crown Law’s Forte,Ready

Incremental course changes are imperceptible  at sea,
therefore Rule 22.8 emphasizes that maneuvers must be large enough to be readily apparent.


Misconstruing Of Evidence Is Mark Davies, Crown Law’s Forte

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