Law – The application of Maritime Rules – Appeal
P11 – Judge Wylie enthusiastically reads out how M Pigneguy used his Relative Bearing to determine risk of collision with Classique but he makes no acknowledgement of it’s failure. Seaway was bringing the bearing up as it was turning towards Classique giving a wrong impression of it “not changing much” in the claim, which for dramatic effect at the hearing became “it did not change”
If Seaway had kept a straight course, a “Compass Bearing” from Seaway to Classique & the Relative Bearing taken, would have been seen to change rapidly.
Toghill in his “Manual of Yacht Navigation” mentions this matter.
P13 – Judge Wylie quotes M Pigneguy’s view that there was risk of collision if both vessels maintained their respective courses & speeds, saying Seaway had right of way & Classique’s obligation was to keep clear.
Judge Wylie doesn’t take into account that initially there was no risk of collision – the vessels would’ve passed safely starboard to starboard & the risk of collision came about as Seaway turned further towards Classique as from Photo 1 – Seaway not being entitled to invoke the Crossing with risk of collision Rule 22.15
Farwell – refers to Lloyd’s Rep & those cases which involved a vessel that turned deliberately to place herself in the position of a stand-on vessel in a crossing situation.
Lord Merriman of the Admiralty – refers to Spyros v Rebecca case
In which Spyros was not entitled to invoke the crossing rule when she herself creates the situation … by her own negligent action.
P22 – Judge Wylie misquotes Rule 22.17(b) with Seaway claiming to be a stand-on vessel, being able to take action to avoid collision “but under no circumstances could it alter its course to port”
The Rule correctly quoted reads – “if the circumstances of the case allow, it must not alter its course to port for a vessel on its own port side”
Judge Wylie did not consider for himself, the evidence in Photo 2 that Classique was no longer on the port side of the ferry & that the evidence of M Pigneguy & the prosecution was wrong that Seaway was in any way prevented from maneuvering as she wished.
P23 – Neither did Judge Wylie consider for himself the evidence Bolton provided showing the proximity of Browns Island & Light as a valid reason for not turning starboard towards those dangers regardless of the prosecution saying there was nothing in the way.
P24 – Barry Young’s evidence as quoted by Judge Davis that there was a crossing situation with risk of collision, was repeated by Judge Wylie. He did not consider Bolton’s evidence that the Page 9 Coastguard description used by the prosecution, of an orthodox right angled approach, was misleading to the Court as the actual approach was at 25 deg, not 90 deg, neither was there a risk of collision if Seaway had kept a straight course. There were no stand-on or give-way vessels as claimed by the prosecution.
P25 – Judge Wylie in error doesn’t accept that the ferry’s usual course around Browns Island to Auckland should’ve been considered by Bolton as he wrongly says there was no evidence presented of that practice – J Wylie has forgotten that M Pigneguy presented his chart showing his route, described it in detail at the hearing & Judge Davis saying for some reason he didn’t follow it.
Bolton had full regard for all Maritime Rules & knew quite rightly that the Regular Run of a ferry combined with local knowledge of the area, is part in a navigator’s risk assessment & management.
P27 – Judges Wylie & Davis were both wrong to accept the misleading evidence of the prosecution that Classique had to keep out of the way as a give-way vessel when that wasn’t the case until Seaway unilaterally created the situation.
They didn’t understand how the Rule 22.17 re stand-on & give-way didn’t apply as there was no risk of collision until M Pigneguy caused it – very likely as a result of his pedantic attitude towards recreational boaters in general & Bolton in particular.
A vigilante type behavior & bias was clearly evident even though Judges Wylie & Davis denied it. The prosecution’s conduct prior to & throughout the hearing supports Bolton’s contention.
M Pigneguy’s claim was not checked for feasibility, Bolton’s evidence that he was not guilty was ignored as were all the violations of M Pigneguy which were responsible for the incident.
MNZ ignored their statutory obligation to report to TAIC – apparently to take advantage of a less than competent judicial system with no Nautical knowledge, in getting their wrongful conviction of Bolton.
Application of Maritime Rules concludes next …
The upper diagram from Page 9 of the coastguard handbook was misleadingly shown
to Judge Davis as illustrating the situation involving Seaway & Classique’s approach –
it’s the bottom diagram which is the more accurate description