Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[misterg]

Nope, the onus is on them to prove there *wasn't* a passage plan and since the passage plan doesn't have to be written they will find that difficult. *I think*.

I'm pretty sure that the responsibility is the other way round. Not to have a written plan for a ship that size with 4000 people on board stretches credibility a bit.

Time will tell.

Andy

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

It's pretty obvious that there must be a sort of "cut off" between the "normal" evacuation procedures and the job of Navy trained rescue divers.

Well it's not obvious from the legislation you quoted, is it?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I'm pretty sure that the responsibility is the other way round.

It's been discussed on here before and I'm pretty sure passage plans don't need to be writeen under Solas V. Whether Solas V applies differently to passenger liners I don't know.

I doubt we will find out from this case - given this guy's going to jail for a long while I doubt they'd bother with a technical offence of not writing his little detour down.

 

[MapisM]

I'm sure MapisM would have mentioned if there were exceptions mentioned in the legislation - it would be somewhat dishonest if he hadn't. Clearly he won't be aware of any legal precedents so that's anybody's guess.

Well, you asked what the wording was, I answered your question. But nope, I'm not aware of other details/exceptions/precedents - not for cases comparable to this one, anyway.
That'll be the court job, and a tricky one at that.
Even my previous thought in the 2nd paragraph of post #676 is nothing more than a common sense personal assumption.
I refrain from jumping in conclusions at this stage, because that would only mean contributing to the gossip, of which we already have plenty...

 

[MapisM]

Well it's not obvious from the legislation you quoted, is it?

Correct, it isn't - quite the opposite, to some extent.
In fact... see my previous post.

 

[BrendanS]

Not the funniest automatic translation I've ever seen, but obviously not very accurate, too.
I would ament it as follows:
The commander who, in case of abandonment of the vessel, floating unit or aircraft in danger, is not the last to leave the unit, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years.
If as a consequence of that follows an onboard fire, or the sinking of the ship or the floating unit, or a fire or loss of the aircraft, the penalty is two to eight years.
If the ship or aircraft is used for passengers transport, the penalty is three to twelve years.

Yours is better, but the machine translation did give the basics, but when you get into legal, no translation is useful, as it's down to law in the natural language. I can do some legal documents, mainly contract and licensing law, and some patent, and the detail is absolutely in the language used, which has lots of case law (in the UK) and each legal region varies in how the words mean things. Rather simplistic

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Correct, it isn't - quite the opposite, to some extent.

Then as I say it's stupid law. It either makes an unreasonable requirement on people or fails to indicate what they are required to do.

A textbook bad law.

 

[MapisM]

No big deal. If you want to be free to leave at your convenience a vessel under your command, just make sure it isn't IT registered...

 

[MapisM]

when you get into legal, no translation is useful, as it's down to law in the natural language.

Spot on, Brendan.

 

[Observer]

"If that's the law in full"
"assuming there are no exceptions/precedents for trapped passengers"

Not much point in me putting caveats all over the place if you don't read them is there?

I'm sure MapisM would have mentioned if there were exceptions mentioned in the legislation - it would be somewhat dishonest if he hadn't. Clearly he won't be aware of any legal precedents so that's anybody's guess.

I *think* English law also has a standing defence of necessity - wonder if Italy does too. In which case could he just say "I had to leave before the others - I might have died otherwise." (Wonder if any legal types could confrim if that would work in uk law.)

I though "stupid" a bit insulting to our Italian friends even with the caveat.

There is no general defence of "necessity" in English (& Wales) criminal law but there are many statutory offences that have a statutory defence. May be "necessity" or something else. Speeding and some other traffic law are examples. There is a statutory exception if used for police or other emergency purposes. These typically appear as indicated in my last post.

 

[alant]

It's been discussed on here before and I'm pretty sure passage plans don't need to be writeen under Solas V. Whether Solas V applies differently to passenger liners I don't know.

I doubt we will find out from this case - given this guy's going to jail for a long while I doubt they'd bother with a technical offence of not writing his little detour down.

If its not written down in some form, how else do you prove you had one?

 

[Twister_Ken]

If its not written down in some form, how else do you prove you had one?

If you rammed the rocks and parked 110,000 tons of scrap on the seabed, it's fairly evident that you didn't have a passage plan, or the one you did have was endangering life.

 

[trapezeartist]

I have to say that in this case, for me the moral issue outweighs any letter of the law.

Evidently you're not a lawyer then.

 

[Observer]

If its not written down in some form, how else do you prove you had one?

In English criminal law there are many examples where a person has a statutory duty. If he is charged with failing that duty he can seek to argue that the duty was discharged by self-testimony (or other evidence) that is not in itself "proof beyond reasonable doubt" but sufficient to "establish a case". If that is accepted by the court, the burden of proof of the negative, to the criminal standard, shifts back to the prosecution.

 

[Seajet]

Evidently you're not a lawyer then.

trapezeartist,

I am very happy to confirm I'm not a lawyer, banker or accountant, I would happily load those sub- species onto a starship aimed at the sun for the benefit of humanity; why, do you think my moral point was wrong ?

 

[trapezeartist]

trapezeartist,

I am very happy to confirm I'm not a lawyer, banker or accountant, I would happily load those sub- species onto a starship aimed at the sun for the benefit of humanity; why, do you think my moral point was wrong ?

Seajet

No, I think your choice to put morality ahead of law is absolutely right. That's why I'm not a lawyer either.

Does your starship have any room left for politicians? (Though most of them will already be included in your other categories.)

 

[alant]

In English criminal law there are many examples where a person has a statutory duty. If he is charged with failing that duty he can seek to argue that the duty was discharged by self-testimony (or other evidence) that is not in itself "proof beyond reasonable doubt" but sufficient to "establish a case". If that is accepted by the court, the burden of proof of the negative, to the criminal standard, shifts back to the prosecution.

Think I understood that.

 

[Observer]

If you rammed the rocks and parked 110,000 tons of scrap on the seabed, it's fairly evident that you didn't have a passage plan, or the one you did have was endangering life.

I have read the reference to the weight of CC as 110,00 tons (or thereabouts) many times over the last week. It is a bit misleading. Actually the gross tonnage is 114,500 tons (from memory) which as you know is a hypothetical value based on calculated volume. The displacement is I think (again from memory) ~54,000 tons (not sure if that's loaded or not). This is just for clarity Ken. Not a criticism at all.

 

[alant]

If you rammed the rocks and parked 110,000 tons of scrap on the seabed, it's fairly evident that you didn't have a passage plan, or the one you did have was endangering life.

I doubt that any passage plan with a flyby near any hazard would be approved, so hitting them would be a flagrant departure from the original. Still would have had one, but just ignored it.

He would not have even left the dock without some plan.

 

[VicS]

Most of you prepare passage plans... or at least should do.... from time to time.

Are you plans so detailed that they would exclude you from making a small detour to look closely at a section of coast ?