Judge Wylie Dismissed the Appeal made by Mr Bolton – More Errors continue.
9: The position of the incident as given by M Pigneguy was accepted by Judge Wylie as it was by Judge Davis – neither remembering evidence that the position wasn’t taken at the time nor was it witnessed by Phillip Sweetman as he admitted during the hearing,
10: Judge Wylie accepted the 3 Photos as taken by M Pigneguy to be covering the incident without realising B Young had unrealistically restricted evidence to only what he could see in those photos – not allowing that the location Browns Island & its light could be deduced nor were those 3 Photos regarded as covering just a small fraction of the Regular Run which Seaway normally made.
11: Although Judge Wylie says M Pigneguy filed his report & Ian Howden for MNZ was appointed to interview Bolton, he doesn’t realise that Bolton also filed a report. That is somehow disregarded as evidence that the Appellant was not guilty.
12: He repeats the Judge Davis’s version of the situation as erroneously portrayed by the prosecution. There’s no reference to evidence that the ferry wouldn’t be entitled to change the category of approach as it did “within sight” of Classique when Seaway turned at Sth Motuihe & again prior to Photo 1 to make Classique a give-way vessel nor was there reference to evidence that as Classique was ahead of Seaway in Photo 2, the ferry was allowed to alter course to port to keep its course & speed which was usually to turn to port, rounding Browns Island to Auckland.
13: Judge Wylie takes in isolation that Judge Davis noted there was no other traffic in the vicinity preventing Classique turning to starboard in good time. He misses evidence that if B Young had allowed the location of Browns Light & reef area to be known, Classique would be seen to have very good reason not to turn Starboard. Classique being a deep keel yacht draws more than Seaway which M Pigneguy & B Young was also aware of & no prudent navigator would turn into danger.
14: It was only B Young’s erroneous evidence re Crossing with risk of collision Rules which was accepted by Judge Wylie instead of Bolton’s assessment of there being no crossing with risk of collision if both vessels kept course & speed which correctly describes the approach – not the prosecution’s Coastguard Page 9 illustration of an orthodox right angle approach with risk of collision.
15: J Wylie in error, doesn’t accept that the ferry’s usual course around Browns Island should be considered – it was marked on M Pigneguy’s chart & described in detail. J Davis’s “scanty information” term is not applicable, considering Bolton has full regard for Maritime Rules & has navigational familiarity with this area since 1956.
16: Accepted is B Young’s disputing the authenticity of Bolton’s plotted evidence due to lack of “fixed starting point”. J Wylie doesn’t understand that M Pigneguy’s evidential chart gives a very precise “starting point” at Sth Motuihe – therefore Bolton’s plottings are not red herrings as suggested by J Davis who wrongly said “the 3 photos showed a crossing situation was developing” – more correctly, at Photo 2 Classique is ahead of the ferry & would’ve been further across if Seaway hadn’t continued to turn towards Classique’s path after taking Photo 1. The onus was on the ferry to have maintained its course & speed towards Browns Island, away from Classique.
17 (a): What J Davis held as the primary obligation resting on Classique to keep out of the way of Seaway is repeated by J Wylie without him acknowledging evidence that Classique was not a give-way vessel until made so by violation of Seaway in turning towards the path of Classique.
(b): The “unreliable” reference to the Appellant is invalid too, as J Davis misunderstood the Rule about Stand-on/Give-way vessels – it didn’t apply as there was no risk of collision until such risk was unilaterally caused by the ferry.
(c): J Davis’s rejection of “conspiracy” is accepted although evidence of conspiracy or bias was clearly seen in the parties’ conduct prior to & throughout the prosecution management.
Apart from the relationship of Keith Ingram, M Pigneguy, Phillip Wardale & MNZ – the claim wasn’t checked for feasibility, evidence was ignored that the Appellant was not guilty & ignored also were the many contributory violations of Seaway. Bias seems be the only reason for this prosecution brought by MNZ, ignoring Statutory obligation to report to TAIC – that being to get an excessively punitive conviction in a Court with no understanding of Nautical Principles, Rules or Seamanship.
Judge Wylie continues to accept the decision of Judge Davis
The top diagram was shown to Judge Davis by the prosecution as
representing the approach of Seaway towards Classique.
The bottom modified drawing by Bolton is close to the actual situation
showing how the passing would’ve been safe if Seaway had kept a straight course.