M Pigneguy for Seaway II did not submit any record of its actual path for evidence (Manual, AIS or GPS)
Defence Expert Julian Joy’s Second Report – Part 13
Written for Court in response to Affidavit of Mr Young and Crown submissions and Reserved Decision of His Honour Judge Davis’s Ruling in Respect of the Prosecution – MNZ v. Mel Bolton
Julian Joy B.Sc (Nautical), Dip Tchg, ACAT, FCILT, MNI.
Continuing with Julian Joy’s 2nd Report …
In Judge Davis’ decision, paragraph 13, he states that: “However, with the greatest of respect to Mr Joy, the question as to whether a crossing situation existed or not is a matter of fact to be determined by the court. Mr Joy was not a witness to the events…His material is, in many respects, premised on his own attempts to reconstruct the position of the Classique and the Seaway II based on the photos that had been tendered into evidence.”
I respectfully suggest that it is obvious that my material, and also the material of all the parties that “were not a witness to the events”, including Mr Young, Mr Davies, Mr Howden and everyone not on the vessels, is of course clearly based
solely on the evidence presented, which is the photographs taken by Mr Pigneguy together with the incident reports submitted by the two vessels. The reconstruction is a standard process to understand the development background to the event, and was not assisted in this case by Seaway II not submitting any record of its actual path for evidence (Manual, AIS or GPS).
Note in addition to the above information in Julian Joy’s 2nd Report …
Judge Davis about 7 times admitted that he had no Nautical Knowledge at all. Every idea & suggestion he puts forward is his repetition of the false evidence given to him by the Prosecution & Barry Young in particular. Continuing …
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
The faces of the Prosecution Team which mislead Judge Davis to bring about this perversion of the Course of Justice.