Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

... and that the GPS would help him visualise where he was in relation to the shipping channel? Or what? Surely the conveniently spaced green and red buoys do that rather more efficiently.

Does anyone know the exact location of the collision (lat and long)? If it was indisputably within the moving prohibited zone I am trying to work out which leg he was trying to stand on when saying the words "not guilty".
The moving prohibited zone only applies in the area of concern. Outside of the area of concern there is no moving prohibited zone.
 
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?

Western boundary of QHM's area of juristiction is Old Castle Point. After that they are in the Port of Southampton.
 
Doesn't the Moving Prohibited Zone move with the ship, so that any collision is by definition within it? Thiz all be most bafflifying to we yokels vrom the shoires.

The MPZ is within a designated area, bounded by a series of buoys - one of which is the Prince Consort buoy - and applies only when there is a big ship inside. You could be inside the area and be very much in the wrong (ignoring COLREGS and local by-laws), or just outside it and be .... only a bit in the wrong (for not complying with COLREGS)
 
The moving prohibited zone only applies in the area of concern. Outside of the area of concern there is no moving prohibited zone.

At what point would the MPZ start? When the ship entered the zone or as the MPZ around the ship would enter the area of concern ... ?
 
The moving prohibited zone only applies in the area of concern. Outside of the area of concern there is no moving prohibited zone.

Indeed, but even so the tanker would have been in a relatively narrow channel and restricted in his ability to manoeuvre so the yacht would still be in the wrong, and rash, not to mention stupid to put his crew in such a position.
 
Indeed, but even so the tanker would have been in a relatively narrow channel and restricted in his ability to manoeuvre so the yacht would still be in the wrong, and rash, not to mention stupid to put his crew in such a position.

He only has to argue against the charges he is facing - he isn't charged with being wrong, rash or stupid...
 
At what point would the MPZ start? When the ship entered the zone or as the MPZ around the ship would enter the area of concern ... ?

Dunno what the exact wording of the rule is, but Reeds implies the former: "any vessel ... when in the Precautionary Area is enclosed by an MPZ..."
 
Last edited:
Look very carefully at the Youtube video at about 00:24 or 24s into the vid.

Is that a man (person) over the starboard side ?

And one that doesn't get picked up?
 
IIRC he isn't charged with breaking the bylaws covering the MPZ but with failing to keep a lookout and a couple of other fairly general points.
 
IIRC he isn't charged with breaking the bylaws covering the MPZ but with failing to keep a lookout and a couple of other fairly general points.

IIRC without checking I think it is failing to keep a look out, negligence and impeding. Impeding could go out the window if he can put himself outside of the channel. The tanker couldn't make his turn to starboard when he wanted to because of a broken down motorboat on his starboard side. It looks like he is suggesting that that caused it to leave the channel.
 
If you look at the video - 25 seconds in you can see the buildings of calshot lining up with the bow of the tanker and a cardinal mark.

I would assume that would be west bramble, which put the location of the camera just east of egypt point - west cowes .... so well inside the area of concern ... (and already past prince consort NC)
 
Look very carefully at the Youtube video at about 00:24 or 24s into the vid.

Is that a man (person) over the starboard side ?

And one that doesn't get picked up?
It's a person, I suspect a resident of Poole, and yes they got picked up.
 
True

Lt Wilson denied one charge of failing to keep a proper lookout and two charges of impeding the passage of the 830ft-long tanker.

Case 1, pretty hard to argue against
Case 2 and 3 - he tried and failed I would say. I doubt if the tanker noticed the collision.

But more seriously he failed to give way to a vessel that pretty clearly was restricted in it's ability to manoeuvre, and/or was in or entering the area of concern where he should have given the appropriate clearance (1000m ahead or 100m to each side)
 
Last edited:
From Port of Southampton by-laws:

Moving Prohibited Zone.
11.(1). In this byelaw -
‘’the Precautionary Area” means the main navigable channel which lies between an imaginary line drawn between Prince Consort and South Bramble Buoys and an imaginary line drawn between Black Jack and Hook Buoys;
‘’Moving Prohibited Zone’’ means an area extending 1000 metres ahead and 100 metres either side of any vessel of over 150 metres length overall while it is navigating within the Precautionary Area.
(2) The master of a small vessel shall ensure that the vessel does not enter a Moving Prohibited Zone.
(3) For the purpose of indicating the presence of the Moving Prohibited Zone the master of any vessel of over 150 metres length overall shall display on the vessel, where it can best be seen, by day, a black cylinder, and, by night, 3 all round red lights in a vertical line.
 
From Port of Southampton by-laws:

ah - thanks :)

although TBH when we were out there we didn't want to get anywhere close to being in front of a ship ...


can't see the black cylinder on the tanker ... could that be a "mitigation" clause ...
 
Last edited:
Top