We have been boarded by customs and anti terrosim police several times recently in the Bristol channel. They are pretty good. (if you have nothing to hide)
To be in "possession" of those drugs you have to be aware that they are there, at least in English law, but it appears that this does not run through Europe, and some of the cases seem pathetic, particularly where you have volunteer delivery crews who only meet up at the boat a day or so before they must leave.
In terms of defences that does not seem that difficult in that the prosecution are unable to show any relationship between any of the parties prior to embarkation, and the crewing seems to have run through legit channels, shame the British (B Liar?) government always seems to wash their hands and not get involved.
Do you remember when an Brit passport meant some rights and protection for the subject
Personally, I think it reasonable that skipper and crew are detained whilst an investigation is conducted. You'd be pretty p'ed off if they were let go and it turned out that they had planned the trafficking. The media will always blow a subject to the extreme in order to sell - rather than give an objective report ...
Skipper and Crew have been detained following the discovery of illegal drugs on a boat they were delivering on behalf of a Croatian owner. The packaging was discovered in a sealed part of the vessel and so far the crew have denied all knowledge of it. Sentencing for the trafficking of illegal substances could mean life if they are found guilty.
Doesn't sell as well as [ QUOTE ]
Banker 'caught smuggling £8m of cocaine on yacht'
A retired banker and three other Britons are facing life in jail after customs officers in Gibraltar found £8million worth of cocaine on the yacht they were crewing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which implies that the customs officers have already decided that they are guilty and therefore going to prison ...
I don't bother reading any newspaper any more as you cannot take what is written at face value. Why can't the papers just report fact ?
Erm - hang on - they don't have to prove innocence ...
the prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they brought it in and (for the second part of the Mails sensationalist story) intended to distribute - which then enters a grey area - cos is ignorance of the package an acceptable defence? If so, the prosecution would need to prove that they did know about it.
£8M could inspire some quite thorough and creative track-covering, not that I have any doubt that they were stitched up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess so. Call me naive but I imagine that if someone has been law abiding all their life, not that I know the details, they would be unlikely to suddenly get involved in something like this straight off. The disappearing Croatian sounds a much more likely charlatan!
[ QUOTE ]
...Call me naive but I imagine that if someone has been law abiding all their life, ... they would be unlikely to suddenly get involved in something like this straight off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said something to the effect that you should save up something scandalous for your old age? While I may not quite follow Mr Wilde's example in most repsects, I quite relish the though of suddenly opening a brothel and maybe some drug-running when I get to age 90! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
"Call me naive but I imagine that if someone has been law abiding all their life, not that I know the details, they would be unlikely to suddenly get involved in something like this straight off."
If someone offered 10% or so of the street value, to simply take a boat across the pond, no questions asked, are you saying anyone previously 'law-abiding' wouldn't be tempted?
Considering the paltry wages for deliveries, would temptation not raise its ugly head for most people?
Its the naive 'previously law-abiding' who surely make the best mules for this crap!
Strange that the boat passed two routine customs checks, and when the officers returned they went straight to wher ethe drugs were stored.
Makes you wonder if they had prior information and from where that source was located
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the searchers did know. If you were trying to capture the dealer you would not give it away but need to check it was still there.
Anyway 200kg of cocaine is a best part of 1/2m3. Obviously they did not do a very good inspection of the inside of the boat hull before they left.
Also most posts on here quibble about 45kg anchors; but they did not notice 200Kg on a light production boat.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would guess that a 1/2m3 compartment would be pretty easy to fabricate in a decent sized boat like that. A 6" false base under a 6' bunk probably wouldn't be obvious. Or a compartment in a fuel/ water tank. An Etap could probably hide tons of the stuff in its double skin! Sounds to me like they were fingered by someone (supplier?) double-crossed in the Caribean. Might make a good film if they get off!
It could be argued or construed that the crew were no more guilty than the crew of a freight ship which carries a container with drugs hidden in it.
Either the Gibralter police/customs were very inept or desperate for a conviction. Any real police service would allow the drugs to be received by the end receiver and convictions made from there.
Drug running at this scale requires a lot of orgaisation at the exporting end just getting the drugs together and again at the receiving end distributing the drugs and arranging payment.
Even if the crew were knowingly carrying the drugs it would be a very small part of the whole organisation and normally well worth allowing the other criminals to become involved by receiving the drugs. Just what is going on here that is not part of the story?
olewill