MNZ & Crown Law Knew M Pigneyguy was Guilty

MNZ & Crown Law Knew M Pigneyguy was Guilty
(a) – At the very outset after receiving the claim & 3 photos from M Pigneguy via MNZ, Bolton put in his report – this is reproduced in full in a post early January’14 entitled “A report was subsequently emailed by M Bolton after being notified” Briefly it covered the turning of Seaway towards Classique, no signals etc & that it appeared to be an artificially created situation for the purpose of making a frivolous & vexatious complaint.
(b) – At the interview with MNZ, Bolton went over his evidence in detail & how he had determined his findings of the turning of Seaway towards Classique including the zooming of photo 3 which gave an appearance of closer proximity. The actual handheld aerosol horn was inspected, its specifications were not printed on it nor available & after testing by MNZ, it was found to be inaudible according to Appendix 3. Bolton also explained how his Rule of Thumb was a Line of Sight Bearing taken across Seaway, or any other vessel, to the background with greater accuracy & advantages than a compass for determining risk of collision – the failure was explained of M Pigneguy’s Relative Bearing as Seaway needed to also keep a straight course.
(c) – Regardless of all that, MNZ sent Bolton a notice that they were going to proceed with a prosecution in the Public Interest as Classique, they said, had failed to give way to Seaway which had decided it was a stand-on vessel.
(d) – Alysha Mcclintock of Crown Law was met by Bolton who went over the case with her, making it plain that the violations were all on the part of M Pigneguy & Crown Law should advise MNZ to withdraw the prosecution accordingly. When she was away on maternity leave, a partner of Meridith Connell, Mark Davies took over. He heard directly from Bolton as well as in emailing over a period of months as further violations of M Pigneguy became apparent, that the prosecution should be withdrawn.
(e) – At a status hearing, Judge Simpson heard from Bolton & advised MNZ to have a meeting with Bolton with the aim of resolving the issues to save Court waste of time. MNZ took their time waiting for Barry Young who was said to be their expert, to recover from a leg problem before they reluctantly arranged a meeting. To begin with, Bolton was told they would only listen to & see his documented evidence without making any decisions. Subsequently Mark Davies informed Bolton that “ the matters going to the credibility of the witnesses & the accuracy of their evidence are to be determined through the court process. As such, the relevant evidence will be heard before a Judge who will then make a decision on the quality of the evidence & will determine whether the charge has been proved to the necessary standard.
(f) – At the hearing the Judge confirmed that it was only up to the prosecution to prove their case to his satisfaction & after expressing his apologies for his lack of Nautical knowledge, took the safe course of accepting fully the prosecution’s unfactual, erroneous evidence – not realizing he had be taken advantage of & been mislead by all the prosecution witnesses including Crown Law. The wrong skipper was convicted.
It appears that from then on, even with the 100% backing up of Julian Joy’s report, Bolton as an unrepresented defendant has been unable to set the record straight by getting the facts established so that Justice might be seen to be done for him & the Maritime Public given a Nautically correct decision on Collision Regulations especially in areas where ferries have regular runs.
This apparent protection within this Judicial System to protect itself, right or wrong, has lead to a severe undermining of Public Confidence in these Courts which were abused by the prosecution who knowingly violated their mandatory obligation to put the matter before the Transport Accident Investigation Committee for informed consideration for the benefit of the boating public.

The facts of the case have been regarded as irrelevant by 3 Judges.
download (1)

On Nautical & technical evidence these inappropriate Courts have similarly miscalculated.
images (5)

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge