The onus was on Seaway - maintain a straight course or keep a regular course & turn away from Classique
Judge Toogood’s Decision Paras 21,22, Whirlpool – Video
Judge Toogood quotes from the ill-informed Decision of Judge Davis –
Para 21 – In contrast, Rule 22.17 sets out the actions required to be undertaken by the stand on vessel. They are as follows:
Rule 22.17 Action by stand-on vessel
(1) If one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other must keep its course and speed.
(2b) if it is a power-driven vessel in a crossing situation, if the circumstances of the case allow, it must not alter course to port for a vessel on its own port side.
Judge Toogood applies the Rules as Judge Davis was mislead to believe the situation as Barry Young & M Pigneguy dishonestly presented it –
Para 22 – “Applying the Rule to the situation that presented itself to each of Seaway II and the Classique the onus was on the Seaway II to maintain its course and speed. Furthermore, if it becomes apparent to the stand on vessel that the give-way vessel is not taking action to give way then the stand on vessel may take action to avoid collision, but under no circumstances can the stand on vessel alter its course to port”
Bolton writes his Submissions on this Point in Judge Toogood’s Decision –
Para 22 – “This was not a Stand-on, give-way situation but was to be a passing safely astern of Classique, starboard to starboard – therefore the onus was on the ferry Seaway, to either maintain a straight course astern of Classique or turn away from her & maintain its regular course around Browns Island towards Auckland. As it was not in a Stand-on/give-way situation, the ferry was free to turn to its Port as it usually did, not being governed by Rule 22.17.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Judges sucked in by False Evidence