Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[ammyj]

where are you guys following the live feed?

 

[Angele]

Does it matter in relation to the "lookout" charge? I very much doubt that a collision alone is proof of an inadequate look out and JumbleDuck has failed to cite a case where it has been.

I'd have thought any erratic behavior from the ship would be more of a defence against the other two charges.

I would have thought the "lookout" charge was included to preclude a defence against the other two charges of "I didn't see it M'Lud." Surely, all you have to do to be found not guilty of failing to keep a proper lookout is to declare that you did indeed know it was there. What that inevitably does is then to drop you into a big hole on the other two counts....

 

[Angele]

where are you guys following the live feed?

See the OP

 

[FishyInverness]

Right, time to take your seats for part 2. Begins in 2 minutes. Quiet at the back, please....

Where's the link for today's live updates? I can't find one....

Edit : Hah, not the first to ask - the OP's one isn't currently updating, still showing yesterday's closure.

 

[l'escargot]

Let's hope the court is more objective than many of the comments here. Seems according to some that he is guilty already because

1 He is a stupid naval officer (they are all like that, you know)

2 The "professionals" are always right

3 The camera does not lie

4 Worst of all he suit does not fit him - and what about that tie he wears?

He must have a pretty good story, otherwise why is he taking such a high risk in going to court? Of course, it may not be a good story and 1-4 above are all correct.

And of course 6 days of expert evidence and eyewitness accounts will all amount to nothing as the decision can be made based on a youtube video by people who have mostly not even seen a chart of the Solent let alone sailed there...

 

[ammyj]

OK sorry I did follow that link yeaterday and I just assumed that there was a new one today Just grabbing some popcorn and getting comfy!

 

[Sandy]

Edit : Hah, not the first to ask - the OP's one isn't currently updating, still showing yesterday's closure.

Its the legal system, they work gentleman's hours, 10 til 4 with a two hour lunch break.

 

[Tranona]

And of course 6 days of expert evidence and eyewitness accounts will all amount to nothing as the decision can be made based on a youtube video by people who have mostly not even seen a chart of the Solent let alone sailed there...

Exactly. Sometimes I wonder why we have courts at all if such incidents are all so clear cut.

 

[Angele]

Where's the link for today's live updates? I can't find one....

Edit : Hah, not the first to ask - the OP's one isn't currently updating, still showing yesterday's closure.

This is the English courts system we are talking about. When the judge said 10:00am, that was the time he expected the defendant, the court officials, and the defence/prosecution to take their seats.

M'Lud will be along just as soon as he has solved 23 down.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I would have thought the "lookout" charge was included to preclude a defence against the other two charges of "I didn't see it M'Lud." Surely, all you have to do to be found not guilty of failing to keep a proper lookout is to declare that you did indeed know it was there. What that inevitably does is then to drop you into a big hole on the other two counts....

Thanks for that perspective.

 

[bedouin]

Seems to me the only relevant questions are 1) Was an adequate lookout kept on Atlanta 2) Did Atlanta, in fact, impede the HC. 3) Was Atlanta required not to impede HC.

1 - Personally I'd have though it would be hard to prove an adequate lookout wasn't kept on Atlanta. Hard to imagine that a collision is, in itself, proof of an inappropriate lookout, but maybe it is.

2 - Was the HC impeded? Sounds like there's a possibility it was already being impeded before Atlanta got in the way. I haven't read enough to know if HC made a speed/course alteration specifically due to the Atlanta. Given it was restricted to such a large degree maybe it didn't.

3 - Was Atlanta required not to impede HC. I think yes.

It'll be interesting to hear the outcome and the reasons behind it.

But note a couple of points in the evidence - as reported yesterday
i) HC did not initially consider Atlanta posed a risk of collision - he would not have been in the way had HC followed the expected course
ii) Then HC gave the sound signal for a turn to starboard but aborted the turn
iii) Shortly afterwards it gave the sound signal for a turn to port but in fact resumed the turn to starboard.

Had HC either
a) Followed the expected course OR
b) Turned to starboard after sounding Starboard OR
c) Turned to port after sounding Port

then the collision would not have happened

I think with a good brief he might get away with it

 

[l'escargot]

But note a couple of points in the evidence - as reported yesterday
i) HC did not initially consider Atlanta posed a risk of collision - he would not have been in the way had HC followed the expected course
ii) Then HC gave the sound signal for a turn to starboard but aborted the turn
iii) Shortly afterwards it gave the sound signal for a turn to port but in fact resumed the turn to starboard.

Had HC either
a) Followed the expected course OR
b) Turned to starboard after sounding Starboard OR
c) Turned to port after sounding Port

then the collision would not have happened

I think with a good brief he might get away with it

I think with more evidence like that it could begin to look like the actions of the tanker bought about the collision that the Atlanta was doing it's utmost to avoid...

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

But note a couple of points in the evidence - as reported yesterday
i) HC did not initially consider Atlanta posed a risk of collision - he would not have been in the way had HC followed the expected course
ii) Then HC gave the sound signal for a turn to starboard but aborted the turn
iii) Shortly afterwards it gave the sound signal for a turn to port but in fact resumed the turn to starboard.

Had HC either
a) Followed the expected course OR
b) Turned to starboard after sounding Starboard OR
c) Turned to port after sounding Port

then the collision would not have happened

Or maybe been too sluggish to make any difference or maybe wipe out Atlanta with its stern in one case, but your point is undeniable and, in court, the doubt goes Atlanta's way.

I think with a good brief he might get away with it

After reflection I'm actually quite optimistic for the defence. If "sailing your small maneuverable boat close enough to the bow of a massive ship to be hit" was an offence in the UK he'd be guilty, but that's not what he's charged with.

 

[Resolution]

I think with more evidence like that it could begin to look like the actions of the tanker bought about the collision that the Atlanta was doing it's utmost to avoid...

Point to ponder - if the defence does indeed win with that sort of argument, how long before the Bye-laws (?) of the Moving Exclusion Zone are changed so as to make us all keep much further away from any incoming ship?

 

[fireball]

But, if it can be proven that they were in the MPZ area then show that the yacht was indeed in the MPZone and didn't clear it as soon as was practical then he can still be guilty of impeding.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I think with more evidence like that it could begin to look like the actions of the tanker bought about the collision that the Atlanta was doing it's utmost to avoid...

A barrister could make it look that way or at least sow plenty of doubt.

Personally, I don't agree though. 'Utmost to avoid' would have been to take clear and early evasive action, and I don't think Atlanta did that.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

But, if it can be proven that they were in the MPZ area then show that the yacht was indeed in the MPZone and didn't clear it as soon as was practical then he can still be guilty of impeding.

If the court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that HC *was* impeded by Atlanta he could.

 

[flaming]

After reflection I'm actually quite optimistic for the defence. If "sailing your small maneuverable boat close enough to the bow of a massive ship to be hit" was an offence in the UK he'd be guilty, but that's not what he's charged with.

I'm with you on that.

If you put yourself in his shoes, beyond a certain point it's quite possible there was actually not a lot he could do. He knows the ship is about to turn to Starboard, and has signaled so. Then changed its mind, but to go down it's starboard side would seem unwise, as you know it's going that way pretty soon! His kite is preventing him from turning hard to starboard, and he either couldn't, or didn't think to, turn his engine on. (The engine controls are below decks on that boat) There was another video that surfaced at the time that shows him broaching before the most popular video starts, so he's clearly trying to go as high (to starboard) as possible, you don't broach in 12 knots of wind any other way.

My guess is the change in sound signals will be the cornerstone of the defense.

 

[l'escargot]

...'Utmost to avoid' would have been to take clear and early evasive action, and I don't think Atlanta did that.

I think an immediate 90 degree turn to starboard in response to the tankers sound signal that he was intending to turn to starboard could be seen as "clear and early evasive action".

 

[A1Sailor]

I hope they get on with it soon. The Daily Echo site hasn't been updated since yesterday.
Can we get a forumite to sit in the public gallery and gives us live updates here, like they do for the footie?