Crown Law Continues Confusion Centring On Crossing Rule

If M Pigneguy had steered straight there would have been a safe crossing with 462 mtrs clearance

Crown Law Continues Confusion Centring On Crossing Rule

Appellant’s Submissions in response to Submissions of Crown Law Mark Davies, Meredith Connell in opposition to Appeal against Conviction
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Crown Law on behalf of Maritime New Zealand wrote in their Submission Paragraphs 26 & 28
“Mr Bolton submits that Judge Davis has misunderstood the relevant Maritime Rule in describing the issue for determination as to whether Classique found itself in a crossing situation. This is because he says the crossing situation must be one with a risk of collision. Maritime New Zealand accepts the crossing situation has to be one with a risk of collision but submits that it is clear upon reading Judge Davis’s decision that he did not misunderstand the position.
The Appellant (Bolton) seeks to respond to the Crown submission
Response to Paragraphs 26 & 28
Response 26&28. Regarding the Judge’s misunderstanding of the differentiation of “Crossings” – the Judge makes no reference at all to a “Crossing with Risk of Collision” having to exist if Rules are to apply. It is equally unfortunate that MNZ experts did not admit that it was the turning of the ferry towards Classique which converted what would have been a safe crossing or passing starboard to starboard, into that which is said to be one with risk
============================================================.
Note on the above submission re Paragraph 26 & 28
Maritime New Zealand & its Hired gun Barry Young allowed Judge Davis to be confused about crossings by saying repeatedly that Seaway & Classique were in a crossing situation thereby inferring that Maritime Collision Prevention Rules were to apply.
It was unsuccessfully explained to Judge Davis that the majority of vessels crossings were perfectly safe. This case began as a safe crossing or no crossing at all if Seaway had kept to its Regular Run.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

If M Pigneguy had steered a straight course there would have been a safe crossing with 462 mtrs clearance astern of Classique. If Seaway had been kept on its Regular Run, there wouldn’t have been a crossing at all.
Crown Law Continues Confusion Centring On Crossing Rule

Crown Law Continues Confusion Centring On Crossing Rule

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