Conclusion to Crown Law’s Opposition to Appeal against Conviction

The principle of allocating prime responsibility to the vessel more capable of keeping out of the way

Conclusion to Crown Law’s Opposition to Appeal against Conviction
Appellant’s Submissions in Conclusion 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
The Appellant (Bolton) concludes his responses to Crown Law’s submissions
In Conclusion –
(a) Cockcroft (who participated actively in the Rules amendments) wrote in his interpretive book “A guide to Collision Avoidance Rules” Page 102 …
Rule 22.13 to 18 “Conduct of vessels in Sight of one another” is based on the principle of allocating prime responsibility to the vessel which will usually be more capable of keeping out of the way” “The most important of these is that a stand-on vessel is now permitted to act at an earlier stage when vessels are in sight of each other.”
(b) Ground 3 in this Appeal “That because Seaway on its own admission was travelling at over twice the speed of Classique, Seaway dictated the ultimate relationship between these 2 vessels. Because of the superior speed of Seaway it was not for Classique to avoid the eventual close quarters situation created by Seaway’s superior speed and negligent alteration of course”
(c) Classique is not therefore operating dangerously by “not getting out of the way” of the rogue ferry tracking, in violation of Collision Regulations, towards Classique, ,
The Appellant fundamentally objects to the alleged facts and evidence upon which the Judge based his Decisions, as well as to the conduct of the Maritime New Zealand witnesses.
The 7 Basic Grounds the Appellant submits in this Appeal are Nautically valid & require consideration not only for the Appellant but also for the wider boating Public Interest especially in areas where ferries have Regular Runs
Therefore – and in the Interest of Justice, considering the apparent perjury, collusion and misleading by the prosecution witnesses, this Appeal should be granted.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules –
A. N. Cockcroft & J. N. F. Lameijer
Click here to view – http://bit.ly/CollisionAvoidanceRules
Conclusion to Crown Law’s Opposition to Appeal against Conviction

Conclusion to Crown Law’s Opposition to Appeal against Conviction

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