Appeal Points from Judge Toogood’s Decision Para 24, Part 2

Evidence from M Pigneguy deliberately falsified to gain additional traction before Judge Davis

Appeal Points from Judge Toogood’s Decision Para 24, Part 2
Judge Toogood continues quoting the untrue “facts” as promulgated in Judge Davis’s Decision …
Para 24 – “Again the Classique did not alter its course and a third photo was taken. By this time Captain Pigneguy said he had thrown the Seaway II into reverse to bring it to a halt and that enabled the Classique to pass across the bow of the Seaway II. Captain Pigneguy’s evidence was that had he not thrown the Seaway II into reverse the Seaway II would have collided with the Classique.”
Bolton in his submissions on Appeal writes a correction re the above …
Judge Davis & consequently Judge Toogood had been mislead as to the essential “facts” alleged by Maritime New Zealand.
(e). The ferry was not thrown into reverse, bringing it to a halt – it passed at speed.
(f). For M Pigneyguy to say if he had not thrown the ferry into reverse he saved a collision is to admit to a violation of Collision Regulations which are worded to avoid such a late action – also he is not taking into account the remedial action Classique could have taken if needed eg. by increasing/decreasing her speed or turning away.
Note in addition to the above submission …
This evidence from M Pigneguy is deliberately falsified to gain traction before Judge Davis by creating a sense of catastrophe which definitely didn’t exist on the day.
It amounts to blatant perjury which appears to have been encouraged by Maritime New Zealand & Crown Law throughout their prosecution.
M Pigneguy in his Claim & Brief of Evidence said he “slowed Seaway down” but at the hearing he verbally stated several times that he stopped Seaway, to the extent “Seaway was dead in the water”
Bolton & his crew onboard Classique confirm that Seaway did not slow, neither did it need to – Seaway went past clear of the stern of Classique as fast as a Waiheke roll on/roll off ferry would be expected to,
whilst M Pigneguy fumbled his hand held aerosol hooter out of his wheelhouse window.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

“You say you’re in for perjury eh? Why should I believe that?”
Appeal Points from Judge Toogood's Decision Para 24, Part 2

Appeal Points from Judge Toogood’s Decision Para 24, Part 2

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