A stand-on, give-way situation certainly didn't exist therefore Rule 22.16 obviously didn’t apply.
Appeal Points from Judge Toogood’s Decision Paras 19, 20
Judge Toogood quotes from the erroneous Decision of Judge Davis –
Para 19 : Rule 22.16 defines the actions required to be undertaken by the give-way vessel and provides :
“Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel must, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.”
Para 20 : Again, applying this Rule to the situation at hand, if a crossing situation existed the onus was on the Classique to take early and substantial action to keep well clear of the Seaway II.
Bolton in his submissions on Appeal re Judge Toogood’s Decision writes …
Paras 19, 20 – The ferry had 2 miles over which it traveled at twice the speed of Classique to take early & proper action to keep well clear of Classique.
Note in addition to submission re Paras 19, 20 …
Classique was travelling at about half the speed of Seaway, in which case, Classique would have covered about a nautical mile in the time Seaway took to travel from Sth Motuihe. Classique at the time Seaway turned towards her, was coming out from Nth Browns Island.
With 2 nautical miles ( 3600 mtrs) separating the 2 vessels, there was certainly no suggestion that a stand-on, give-way situation existed.
Therefore Rule 22.16 obviously didn’t apply.
Putting it simply – it’s the same as a person intending to cross a street. In NZ one looks along the street to the right & seeing nothing close, would walk across to the centre of the street whilst looking to the left to see if proceeding to the other side was ok. It would be most untoward if that person was almost run over on the other half of the street by a car crossing the centre line from the right instead of it keeping to its previous left side of the street, giving ample clearance behind that pedestrian.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess