Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[ChiPete]

I think this exchange (admittedly from the pages of the Daily Wail) sets out the level of cognisance barristers have of a subject whilst trying to get their clients off at any cost - enjoy:

//starts

In his cross-examination of pilot John Mileusnic, defence advocate Rufus Taylor accused him of speeding prior to the collision.

Mr Mileusnic denied this was the case, and said: 'We were reducing our speed all of the time to make a safe turn.'

Mr Taylor then asked if the tanker could have reversed out of the way of the yacht.

He replied: 'No, that would have been extremely dangerous. The yacht Atalanta would not be here today if we did.

'Sir, the Hanne Knutsen is not a motor vehicle. You can't just turn it around.'

//ends

 

[JumbleDuck]

No doubt experienced in the relevant law - but seamanship?

Good point - but then he is being charged with breaking various laws, not with failure of seamanship. I look forward to tomorrow's instalment.

 

[savageseadog]

Barristers are more likely than most people to be able to afford to run a luxury yacht. I wonder if the proportion that actually do so is more or less than that in the population as a whole?

Don't you start with the much used media cliche "Luxury Yacht" please.

I would say a non seaman would be able to try the case dispassionately and keep matters rigorously legal, you only have to see how the yachtsmen on here have pre-judged the case.

 

[lw395]

The defense council is trying to claim there is a speed limit of 10 knots put in place by QHM. Nothing on the QHM website that would apply to the central Solent - anyone know what he's talking about?

The Dockyard port of Portsmouth extends to somewhere near Norris, there is a 10knot speed limit within 1000yds of shore IIRC.

 

[lw395]

"In interview he suggested he was outside the prohibited zone"

That's just surreal. He hit the ship!

Do you understand how the moving prohibited zone works?
AFAIK, it moves with the ship, you are prohibited from entering it, but if the zone moves such that it suddenly includes you, you've done nothing wrong. But you may need to act of course!

 

[A1Sailor]

So if the ship makes an unanticipated course alteration, alters the position of the "prohibited zone" and clonks into a yacht; who is at fault?

 

[l'escargot]

So if the ship makes an unanticipated course alteration, alters the position of the "prohibited zone" and clonks into a yacht; who is at fault?

I think that might be an argument in this case. At the moment you have to predict the course of the ship to anticipate whether the zone will arrive in the bit of water you are heading for - not so much you entering the zone, more the zone moving over you.

 

[lustyd]

he has sentenced the naked rambler too...

I had to Google the naked rambler, I can't see what he was sentenced for given that being naked in the UK isn't illegal and from all the info I've seen all he did was walk naked outside. This doesn't bode well for the skipper of the yacht who clearly did do some things wrong...

 

[TQA]

Surreal >>> marked by the intense irrational reality of a dream; also : unbelievable

Well watching the video of the incident is pretty surreal.

Pleading Not Guilty is pretty surreal.

Reading this thread and some of the comments is also pretty surreal!

But the prize goes to the defense for some of points bought up.

 

[l'escargot]

...I can't see what he was sentenced for given that being naked in the UK isn't illegal and from all the info I've seen all he did was walk naked outside...

"Behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" - unwitting members of the public had been ''distressed'' at seeing the defendant without clothes on.

 

[Grumpybear]

Don't you start with the much used media cliche "Luxury Yacht" please.

I would say a non seaman would be able to try the case dispassionately and keep matters rigorously legal, you only have to see how the yachtsmen on here have pre-judged the case.

I think you may have missed the virtual ironing smiley...

 

[savageseadog]

I think you may have missed the virtual ironing smiley...

I'm innocent, I don't understand irony.

 

[lw395]

I think that might be an argument in this case. At the moment you have to predict the course of the ship to anticipate whether the zone will arrive in the bit of water you are heading for - not so much you entering the zone, more the zone moving over you.

It's nonsense isn't it?
You could technically break the law by sailing into a patch of water that was momentarily directly 900m ahead of a turning tanker, despite that patch of water being only 5ft deep therefore unlikely to be where the tanker is going. The prohibited zone does not respect the fact that the tanker has to turn through 100-odd degrees to get from the Ryde Channel to Southampton Water.

 

[jrc1983]

It's nonsense isn't it?
You could technically break the law by sailing into a patch of water that was momentarily directly 900m ahead of a turning tanker, despite that patch of water being only 5ft deep therefore unlikely to be where the tanker is going. The prohibited zone does not respect the fact that the tanker has to turn through 100-odd degrees to get from the Ryde Channel to Southampton Water.

Perhaps, but you're not going to create a close quarters situation by being on your 5ft deep patch, nor are you likely to face official sanction. However, this occurred in the main channel and Hanne Knutsen being a big 'selected' ship, there would be no prizes for guessing which route she'd take.

 

[Seajet]

Well when I see a jolly big ship painted bright red in a narrow channel my instict is to get into shallow water as the skipper & helmsman have enough on their plate, without me in the way trying to be a smartarse considering recreational racing rules down to the last mm & some tin cup !

 

[lpdsn]

It's nonsense isn't it?
You could technically break the law by sailing into a patch of water that was momentarily directly 900m ahead of a turning tanker, despite that patch of water being only 5ft deep therefore unlikely to be where the tanker is going. The prohibited zone does not respect the fact that the tanker has to turn through 100-odd degrees to get from the Ryde Channel to Southampton Water.

I think they're more pragmatic than that. I don't think you're considered to be in the MPZ if you're outside the precautionary area, which you would be if you were in 5' of water. QE2 apart you should be safe outside the channel.

 

[lw395]

Well when I see a jolly big ship painted bright red in a narrow channel my instict is to get into shallow water as the skipper & helmsman have enough on their plate, without me in the way trying to be a smartarse considering recreational racing rules down to the last mm & some tin cup !

Alas the esteemed race organisers decided to exclude the yachts from close to the island so they could stage catamaran racing to entertain the chavs.

 

[Simondjuk]

It's nonsense isn't it?
You could technically break the law by sailing into a patch of water that was momentarily directly 900m ahead of a turning tanker, despite that patch of water being only 5ft deep therefore unlikely to be where the tanker is going. The prohibited zone does not respect the fact that the tanker has to turn through 100-odd degrees to get from the Ryde Channel to Southampton Water.

You clearly haven't looked at the chart, have you? The zone only covers the area the ships can use. Not the shallows, not the beach, not the land.

 

[rotrax]

If you are familiar with the central Solent you will know where big ships go-they dont have much choice really-and if you are prudent you will keep well clear.
On the other hand if you are involved in a race-as I understand the accused was-you may be inclined to "chance your arm" and perhaps get an advantage.
This time it went tits up................................

 

[Resolution]

So if the ship makes an unanticipated course alteration, alters the position of the "prohibited zone" and clonks into a yacht; who is at fault?

Surely this is the nub of the question. Given the admission today by the prosecution that the tanker first gave the sound signal for a turn to starboard, then followed closely with a signal for a turn to port, there has to be some room for discussion here.

PS Interesting to see that the reason for the unexpected alteration was a broken down motor boat. So now we know who really caused the incident. (Ducks and runs for cover....)