Liquid Vortex trial starts

[mikefleetwood]

These are the RYA Rules - http://www.rya.org.uk/sitecollectio...g centres/Cruising/TRA Guidance Notes RGN.pdf

Yes, but they are RYA Rules (or "guidelines" actually). They don't carry the force of law - you can't be arrested for breaking them. Although, disregarding them could be considered to show negligence. The heaviest sanction the RYA can apply for breaking their rules is removal of acreditation.

Of course, engaging in some activities without appropriate acreditation may well be illegal. But, this is not relevant in the current case, as acreditation was not removed/suspended until after the incident.

 

[Searush]

As I understood it (right or wrong?) the prosecution has been brought by the MCA under commercial shipping regulations (Maritime act?) because it was a COMMERCIAL voyage with paying crew.

I presume they are trying to prove that the LAW was broken at some point. Some of the charges have already been thrown out as unproveable, it remains to be seen what the non-maritime jury make of the rest of the charges. Give that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until after the verdict, I doubt that the past behaviuor of the school & CS will be admissible as evidence, but I do not know that.

We sail as private individuals & do not attempt to make money from our pastime. Our passengers/ crew choose to come with us (or not) of their own free will & we are not allowed to ask for reward (altho contributions to the food & entertainment locker are not forbidden). Cosequently we are unlikely to be prosecuted as a commercial vessel.

This not about "needing rescue" but rather about a reasonable passage plan & a duty of care towards paying customers. Has everything possible been done to ensure that lives were not unnecessarily put at risk?

CS's passage plan appears to have been ambitious (nowt wrong with that) but with few bolt holes available, & a significant part of the crew disabled by seasickness, the question might be should he have sailed past the previous haven when the next 2 were likely to be difficult & dangerous to enter?

Forecasts are more often right than wrong, but timing of events is often out. A lot may depend on whether the weather foorecast & experienced was seen as a challenge to be overcome rather than a hazard to be avoided.

 

[BobPrell]

I've never heard of people who have to be rescued from swimming in the sea, or playing on rubber rings or airbeds or surfboards and having to be rescued ending in court.

Have a look around for a catch-all such as is used in Australian states "Engaging in a dangerous unregulated activity".

This was first used to prosecute folks who base-jump or climb buildings. We had some floods last year. A young man jumped into a creek and rode it downstream a hundred metres or so. He climbed out with no resulting harm to self or anyone else. He was charged with the above offense, because if something had gone wrong, he would have been tying up rescue services, is the rationale.

 

[Tomahawk]

I suspect that Searuch is quite right in suggesting the MCA acted because of the commercial aspect.

Whichever way it goes it will have an effect on our sailing. If a guilty verdict is returned, I can see the regulators feeling they have the justification to bring more prosecutions. Any accident on a training boat of any sort will result in a court case.

I wonder if it will extend to professional sailors who sail sponsored boats for the purpose of advertising? The Vendee is about to start. Generally half the fleet don't make it home and retire with damage and ocassionaly loss of their boats... One could argue that a sailor who is being paid to navigate is being reckless to enter the lower lattitides of the Southern Ocean?

 

[PilotWolf]

Give that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until after the verdict, I doubt that the past behaviuor of the school & CS will be admissible as evidence, but I do not know that.

I maybe wrong but IIRC things changed and you could mention previous convictions/cautions during formal interviews/questioning under PACE rules.

As such it should be relatively easy for a good prosecution barrister to introduce it into the trial...

W.

 

[[70521]]

As such it should be relatively easy for a good prosecution barrister to introduce it into the trial...

And just as easy for a judge to rule it inadmissible.

 

[awol]

January 3rd 2012 - Airports closed, bridges closed to all traffic, buses cancelled, schools closed, police warnings not to travel, trains cancelled, marina pontoons bucking so hard that I was on hands and knees, spume flying about mast high, I can't remember how many killed ...... all 'cos F10 was forecast and duly arrived. Then the news that Liquid Vortex had gone for a wee cruise up La Manche to get the boat to the Boat Show and had been rescued.

Ok, I was in the soft central belt of Scotland, not the rufty, tufty south but the forecasts weren't very much different.

 

[fireball]

CS's passage plan appears to have been ambitious (nowt wrong with that) but with few bolt holes available, & a significant part of the crew disabled by seasickness, the question might be should he have sailed past the previous haven when the next 2 were likely to be difficult & dangerous to enter?

Forecasts are more often right than wrong, but timing of events is often out. A lot may depend on whether the weather foorecast & experienced was seen as a challenge to be overcome rather than a hazard to be avoided.

I would be interested to know at what point the crew became disabled by seasickness ...

I've never been that seasick that I cannot continue to sail the boat (even when on the helm!) ... in the worst situation I've been in 1/2 my crew were sick too - well, it was a crew of 3 including myself and my little bro was sick to the point of being green - he just lay on the leeward cockpit seat and slept his way across! The other crew (Paul) was made of stronger stuff and was happily cooking himself a bacon sarnie!!
So 1/3rd of the crew was incapacitated, 1/3rd was being sick but carried on anyway and 1/3rd was alright jack! ... At what point (as skipper) do you call it a day? How many crew do you need to be incapacitated before you abort Plan 1?

In my case, I think if Paul had been seasick too then I would've aborted the sail - although I could've handled the boat by myself it wouldn't have been sensible - especially as we had no working autopilot and we were bashing into a F7 ...

For us, once we got within the shelter of the Cherbourg peninsular and the tide turned (the wrong way) the sea flattened off and all crew were functional once more ...

 

[alant]

Yes, but they are RYA Rules (or "guidelines" actually). They don't carry the force of law - you can't be arrested for breaking them. Although, disregarding them could be considered to show negligence. The heaviest sanction the RYA can apply for breaking their rules is removal of acreditation.

Of course, engaging in some activities without appropriate acreditation may well be illegal. But, this is not relevant in the current case, as acreditation was not removed/suspended until after the incident.

The question asked, which I answered pointing out the RYA requirements for a school boat, was "I assume the boat was properly coded as a commercial charter vessel". The RYA stuff indicates what coding is required.

 

[Pye_End]

Will try to check in next week but out working so a bit hit and miss on comms.

Thank you for posting your comments thus far.

Can you shed any light on the oddity of the liferaft reported to being inflated when the first lifeboat arrived?

What interests me most is what weather information CS had received which convinced him that firstly Dover would be open and secondly the timing of the deterioration of the weather. If he did have more concise information than the midnight shipping forecast, what was going through his mind as he passed Eastbourne in terms of timings, and of what he would do if the timings were wrong, or found Dover closed?

 

[alant]

As I understood it (right or wrong?) the prosecution has been brought by the MCA under commercial shipping regulations (Maritime act?) because it was a COMMERCIAL voyage with paying crew.

I presume they are trying to prove that the LAW was broken at some point. Some of the charges have already been thrown out as unproveable, it remains to be seen what the non-maritime jury make of the rest of the charges. Give that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until after the verdict, I doubt that the past behaviuor of the school & CS will be admissible as evidence, but I do not know that.

We sail as private individuals & do not attempt to make money from our pastime. Our passengers/ crew choose to come with us (or not) of their own free will & we are not allowed to ask for reward (altho contributions to the food & entertainment locker are not forbidden). Cosequently we are unlikely to be prosecuted as a commercial vessel.

This not about "needing rescue" but rather about a reasonable passage plan & a duty of care towards paying customers. Has everything possible been done to ensure that lives were not unnecessarily put at risk?

CS's passage plan appears to have been ambitious (nowt wrong with that) but with few bolt holes available, & a significant part of the crew disabled by seasickness, the question might be should he have sailed past the previous haven when the next 2 were likely to be difficult & dangerous to enter?

Forecasts are more often right than wrong, but timing of events is often out. A lot may depend on whether the weather foorecast & experienced was seen as a challenge to be overcome rather than a hazard to be avoided.

You mention "it remains to be seen what the non-maritime jury make of the rest of the charges", as if a Jury should have some specialist knowledge. This doesn't happen in cases involving train crashes, or complex fraud/financial cases, so why expect it in this case?

As you can see by the comments on these threads, it would be difficult to get a consensus from 12 'knowledgeable' yachties, so why bother to use them?

 

[jimi]

I would be interested to know at what point the crew became disabled by seasickness ...

I've never been that seasick that I cannot continue to sail the boat (even when on the helm!) ... in the worst situation I've been in 1/2 my crew were sick too - well, it was a crew of 3 including myself and my little bro was sick to the point of being green - he just lay on the leeward cockpit seat and slept his way across! The other crew (Paul) was made of stronger stuff and was happily cooking himself a bacon sarnie!!
So 1/3rd of the crew was incapacitated, 1/3rd was being sick but carried on anyway and 1/3rd was alright jack! ... At what point (as skipper) do you call it a day? How many crew do you need to be incapacitated before you abort Plan 1?

In my case, I think if Paul had been seasick too then I would've aborted the sail - although I could've handled the boat by myself it wouldn't have been sensible - especially as we had no working autopilot and we were bashing into a F7 ...

For us, once we got within the shelter of the Cherbourg peninsular and the tide turned (the wrong way) the sea flattened off and all crew were functional once more ...

Worst I had was on an overnight January channel crossing from Cherbourg to the Solent when I had 3 crew, wind was NE F8 (F6 was forecast and it was F4 when we left). 2 crew were totally incapacitated and the other felt he could'nt helm in the conditions so he kept me company whilst I helmed for about 6 hours. If I he had'nt been there to grab the wheel occasionally or adjust the sheets I'd have been struggling a bit as all the nav stuff was downstairs. I subsequently bought a hh chartplotter to be able to cope better with these types of situations in the future.

 

[mikefleetwood]

The question asked, which I answered pointing out the RYA requirements for a school boat, was "I assume the boat was properly coded as a commercial charter vessel". The RYA stuff indicates what coding is required.

The question asked was "at which point does the law become involved (or words to that effect)?"

The RYA guidelines all relate to the acreditation of sailing schools, dealing with such aspects as the qualification of instructors and the standards (coding) required for their boats - all of which (with the exception of a compass light) LV complied with. As I said, non-compliance is not a matter of law, only of acreditation. It may well be illegal to operate a siling school without acreditation, but that was not the situaution here.

The charges (and the criticism in this forum) all relate to the specific voyage and the planning thereof - all not covered by the RYA guidelines quoted.

The RYA guidelines refer to the need for vessels to be coded, but that applies to all vessels operated commercially, and has nothing to do wth the RYA but administered (and enforced) by the MCA.

 

[Mark-1]

January 3rd 2012 - Airports closed, bridges closed to all traffic, buses cancelled, schools closed, police warnings not to travel, trains cancelled, marina pontoons bucking so hard that I was on hands and knees, spume flying about mast high, I can't remember how many killed ...... all 'cos F10 was forecast and duly arrived. Then the news that Liquid Vortex had gone for a wee cruise up La Manche to get the boat to the Boat Show and had been rescued.

Ok, I was in the soft central belt of Scotland, not the rufty, tufty south but the forecasts weren't very much different.

In Chichester, we "only" had F8 towards the end of the Monday night with winds building from the very bottom end of a F9 from 8am Turesday Morning. Some big gusts though.

http://www.chimet.co.uk/archive/2012/January/HTML/Chi03Jan2012.html

 

[rotrax]

Thank you for posting your comments thus far.

Can you shed any light on the oddity of the liferaft reported to being inflated when the first lifeboat arrived?

What interests me most is what weather information CS had received which convinced him that firstly Dover would be open and secondly the timing of the deterioration of the weather. If he did have more concise information than the midnight shipping forecast, what was going through his mind as he passed Eastbourne in terms of timings, and of what he would do if the timings were wrong, or found Dover closed?

The course of actions that CS, and JM, through the Company HL Sailing took were serious enough to warrant a full investigation and subsequent action in court. In my view quite rightly. As a commercial enterprise the onus of a Duty of Care is a part of the responsibility that goes with taking money to take customers sailing. The court will make a decision soon. We should be patient and wait for it. CS may well be a good bloke, JM-who I spent a week onboard with when he was Instructor / Skipper of my Dazed Kipper course is a good seaman, a fine instructor and a good bloke-was acting in a different capacity as Principal of HL, with the pressures that go with that role. Between them they may have made a mistake, or decided to push their collective luck. We shall know soon.

 

[Searush]

And just as easy for a judge to rule it inadmissible.

And of course, immediately electronically zap the jury to wipe their memories of what was just said.

The Prosecution know that once mentioned, the mud will stick, regardless of what the Judge says. That is precisely why they break the rules. They can't do it too often or they will be charged with contempt I suspect, or have some other professional sanction applied. But they will do it just enough to swing a jury when it makes the diferrence between winning & losing a case.

 

[Searush]

You mention "it remains to be seen what the non-maritime jury make of the rest of the charges", as if a Jury should have some specialist knowledge. This doesn't happen in cases involving train crashes, or complex fraud/financial cases, so why expect it in this case?

As you can see by the comments on these threads, it would be difficult to get a consensus from 12 'knowledgeable' yachties, so why bother to use them?

You're picking a fight of your own again. Of course I know a jury won't have specialised knowledge, it is a prerequisite of the system. That is why "expert witnesses" are used - often by both sides with opposing views.

My point was (and I'm sure you know this but just wanted a fight) that lack of seagoing experience will colour the viewpoint of most jurors. What matters is how the respective Barristers (probably also non-boaters) use that fact to the benefit or otherwise of the accused.

 

[alant]

You're picking a fight of your own again. Of course I know a jury won't have specialised knowledge, it is a prerequisite of the system. That is why "expert witnesses" are used - often by both sides with opposing views.

My point was (and I'm sure you know this but just wanted a fight) that lack of seagoing experience will colour the viewpoint of most jurors. What matters is how the respective Barristers (probably also non-boaters) use that fact to the benefit or otherwise of the accused.

Searush, as always you assume too much & completely ignore the kernel of any argument!

eg
1) That "I want to pick a fight" X 2!
2) That "I know a jury won't have specialised knowledge"!
3) That "lack of seagoing experience"!
4) That "the respective Barristers (probably also non-boaters)"!

My earlier comment
"As you can see by the comments on these threads, it would be difficult to get a consensus from 12 'knowledgeable' yachties, so why bother to use them?",
has, as is obvious from your rabid post, been most eloquently proven!

 

[dt4134]

Can you shed any light on the oddity of the liferaft reported to being inflated when the first lifeboat arrived?

Not sure it is an oddity. I suspect it happens in a number of cases in heavy weather with a liferaft mounted on the pushpit with a hydrostatic release.

 

[PhillM]

What matters is how the respective Barristers (probably also non-boaters) use that fact to the benefit or otherwise of the accused.

Hmm, It should not be too hard to find a sea going Barrister in Southampton. I bet I could if I need to! So I am sure can the MCA - also based in Southampton and i beleive that one of the defendents is based in eastleigh from whic you can see the cranes of Southampton Docks on a good day (albiet from the 4th floor of our office).

In fact I suspect its harder to find a NON sea going Barister...