JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Even in which case perhaps "getting out of the damn way" would have been a sensible option?
Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
Even in which case perhaps "getting out of the damn way" would have been a sensible option?
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
You didn't ask, sweetie. Here's just the first UK case Google turned up:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-ho...s-releases.htm?id=632CCB891694D0E2&m=2&y=2012
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Forget the suit and tie. Wearing a striped shirt with a white collar surely has to be an offence? The 1987 SDP called - they want their dress sense back.
l'escargot
New member
I think you will find that is what they were trying to do, I doubt very much that they decided to stay where they were and get run down...
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
That is precisely the same argument as "The prosecution must be pretty sure of their case, otherwise why would they go to court". If it turns out that a 150,000 tonne tanker turned so fast that a racing yacht could not keep out of its way, I shall have complete sympathy, of course.
l'escargot
New member
The skipper of the boat that ran down the other one left the wheel house to sort fish - I think there is a bit more there than collision alone to indicate that he wasn't keeping a lookout...
toad_oftoadhall
New member
I don't. I think Atlanta should have been miles out of the way long before that. I don't practice what I preach, but that's what I think. If a ship makes an unexpected sharp turn and wipes me out with his stern I'll take that as being my fault, even if the rules say otherwise. I should have given it a lot more space.
...but the court case is nothing to do with prudence or otherwise. It's about three very specific questions.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Indeed. But perhaps in the excitement of racing they thought they could get away with nipping across the Kanne Knutsen's bow. I wonder if they would have been prosecuted if the two boats had missed each other by ten feet?
A1Sailor
...
Atlanta failing to use her engine might be their downfall in the court case. It may have made *** all difference, but it doesn't help the defence.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I saw a claim somewhere that the collision situation was apparent to the pilots on the HK four or five minutes before the crunch. If that's the case, I wonder why neither boat took evasive action.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Suggest you look at section 3.1.6 of the MAIB report.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
You're offering a plausible scenario where Atlanta might have seen the HK?
A short while ago you were arguing that a collision between two vessels proved beyond reasonable doubt no lookout was being kept.
Explain.
oldvarnish
Active member
Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
(From the CPS website)
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
(From the CPS website)
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Why? The MAIB report has nothing to do with the trial. (At which the guy admitted to failing to keep an adequate watch).
You yourself have since offered a plausible scenario where Atlanta might have seen the HK.
L'escargot was right & you were wrong.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
There is a different between "seeing" and "maintaining a proper look out for" (in your own words, an appropriate watch). The former only implies that you know the other thing is there; the latter implies that you look carefully enough to determine the other thing's likely behaviour.
If attempting to nip under the bow of a large ship, one should be keeping a sufficiently good lookout to know if it's not working and take alternative action. As indeed one should in any stand on / give way situation.
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Cite. (and can you actually read your source this time rather that posting something irrelevant.)
The rules simply say your lookout must be good enough: "so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".
If your actions based on that appraisal are wrong you haven't failed to keep a lookout, although you might have broken other rules.
Last edited:
fireball
New member
Do you think that's why we're not getting updates now?
Shame - because the court is open to the public, so why can a transcript not be published online?
Perhaps its because witnesses may read it and change their stories or juries may read it and be swayed by the arguments of the extracts?
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I've already explained. But if you insist how about, ooh, shall we say ... the IRPCS?
5. Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
Resolution
Well-known member
I cannot see how the charge of failing to maintain a proper lookout can be made to stick - UNLESS in one of his statements to the MCA the skipper said something along the lines of "it came up on my blind side/never saw it until it hit me guv". Presumably the onus is on the prosecution to PROVE the charge.
