Roland Wilson Guilty!

[savageseadog]

Are you going to tell them they've got it wrong then: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/costs/#a05 ?

You're correct! I did say at the outset that my knowledge of costs were limited to civil cases and I wasn't sure about CPS and costs in criminal proceedings. What I do find very interesting is that there is no provision for assessing or taxing prosecution costs, perhaps they can be appealed (?) but it does seem strange that this area is so one sided. How would the judge in this case be able to say if the costs are correct in the fairly short time he would have had to look at the issue. We must assume that the costs the judge allows are really part of the punishment and given that they are £100K the idea that this is the case is particularly relevant.

 

[bedouin]

Is the Day Shape a Colregs or Harbour Authority requirement? As they were sailing in a Harbour Authority area of regulation, not the open sea.

From looking at the 'track' supplied on here, it would seem to me that Atlanta was on a course along the Navigational Channel,(At impact time), the same channel that HK was in / on. That's why they approached each other bow on with Atlanta changing course across HK bows at a late stage. Result a collision.

Colregs take precidence over harbour regs - and there was no conflicit anyway.

Under colregs a vessel "constrained by draft" only becomes stand on if she is displaying the correct day shape - so Atalanta was required not to impede but remained stand on.

That is also clear in the charges against Atalanta - she was charged with impeding, not failing to give way

 

[JumbleDuck]

Okay - so according to you it would have been more sensible for Atalanta to hold her original course - ignoring the fact that she knew that HK had to turn, and even when HK sounded starboard she should have held her course because she couldn't see that HK was turning?

Well in hindsight clearly it would have been, because the collision wouldn't have occurred. Dunno about you, but if I thought another vessel was going to turn, and if I heard it give a sound signal to indicate a turn, I'd probably base my subsequent actions on whether she actually did turn and how fast, rather than rely on my imagination.[/quote]

NB in this case it was Atalanta that was the stand on vessel - perhaps you ought to read Colregs

"Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre shall, if possible, not impede the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft"

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'm afraid you are wrong - Colregs are explicit on this, HK was give way vessel. HK was not entitled to be considered "constrained by draught" as she was not displaying the required day shape.

Sez who? Isn't it amazing that all those expensive lawyers managed to miss something so obvious?

 

[fireball]

Are you refering to HK or Atalanta - don't forget that HK was the give way craft (not that it really matters in this case)

Yee gods ... what planet are you on?!

We have a fecking great tanker, with a tug boat attached to her stern, in a charted "precautionary area", about to make a tight turn, with local Pilots onboard and an escort boat out front.
Of course she was standon - it's inconceivable that she would be anything but!

 

[Capt Popeye]

Colregs take precidence over harbour regs - and there was no conflicit anyway.

Under colregs a vessel "constrained by draft" only becomes stand on if she is displaying the correct day shape - so Atalanta was required not to impede but remained stand on.

That is also clear in the charges against Atalanta - she was charged with impeding, not failing to give way

Err I understand that in Colregs Rule 1 b Harbour Authorities are allowed to make special appropriate rules in the area of water that comes under their jurisdiction. And that these ARE the rules that apply in that Harbour. I suppose the rules can include areas concerning restricted activities such as vessels using narrow or shallow waters out of necessity, such as the HK. If so such Harbour Rules would take precedence over the Colregs, I would have thought?
If the Harbour Rules say that a large vessel navigating the narrow / shallow channel should not be impeded in any way does it also say said vessel should be flying the correct identification marks to declare its impediment.

Maybe custom and practice does not require a vessel using these restricted waters to show the required signal / marks?

 

[bedouin]

Yee gods ... what planet are you on?!

We have a fecking great tanker, with a tug boat attached to her stern, in a charted "precautionary area", about to make a tight turn, with local Pilots onboard and an escort boat out front.
Of course she was standon - it's inconceivable that she would be anything but!

Ask an boat owner friend - or anyone who is familiar with IRPCS. Atalanta being under sail was the stand on vessel once risk of collision was deemed to exist.

If you don't believe me - ask why the skipper wasn't charged with failing to give way!

 

[l'escargot]

You're correct! I did say at the outset that my knowledge of costs were limited to civil cases and I wasn't sure about CPS and costs in criminal proceedings. What I do find very interesting is that there is no provision for assessing or taxing prosecution costs, perhaps they can be appealed (?) but it does seem strange that this area is so one sided. How would the judge in this case be able to say if the costs are correct in the fairly short time he would have had to look at the issue. We must assume that the costs the judge allows are really part of the punishment and given that they are £100K the idea that this is the case is particularly relevant.

I don't know but I would guess the costs were significantly more but the judge has to consider ability to pay and costs not being an undue burden on the defendant - it does also say somewhere that they must not be an extra punishment. £100,000 is a nice round figure, I wonder if there is some form of insurance or suchlike is in place for just this amount and the judge decided to take it all. Just speculation though.

 

[l'escargot]

Lets just back up a wee bit; The ship and the Yacht were sailing in an area of water that a Harbour Authority have, lets say, authority over.

ColRegs part A general Rule 1 clearly states that 'special rules' can apply in areas under the control of Harbour Authorities; but wherever possible adherence to ColRegs should be made. So the Harbour Authority rules apply in this incident, do they not? I would suggest that in this case the Harbour Authority rules have precedent over the ColRegs...

The harbour authority either decided that there was no breach of local rules or that ColRegs take precedent - he was charged with (and convicted of) breaching ColRegs and not any local regulations.

 

[bedouin]

I don't know but I would guess the costs were significantly more but the judge has to consider ability to pay and costs not being an undue burden on the defendant - it does also say somewhere that they must not be an extra punishment. £100,000 is a nice round figure, I wonder if there is some form of insurance or suchlike is in place for just this amount and the judge decided to take it all. Just speculation though.

I thought the convention in civil cases is that whoever funds the defence is also responsible for any costs awarded against the defendant - so perhaps the same is true in this case. In that case whoever funded the defence will be picking up the bill

 

[savageseadog]

I don't know but I would guess the costs were significantly more but the judge has to consider ability to pay and costs not being an undue burden on the defendant - it does also say somewhere that they must not be an extra punishment. £100,000 is a nice round figure, I wonder if there is some form of insurance or suchlike is in place for just this amount and the judge decided to take it all. Just speculation though.

If a £100K isn't an undue burden on anyone I'd like to know what is. I can't see any insurer covering prosecution costs, if he had some sort of cover it would surely be withdrawn in the event of gross negligence which can be safely concluded from the verdict. Perhaps the defence was paid for by insurance and by taking it on and therefore took all risk, the judge then decided to punish the insurer/solicitor as well? So many unknowns it's a shame we don't have more facts, perhaps the hearing should have been televised?

 

[l'escargot]

Oh, I see now. You changed the words when you quoted my posting. Very subtle.

Well no, it doesn't work like that. The Hanne Knutsen was keeping on a more or less constant course (ten degrees in two minutes is nothing), and the Atalanta was obliged to keep out of her way. There was no need for the Atalanta's crew to attempt mindreading, and indeed the whole sorry mess seems to have come about because they did so.

It's probably more sensible when a risk of collision arises to base your actions on what you can see the other vessel doing rather than on what you think they might do or on what you think they ought to have done. This is particularly important when the other vessel is stand-on.

But the Atalanta crew didn't mind read they saw the tanker enter an area where they must turn to follow the channel, the tanker also signalled that it was going to turn. You then have to anticipate what those actions will lead to which is necessary to avoid collision - there would be far more collisions if you waited for the other boat to act before you reacted. In that stretch of water the vessels actually look as if they are heading to the Needles up until their point of turn, if you based your actions on what the vessel 'looked' as if it was doing and headed across the channel, it would get you half way across when it turned...

 

[savageseadog]

I thought the convention in civil cases is that whoever funds the defence is also responsible for any costs awarded against the defendant - so perhaps the same is true in this case. In that case whoever funded the defence will be picking up the bill

That could be so, to prevent no win no fee solicitors taking duff cases forward and leaving clients with a bill.

 

[DJE]

The harbour authority either decided that there was no breach of local rules or that ColRegs take precedent - he was charged with (and convicted of) breaching ColRegs and not any local regulations.

Or the prosecution decided that the higher penalties applicable to colregs breaches were more appropriate than the £1,000 maximum fine for a breach of the harbour authority bylaws.

 

[Tranona]

Or the prosecution decided that the higher penalties applicable to colregs breaches were more appropriate than the £1,000 maximum fine for a breach of the harbour authority bylaws.

Don't think the MCA can prosecute under local bylaws.

 

[fireball]

Ask an boat owner friend - or anyone who is familiar with IRPCS. Atalanta being under sail was the stand on vessel once risk of collision was deemed to exist.

If you don't believe me - ask why the skipper wasn't charged with failing to give way!

Rule 18 b ii disagrees with you ...
then Rule 16 indicates that the Atalanta didn't act soon enough

and overall

Rule 2b ... shows that it really doesn't matter who you think is stand-on or give-way - if you see that it's unlikely that they're going to be able to fulfil their obligation then it's down to you. Atalanta could've turned to port to avoid the collision ...

 

[bedouin]

Rule 18 b ii disagrees with you ...
then Rule 16 indicates that the Atalanta didn't act soon enough

and overall

Rule 2b ... shows that it really doesn't matter who you think is stand-on or give-way - if you see that it's unlikely that they're going to be able to fulfil their obligation then it's down to you. Atalanta could've turned to port to avoid the collision ...

No part of Rule 18 b applies as HK was neither fishing, NUC or restricted in her ability to manoeuvre

Rule 16 does not apply as Atalanta was stand on vessel

Rule 2b - totally agree - but I don't agree that turning to port was an option - I think Atalanta should (a) have dropped the Spinnaker and (b) heading South or South West, under engine if necessary

 

[JumbleDuck]

If you don't believe me - ask why the skipper wasn't charged with failing to give way!

Where in the IRPCS do you think it says that a yacht must "give way" to a vessel constrained by her draught?

 

[fireball]

Rule 2b - totally agree - but I don't agree that turning to port was an option - I think Atalanta should (a) have dropped the Spinnaker and (b) heading South or South West, under engine if necessary

Turning anyway but the way she did was an option ...

 

[flaming]

Where in the IRPCS do you think it says that a yacht must give way to a vessel constrained by her draught?

You're right in a strict literal interpretation of the rules, but it's hardly helpful.

Everyone knows that the effect of the narrow channel rules, and the precautionary zone rules, and the rules of pure common sense and a desire to stay alive, mean that small yachts have to get out of the way of large tankers in the Solent.

Arguing that the HK was in any way at fault is, in my view, a total non starter.

Atalanta got it wrong, very wrong. I'm satisfied in my own mind that I understand the most likely reason why they got it so wrong, and have determined to factor that into my own thinking whenever I encounter large ships in the Solent.

Others seem to be happy with the "he was a prat" argument and will not accept that it could ever happen to them. Dangerous ground in my opinion.

And then a few still seem to be trying to argue that he wasn't actually at fault. Which is somewhat baffling.