Leisure cruiser skipper fined £20,000 for going wrong way

[Boreades]

Just seen this press release from the MCGA

At a hearing today in Folkstone Magistrates Court, Mr Keith Jonathon MacGregor, from Flimwell, East Sussex, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Regulations for preventing collisions at Sea (COLREGS).

Mr MacGregor was the part owner of the leisure vessel St David of London a 35 tonne, 18m, steel hulled converted ice breaker. On 24 August 2009, he was returning to Dover from a pleasure trip to Jersey. Mr MacGregor had no formal qualifications such as one of the RYA courses for leisure sailors but has been involved with leisure craft from childhood.

At approximately 0847 the vessel entered the South West going shipping lane in the Dover Straits Traffic Separation Scheme with a friend of Mr MacGregors at the controls. For the next 3 hours 50 minutes the St David of London proceeded against the general direction of the traffic for the South West Lane running a total distance of some 26 miles and during this period had close encounters with three other ships two of which were carrying dangerous or polluting cargoes.

Coastguard Officers at Dover Channel Navigation Information Service (CNIS) based at Langdon Battery noted that there was an unidentified vessel proceeding the wrong way in the South West lane and requested both a passing merchant ship and the Coastguard aircraft to try and identify the vessel.

In sentencing the Chairman of the Bench said:-

4 hours and 20 miles in the wrong lane is inexcusable. Both he and the crew he employed were inexperienced and unqualified, that was his problem and not the courts. The risk of collision between passing vessels could have been a lot worse

The Magistrates took in to consideration Mr MacGregors acceptance of responsibility and his earlier plea of guilty when imposing a fine of £20,000. Mr MacGregor was also required to pay £5,300 in costs.

Kaimes Beasley, CNIS manager, Maritime and Coastguard Agency said:

The Dover Straits traffic separation scheme has been in place now for 32 years and is a significant factor in minimising the number of close encounters and collisions in this very busy waterway. The rules of conduct apply to every vessel using the scheme. Going the wrong way in a lane can have devastating consequences.
​

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/press-releases?id=B37A5F463DE32E4D&m=3&y=2010

Was the fine proportional to the offence?

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Given that he was in a vessel capable of inflicting serious damage on a ship (assuming the "ice breaker" designation means what it should mean) , I think he may well have got off lightly. If one of those close encounters had resulted in a collision, then the environmental costs could have been astronomical.

However, there is a bit of a mis-match between the rest of the description of the vessel and the use of the term ice-breaker! An 18m vessel would not normally be capable of meriting the "ice breaker" tag - and there is no mention of what class of ice breaker. However, genuine ice-breakers are massively over-engined, and have construction capable of smashing through ice of a metre or so thick; the hull of an ordinary cargo vessel would pose little resistance to such a vessel.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Fair cop. Fine was proportional. Vessel that size could have dome damage to commercial shipping resulting in pollution and/or injury.

PS. How stupid can you get? I guess he wasn't even maintaining radio watch or he'd have heard people swearing at him.

 

[reginaldon]

As there was no incident arising from the offence, it seems as though our local magistrates were a bit severe, especially for a leisure craft - no doubt guided by the Clerk to the Justices.
He'd have been better off doing over two or three old ladies.

 

[Angele]

Was the fine proportional to the offence?

I am believer in matching the level of fine to the offender's ability to pay - ie it should hurt, but not bankrupt them - and, since I don't know how wealthy he is, I have no idea whether this will hurt. Presumably, however, if he could afford (a part share in) the boat he can easily afford a £20k fine (plus costs).

Going the wrong way in the TSS in a 35 tonne ice breaker is an unforgiveable transgression. He certainly deserves to have the book thrown at him. Best thing they could do is to confiscate the vessel. That way it would definitely hurt him and he couldn't do anything dangerous again.

Problem is that he is only part owner. So, how to punish him and not the other co-owners?

 

[savageseadog]

I think there is previous precedent for this level of fine for pleasure craft. I remember a similar incident with a yacht a while ago.

 

[timbartlett]

Fair cop. Fine was proportional. Vessel that size could have dome damage to commercial shipping resulting in pollution and/or injury.

I am not defending him.
But...

According to http://saintdavidoflondon.com/, she's a 105 year-old steel boat, originally built in sweden as a tug, with a colourful history. But although she does appear to have an "ice bow", the description of her as an "ice breaker" sounds like a typical piece of MCA press office embroidery.

And the fine does seem a tad disproportionate when you compare it with (for instance) £2,700 imposed by Folkestone magistrates for a steel-hulled commercial fishing boat that actually hit a ship when going the wrong way.

For commercial vessels caught going the wrong way without causing a collision, Folkestone Magistrates usually impose fines of between £400 and £2000. They have a long track record of imposing significantly higher fines on recreational craft.

 

[Channel Ribs]

Folkestone Magistrates usually impose fines of between £400 and £2000. They have a long track record of imposing significantly higher fines on recreational craft.

So they skipper would have been 18k better off if he had got a commercial ticket?

The real offence seems to have been not listening on Ch16, had they been doing so they could have been made aware of their error early on and acted appropriately. Did anyone aboard have a SRC I wonder? There is a St David listed as having a VHF license, not sure if that is the same one but the type and tonnage match.

Their web site lists plenty of radios:

3 x fixed VHF radios - 1 x Skanti DSC VHF, 1 x Sailor 2047 VHF, 1 x Icom M710 HF/MF DSC - plus 2 hand held Icom VHF radios

Hard to see why/if all of them were off??

 

[reginaldon]

Well observed Tim - for all we know this could have washed the guy out.

 

[shmoo]

I think the real crime here was traveling the wrong way for so long and, presumably, either not hearing or disregarding the calls of warning. This displays a kind of closed-ears, closed-eyes (didn't they notice the ships coming the other way?) and possibly closed-minded attitude.

It is not the crime that's the real problem so much as the total unawareness of what was going around them on that was dangerous and makes the level of the fine appropriate.

I can imagine an alternative scenario and outcome, had they been more responsive, along the lines of:
COASTIES or PASSING SHIP: "ship at lat, long blah blah. Be advised, you are going the wrong way"
St DAVID: "Sorry! Changing course blah blah to make towards other lane now. Will monitor 16 and 11 for further instructions."

And I don't suppose it would have gone any further.

Have you never been speeding; seen a cop car in the mirror, slowed down rapidly to the speed limit, only to have them overtake, grin, and wag their finger you.

 

[Jamesuk]

Good decision!

 

[lw395]

So they skipper would have been 18k better off if he had got a commercial ticket?

The real offence seems to have been not listening on Ch16, had they been doing so they could have been made aware of their error early on and acted appropriately. Did anyone aboard have a SRC I wonder? There is a St David listed as having a VHF license, not sure if that is the same one but the type and tonnage match.

Their web site lists plenty of radios:

3 x fixed VHF radios - 1 x Skanti DSC VHF, 1 x Sailor 2047 VHF, 1 x Icom M710 HF/MF DSC - plus 2 hand held Icom VHF radios

Hard to see why/if all of them were off??

I expect the radios were off to avoid listening to radio checks, or just not audible on deck. Or maybe tuned to the last weather forecast.
It's certainly a big fine for a magistrate's court.
Probably disproportionate, but then again TSS's are not exactly new and the Dover one is about the most obvious and serious.
The level of fines should not be lower for commercial operators who could well be saving a couple of £k by trimming a few hours off a voyage, and knowingly, repeatedly take liberties.
I suppose it means we get some sort of value for money from our outlay on YM training!
Do any of these big fines get appealed?
Or the smaller ones come to that!

 

[idpnd]

That's a bit steep. Doing that in the age of GPS & chart plotter is unforgivable & suicidal though

 

[PeterGibbs]

Just seen this press release from the MCGA

At a hearing today in Folkstone Magistrates Court, Mr Keith Jonathon MacGregor, from Flimwell, East Sussex, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Regulations for preventing collisions at Sea (COLREGS).

Was the fine proportional to the offence?​

Rotten car drivers are sent for retraining. Kids with no licences are banned until they pass a course. Could reduce the liklihood of doing damage in the future, I think the argument goes....could be.

But how about the court employed a tiny bit of imagination and done the same here? Wouldn't we all be a little bit safer, including the defendant, if it had?

No power so to do? Oh yes it has - how about £20k fine, but £5k deferrable if you pass a suitable RYA practical course? Anyone but a moron would go for that, don't you think?

40% of appealed magistrate sentences are successfully appealed. What's the prospect of our ice breaker friend going for an appeal?

PWG​

 

[Twister_Ken]

He might appeal the fine, but going on the 'facts' as reported, he can hardly appeal the conviction.

 

[Doghousekeeper]

Education and qualifications may not be compulsory, but that doesn't excuse ignorance of the rules. Glad I wasn't going the proper way at the time

 

[mcframe]

I am not defending him.
But...

According to http://saintdavidoflondon.com/, she's a 105 year-old steel boat, originally built in sweden as a tug, with a colourful history. But although she does appear to have an "ice bow", the description of her as an "ice breaker" sounds like a typical piece of MCA press office embroidery.

Good find Tim:
"She also made a regular trip to the German port of Rostock on the pretext of providing small engineering spares from her then large cargo deck area. In 1939 she was stopped and her real cargo of 40 Jewish refugees was found hidden onboard. She is known to have made several such journeys.
The fate of her crew is unknown but the ship was confiscated and pressed into service under the swastika as a patrol ship"

I wonder if there would have been such embroidery if it had been a DLS...

(Just an observation on the vessel description - OK it might have fared slightly better in a collision than a modern power boat of that size, but I wouldn't want to ram a comparable commercial fishing boat in her.)

 

[nonitoo]

Rotten car drivers are sent for retraining. Kids with no licences are banned until they pass a course. Could reduce the liklihood of doing damage in the future, I think the argument goes....could be.

But how about the court employed a tiny bit of imagination and done the same here? Wouldn't we all be a little bit safer, including the defendant, if it had?

No power so to do? Oh yes it has - how about £20k fine, but £5k deferrable if you pass a suitable RYA practical course? Anyone but a moron would go for that, don't you think?

Are you sure ? I cannot think of the legislation pemitting them to take this course of action.

40% of appealed magistrate sentences are successfully appealed. What's the prospect of our ice breaker friend going for an appeal?

These appeals are normally heard by a Judge and two senior Magistrates in the Crown Court, I am unsure how many of the successful appeals result in quashing of the original sentence as opposed to a variation.

Tom