Submission on Judge Davis’s Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 for Appeal

Perjury, Perversion of Justice & dishonesty was par for the course to an outrageous degree

Submission on Judge Davis’s Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 for Appeal
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

The following are the Appellant’s responses to Paragraphs 14, 15 & 16 of Judge Davis’s Decision

[8] Para 14 : His Honour describes the Maritime Rules. A comprehensive code of Rules (part 22) has been developed to govern situations where collisions may be apparent….
It is essential to note that for the Rule to be applicable, there must be a “risk of collision” – no risk, no need to apply Rule 22 which is not a complete & comprehensive code of navigation – the ordinary precaution of prudent seamanship as defined by custom & professional courtesy are still required.
[9] Para 15 : His Honour is quoting The important point about Rule 22.7(1) is that if there is any doubt ….
It is submitted that In this situation there was no doubt aboard Classique that each would or could pass clear of the other– the ferry passing astern of Classique, starboard to starboard or no crossing at all.
[10] Para 16 : His Honour appears to not understand Rule 22.8 that sets out the action required to be undertaken to avoid collision….
It is submitted that this applies to both vessels at a later stage when unilateral avoidance may be required in the event the other vessel has not taken appropriate action.
=======================================================================================
Notes in addition to submissions on Paragraphs 14, 15 & 16…
1: Judge Davis admitted having no nautical knowledge at all & that was clearly evident through-out the hearing.
2: He was completely unfamiliar with Maritime Rules, charts & terminology.
3: He was unable to look at M Pigneguy’s photographs & recognize any features visible through the windscreen of Seaway.
4: Coming from Bay of Islands he was in foreign territory without any familiarity of what is to an Auckland boat owner, like his home frontage.
5: Barry Young, M Pigneguy, Phillip Sweetman, Maritime New Zealand & Mark Davies Crown Law took advantage of Judge Davis & mislead him without regard for the ethics of their joint obligations & responsibilities.
6: Perjury, Perversion of Justice & dishonesty was par for the course to an outrageous degree in this New Zealand prosecution.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

                  The faces behind this prosecution of the wrong skipper
Submission on Judge Davis’s Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 for Appeal,2014-12-10_2229

Submission on Judge Davis’s Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 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