Judge’s Decision – Submission on Paragraph 11 for Appeal

The modification of Page 9 showing the difference between Page 9 & the actual situation - no risk

Judge’s Decision – Submission on Paragraph 11 for Appeal
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Para 11 : His Honour had been persuaded that as Classique was approaching Seaway on a 30 deg angle, a Crossing situation could have developed….
Bolton submits that – The Judge has been mislead by Maritime New Zealand as to the description of Crossings – most are perfectly safe, some but not Classique’s crossing, may have Risk of Collision. At that stage the situation developing was such that “If each vessel keeps its course & speed, each shall pass clear of the other”. (Toghill – “International Collision Regulations Rule 18” as given in evidence)
This was “A border line Head-on/Crossing situation” – both passing Starboard to Starboard and because no risk existed it doesn’t fall within Rules regarding Crossing where Risk exists.
(A) – The Crossing Situation is shown by Maritime New Zealand to be Page 9 of the Coastguard book – refer Transcripts Pages 17,18,53. This illustrates the classic 90 deg, Stand-on/Give-way, situation. The Judge is mislead by both Pigneyguy & prosecution witness Barry Young, to believe Seaway’s approach of 30 deg is the same as the Page 9 illustration. The modification of Page 9 showing the difference is … (Attached 4)
(B) – Trans Pages 210,211, Bolton refers to Risk Of Collision (ROC) not applying till ferry reached the point at which it would normally turn round Browns – regulations allow for special circumstances eg Ferry on Regular Run turning at Browns – no need for Bolton to increase Classique’s speed to get out of ferry’s way to avoid something brought upon her as ferry turned towards her instead of turning away at Browns to follow the course from whence Classique had come – there was no sound signal from ferry to indicate any concern the ferry had as to Classique’s intentions.
(C) – Trans Pages 221,222,223,224,225,226 “Seaway & Classique were coming together on courses & speeds which if both are kept, each will pass clear of the other – starboard to starboard & that is a crossing without ROC – the 2 vessels weren’t in a crossing situation involving ROC– a rule doesn’t apply until ROC exists”
(D) -Trans Pages 35,36,37 “ I’m saying that I wasn’t crossing – that if we’d both kept our course & speed, ferry would’ve passed around Browns from whence I’d come. Or behind me with adequate clearance.” Refer diagrams including no crossing at all. (Attached 5)
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

Toghill – International Collision Regulations Rule 18
Click to view – Manual of Yacht Navigation – J. E. Toghill
Manual of Yacht Navigation
 Judge’s Decision – Submission on Paragraph 11 for Appeal, Toghill

The modification of Page 9 showing the difference between Page 9 & the actual situation
 Judge’s Decision – Submission on Paragraph 11 for Appeal, P9

Diagram showing how there could have been no crossing at all
 Judge’s Decision – Submission on Paragraph 11 for Appeal, No_Crossing

 

Judge’s Decision – Submission on Paragraph 11 for Appeal

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