Crown Law, MNZ & Barry Young Disregard Ships Whistle Rules

Rules require the warning signal to be made at 1 nmile off with a proper Ships Whistle up to Appendix 3 standard.

Crown Law, MNZ & Barry Young Disregard Ships Whistle Rules
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, Paragraph 41 and 42…
Ground (b) That Seaway ll failed to sound its horn.
41 : Mr Pigneguy’s evidence was that he did in fact sound his horn with “five short and rapid blasts” on the ships whistle to let Classique know that it was Classique’s job to keep out of the way. Because the usual ships whistle was not working, he used an aerosol whistle. Mr Pigneguy maintained that position under cross examination.
42 : Mr Bolton pursued a line of questioning as to whether the whistle was adequate.
The Appellant (Bolton) seeks to respond to the Crown submission …
Responses to Paragraph 41 and 42 …
Response 41. The ferry’s signal, made with an aerosol inlieu of its proper horn, was…
(a) not sounded at the appropriate time.
(b) not sounded at the appropriate distance.
(c) not sounded on a horn complying with required audibility & frequency according to Appendix 3 of Maritime Rules.
For M Pigneyguy & MNZ to ignore those violations as basic to the development of this situation is a serious deficiency and cause for Appeal.
Response 42. The horn’s inadequacy was proven by MNZ (Trans Page 155) with the admission that the aerosol device would not have the required audibility.
The horn’s frequency as required by Appendix 3 was not tested & would not comply – a hand held device used temporarily by small craft has no vessel length requirement.
======================================================
Note in addition to the above responses …
Crown Law , MNZ & Barry Young are absolutely depraved in their maintaining that M Pigneguy’s attempt to signal with a handheld hooter at 80 mtrs off is in any way compliant with the approaching Seaway’s obligations which require the warning signal to be made at 1 nmile off with a proper Ships Whistle up to Appendix 3 standard.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

M Pigneguy’s handheld hooter & camera in no way can be a substitute for a ship’s complying Whistle
Crown Law, MNZ & Barry Young Disregard Ships Whistle Rules

Crown Law, MNZ & Barry Young Disregard Ships Whistle Rules

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