Judge Davis Is Too Readily Quoted In M Pigneguy’s Article …in Professional Skipper Magazine.
“The evidence in my view was clear & unequivocal – a crossing situation existed & the onus was on Mr Bolton to have kept out of the way. He did not do so & in my view, deliberately chose to ignore the Maritime Rules & what appears to me to be proper maritime practice & etiquette.”
No doubt M Pigneguy, Barry Young & Maritime New Zealand were very pleased to hear Judge Davis had been taken in by their perjury, misinformation & wrong interpretation of Maritime Collision Regulations.
They purposely had not enlightened Judge Davis as to this crossing being one with no risk of collision in which case Rule 22.15 did not apply therefore there was no onus on Bolton to keep out of the way, so he did not ignore any Maritime Rule but adhered quite properly to proper maritime practice & etiquette.
Maritime New Zealand had dishonestly shown Judge Davis Page 9 of the Coastguard Handbook with its conventional right angled approach having a Stand-on & give-way vessel as representing the situation in this case.
It did not – the approach was 25 degrees & such that if both vessels had kept their course & speed, each would have passed safely clear of each other – there being no Stand-on or Give-way vessel as the prosecution witnesses claimed.
As a consequence, this wrongful decision at a District Court presided over by Judge Davis admitting no Nautical Knowledge, nefariously hijacked by Maritime New Zealand has given a completely invalid interpretation of how to manage approaches in general & where ferries have regular runs in particular.
Looking at it logically, it’s foolish to rule that Classique couldn’t cross that area in perfect safety when it saw Seaway more than 2 nmiles away heading for the same location Classique was leaving behind her.
Classique proceeded ahead as she was very much entitled to but maritime rules did not permit Seaway to alter the classification of the approach by incrementally turning towards Classique’s path & then claiming risk of collision existed when it was caused by her own negligent action.
Further more, with Classique’s speed being half that of Seaway, it is not feasible that Classique was only 0.25 nmile past Browns Light at photo 3 as M Pigneguy would have the Court believe. If Seaway travelled 2.8 nmiles, Classique travelled 1.4 nmiles from North of Browns Island where M Pigneguy saw her as he turned at Sth Motuihe – that puts Classique well to the East of the point marked by M Pigneguy as the incident, which is more evidence that Seaway’s course encroached on the path of Classique, rendering M Pigneguy’s evidence false.
Page 9 of Coastguard Handbook with right angled approach was falsely said to be the situation when it was more like the diagram of a 25 degree approach.
Classique would have only had to travel half nmile to reach the point marked by M Pigneguy on his chart as the point of incident which is obviously inaccurate.