Crown Law & MNZ Make a Mockery of the District Court

Crown Law & MNZ Make a Mockery of the District Court
Their Opening Address at the Hearing before Judge Davis, is a recital of M Pigneguy’s Claim – after months of learning about his violations which lead to the creation of the incident.
They now repeat claims they know to be incorrect
(a) – “That Classique was observed at 30 deg on Seaway’s port bow crossing from port to starboard. M Pigneguy determined Classique was the give-way vessel & as stipulated by Maritime Rule 22.17 Action by stand-on vessel, he maintained the ferry’s course & speed.”
(They knew that Classique would have to be at Sth Browns Island to be 30 deg on Seaway’s bow, which wasn’t the correct position. 5deg off Seaway’s bow had been given to them so at least Classique would be placed at Nth Brown’s Island & the proper angle of approach could be presented ? No doubt, because a vessel being 30 deg off the ferry’s bow would look closer to their Page 9 Coastguard Handbook diagram showing the orthodox 45 Deg approach with a stand-on & give-way vessel – That was not the applicable situation of both vessels passing safely if Seaway had kept a straight course & further more they knew that Seaway didn’t maintain course & speed as stipulated by Rule 22.17)
(b) – “There were no other vessels in the vicinity at the time which could’ve limited the options available to Classique” (Sure there were no other vessels around but it was disingenuous not to have mentioned that the proximity of Browns Light & reef dangers were certainly a limitation)
(c) – “When the yacht was approx 80 mtrs away, M Pigneguy sounded 5 blasts on the ship’s whistle. This drew no response from Classique even when a further 5 whistle blasts were sounded. By this point it was obvious to M Pigneguy that a collision was imminent unless he took evasive action, which he did by slowing Seaway right down to allow Classique to pass ahead just across the bow & down the starboard side of Seaway.” (It makes no sense to put before Judge Davis this absolute fantasy which they knew M Pigneguy could not have done in the 10 seconds available to him from 80 mtrs off & which is a violation of Maritime Rules if these actions were considered. They knew also that M Pigneguy didn’t use the ship’s whistle but a useless non complying handheld aerosol horn – neither did M Pigneyguy have any evidence that he slowed at all or that Classique was just ahead of the bow considering M Pigneguy admitted he zoomed photo 3, altering appearance to look closer than actual)
(d) “M Pigneguy took 3 photos of the incident as it developed & these are available to the Court.” (Crown Law & MNZ knew these photos were taken in lieu of M Pigneguy complying with Maritime Rules to use a complying horn to alert Classique if it had any reason for concern or intention to deviate from its Regular Run. These photos are evidence that M Pigneguy turned towards Classique & caused a close quarters in violation of his Maritime Rules obligations to prevent such a situation happening)
These Openings set the stage for the charade which continued …

30 Deg off Seaway’s bow is incorrect – it was 5 deg & is a very different approach
2014-01-10_1234

Their wrong 30 deg approach is probably why they thought
Page 9 could be shown to describe the situation
P9

This is what MNZ & Crown Law told the Court was the ship’s whistle used by M Pigneguy.
images (25)

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