It was asserted that section 60 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 placed a duty on MNZ to notify Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) of the incident but that TAIC was not notified
24: Judge Wylie – “Again, I do accept that submission. 1st, there is no positive evidence to suggest that such notification was not given. Mr Howden was asked various questions by Mr Bolton about the reports which had been propared. He was not asked specifically whether or not he notified the incident to TAIC. 2nd, & in any event, the issue is irrelevant. The MNZ was not on trial for failing to notify TAIC of the incident”
Judge Wylie is wrong to say there is no evidence that TAIC wasn’t notified – in Documents MNZ provided there is a box to be ticked if TAIC was notified & it wasn’t ticked – Bolton communicated direct with TAIC & was told MNZ had not notified them & in Bolton’s cross-examination with Ian Howden referring to the Special Report not being made for TAIC, Ian Howden says he didn’t make a Report after his investigation.
In a letter, the Director of MNZ Catherine Taylor, authorizes the prosecution in the Public Interest”. It was her mandatory duty prior to that to notify TAIC. The reporting to TAIC was a legal obligation to involve a Nautically qualified investigation from which the boating Public might benefit from its findings. To burden Judge Davis, who professed Nautical unfamiliarity 7 times during the hearing, with this Nautically specific case has been improper in these circumstances – he has been mislead & his wrongful decision involving the interpretation of Maritime Rules has not been in the “Public Interest”