Judge Wylie looks at the 3 Photos M Pigneguy took.
19: He says “They were all taken from the same position, but they were not all taken in the same direction. The 1st 2 photos were taken looking straight ahead over Seaway’s vehicle ramp. Classique was clearly on Seaway’s port side. The 3rd photo was taken looking to starboard. It showed Classique after she had crossed Seaway’s bow in a port to starboard direction. While the land mass of Rangitoto Island changes in location between the photos, that is largely because the photos are taken in different directions. There is nothing to support Mr Bolton’s assertion that M Pigneguy altered the course of Seaway by turning 11* to starboard. Rather it is patently clear from the photos & from the evidence, that Classique was on Seaway’s port side & that Seaway was on Classique’s starboard side.”
Judge Wylie has given this simple analysis to entirely dismiss that there was any problem with M Pigneguy encroaching over onto Bolton’s side of the nautical road & says “There is nothing to support Bolton’s assertion that M Pigneguy altered course 11* to starboard”
Judge Wylie had not correctly grasped the assertion Bolton did make – that was “M Pigneguy had turned from 286* to 292* before he took photo 1 & turned a further 5* between Photos 1 & 3 – Judge Wylie hasn’t understood from the evidence, that B Young refused to estimate the amount Seaway turned before the photos & only begrudgingly admitted a 2.4* turning within photos 1 & 3 – half Bolton’s amount of 5* but still enough to reduce clearance by about 200 mtrs which is very significant in the determination of this Appeal & J Wylie had been asked to consider that as being the main violation of Seaway which contributed to the creation of the close quarters he complained about.
Judge Wylie had been given by Bolton, a close up section of Photo 1 showing the bearing of 286*T arriving at the white cliffs just ahead of Classique’s position & the Bearings to the North Shore for Photo’s 1, 2 & 3. He also had Bolton’s evidence of how a line from Seaway’s ramp is extended to North Shore in each photo – how that line moves further North in each photo until Seaway has turned far enough North for Sentinal Building to be out of photo 3.
Judge Wylie doesn’t seem to have considered how B Young described his method of working out the turning of Seaway towards Classique’s path.
Further more, there was no question having to be decided of whether the amount of turning was 11* but that the ferry had actually turned contrary to Maritime Rules. Neither did Judge Wylie have to decide which side Classique was on – no one doubted she was to Seaway’s port side at Photo 1 but Bolton had pointed out that even though photo 1 showed Seaway had already turned above 286*, if Seaway had kept a straight course from Photo 1, then Classique would’ve been well across the bow of Seaway in Photo 2 & not seen to’ve just crossed in Photo 3. Judge Wylie didn’t notice in Photo 2 that Classique was actually ahead of Seaway’s bow even with the turning Seaway made since the taking of Photo 1.
If Judge Wylie had some Nautical knowledge, without needing photographic competence, he might have worked out from the relevant evidence that Classique was near Browns Beacon when Seaway was turning at Sth Motuihe which was 2 nmiles away & that Seaway was travelling at twice the speed of Classique so that without being too much of a mathematician, Classique would travel 1 mile in the time Seaway would cover 2 miles even if they were land miles. Doesn’t that make M Pigneguy’s location of the incident appear wrong – something that hasn’t crossed the minds of the prosecution or Judges involved ?
M Pigneguy’s chart shows & his evidence is that the location of the incident was 020* x 0.25’nmile from Browns Island Beacon.
M Pigneguy said he estimated it later that day back in Auckland & asked Phillip Sweetman to copy it in preparation for a prosecution he thought could eventuate.
P Sweetman admitted in Court that he hadn’t seen the position being taken at the time.
A nmile from the position M pigneguy gives, puts Classique on the Western side of Browns Island when Seaway was turning at Sth Motuihe but M Pigneguy says he saw a yacht on his port bow crossing from port to starboard – so Classique must’ve been at least North East of Browns Island or she wouldn’t have been in sight or of any concern at all regarding crossing Seaway’s bow.
Why the evidence of M Pigneguy has any credibility at all remains a mystery, considering his many other inconsistencies as well,. How come MNZ, B Young, Crown Law & 3 Judges seem to take all these discrepancies as irrefutable Gospel.
Bolton was informed at the original hearing that the prosecution had only to prove their case to the satisfaction of Judge Davis – he accepted the prosecution’s evidence without question – Judges Toogood & Wylie appear to be only too willing to leave it that way.
Photo 1 shows Classique half a mile away from Seaway.
Classique would travel a quarter nmile across Seaway’s bow before
Photo 3 would be taken if Seaway kept a straight course.
A line from Seaway’s bow can be extended to the shore.
Photo 2 shows Classique ahead of Seaway’s bow & Seaway’s bow
is further North than in Photo 1. Classique’s fore stay is covering
Sentinal building that was visible in Photo 1 where Seaway was heading then.