Julian Joy’s Report Validated the Total Evidence of Bolton
It showed unequivocally that the Court had been mislead on the Nautical Interpretation of Maritime Rule 22 – Collision Prevention & in conjunction with the perjurious evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, Judge Davis came to an erroneous Decision, wrongfully convicting & fining punitively Mr Bolton – at the same making a determination contrary to Nautical Principles governing navigation in our waters especially where ferries have their Regular Runs.
Consequently an application was made to Judge Davis for a Rehearing & presentation of Julian Joy’s Report in March 2011 prior to Sentencing.
Judge Davis said –
“(a) The application is somewhat unusual & in the ordinary course of events I would not entertain the application but one matter persuades me that it is not proper to yet decide the application in this case & that is that the hearing which took place over 3 days in Dec’10 involved MNZ on one hand & Mr Bolton on the other. Mr Bolton represented himself at the hearing & it is highly likely he would not have known the nature of the evidence that he would have been required to have presented to the Court, sufficient to challenge the experts that MNZ presented to the Court.
(b) This is one of those rare cases where justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done & I will allow Mr Bolton to file detailed affidavit evidence from his expert & that is to be filed by 18 April 2011”
MNZ was given until 16 May’11 to respond to Mr Joy’s evidence & the Judge would then decide whether or not to grant a rehearing on the papers.
In response to Mr Joy’s report, MNZ filed an affidavit sworn by its expert Mr Young on 16 May’11. The affidavit responded in some detail to Mr Joy’s report …
If a person is crossing the road, an approaching car is not expected to cross over to the wrong side of the road & jeopardised a pedestrian’s safe crossing –
neither is a ferry entitled to turn towards a crossing vessel to create a close quarters situation