Barry Young Denigrates the Role of Expert Witness & brings it into Disrepute
The conduct of Experts in disputes is laid out in a Code of Conduct – “While an expert will be instructed, briefed & called at a hearing as a witness on behalf of a party to the dispute, his or her primary role is to assist the Court in providing expert opinion relevant to the issues in the case”
1: Owing a primary duty to the Court
2: Conscious of the need not to become an advocate for the case. “If the lawyers do not remind the expert of this, then the expert must do it.”
3: “Do not become an advocate for the case of the party which instructs you”
In B Young’s sworn Brief of Evidence he states “I have been provided with a copy of the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in Schedule 4 of the High court Rules. I have read that document & I agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in all aspects of my involvement with this case”
Mr Bolton was instructed by Judge Davis during the trial to address technical & navigational matters to Mr Young who rejected that evidence in total (except for the 1 transit from Nth Shore)
Mr Joy’s Report draws the Court’s attention to at least 14 errors of navigational principles made by Mr Young.
Mr Young’s response was that there was nothing in Mr Joy’s Report that would change his views that Classique breached Maritime Rules by not giving way & a likely collision was avoided only by Seaway being thrown into reverse”
A disturbing question arises as to why Mr Young was given the position of being an Expert Witness in this case – is it because he was willing to act contrary to the Code of Conduct & mislead the Court in such basic denials of fact ?
Mr Young has denied more than these following facts …
1: That it was possible to determine the location of Browns Island & its Beacon in Photo 1.
2: That the positions of Photo 1 & 3 could be established.
3: That Classique was observed 5* to port of Seaway by agreeing with M Pigneyguy’s figure of 30*
4: That Bolton’s Line Of Sight method to determine risk of collision was valid & accurate.
5: That the Regular Run of the ferry as shown in AIS records could be used in risk assessment of a ferry’s course.
6: That a turn of 2.4* or even up to 4* towards Classique’s path is in contravention of Rule 22.17
7: That Yaw & Drift was absent on the day.
8: That Classique was ahead of the ferry in Photo 2
9: That Seaway invoked the Crossing Rule through her negligence to maintain a straight course.
10: That Seaway was a catamaran & very manoeuvrable
11: That a vessel’s size is not a criteria as to giving way.
12: That Sound signals are mandatory & required to be used on a complying horn immediately by a concerned vessel – the purpose being to alert the other.
13: That Seaway was allowed to turn to Port & follow her usual course to Auckland at any stage of the alleged incident
14: That 1 transit with an intersecting compass bearing is equally valid to 2 transits
15: That Seaway was capable of steering a course straighter than + or – 5* in calm conditions.
These facts are basic navigational principles understood by navigators with lesser qualifications than Mr Young & other indisputable facts which were established & verified.
Why would Mr Young be willing to risk his reputation & Pigneyguy likewise in taking advantage of a Nautically ignorant Court to gain a wrongful conviction ?
It points to a vigilante type action to penalise Mr Bolton for this deliberately manufactured incident in the event MNZ had not been able to effect a prosecution for other unrelated & historic perceived grievances.
B Young denied that evidence other than the 3 photos could be used.
M Pigneyguy gave his turning point at Sth Motuihe & a purported course of 286*T
which was easy to find as not the course he was on at Photo 1.