Roland Wilson Guilty!

[rotrax]

My comment was not about the wisdom of his course or otherwise, it was a comment on the justice system evolving in this country.

Well I think it should be obvious to you but I will spell it out again. In the USA people routinely plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because they are offered a plea bargain of 3 months if they plead guilty or 10 years if they don't. Consequently they don't get to put their defence because it is simply too high a risk. We are on a slippery slope of saying plead guilty of face financial ruin, there is no much of a difference here, consequently only those that are very wealthy can afford justice.

In this particular case I don't think his defence was without merit, it could easily have gone the other way. I really do not understand how he was found guilty of failing to keeping a proper lookout, it is an undeniable fact that he altered course to avoid the ship even if he did not achieve his aim. When a fishing vessel ploughs into a boat because no one is on the helm they are guilty of failing keeping a proper lookout that was manifestly not the case here.

Perhaps the reason he was found quilty of not keeping a proper lookout was that, as it is pretty inconcievable the skipper or the crew did not see the huge red ship, they did not do the right things to avoid it.

I mean, if keeping a proper lookout goes something like:-" Look at that huge tanker on a collision course with us Charlie."

Dont worry George-we shall keep going a bit and see what happens!"

That is as much use as a chocolate fireguard. The intent of the law is perhaps that the information should be acted upon in a seamanlike manner. The word "Proper" is perhaps the significant one.

The chart showing the incident happening show the yacht sailing towards the ship and the distances closing fast.

As most of us know, when handling under sail there is always the chance of it going tits up-especially with a kite up.

As he found out.............................

I also suspect the attitude of the Skipper when interviewed may have contributed to a prosecution-although this is pure speculation-like a lot of stuff posted on here!

 

[savageseadog]

My comment was not about the wisdom of his course or otherwise, it was a comment on the justice system evolving in this country.

Well I think it should be obvious to you but I will spell it out again. In the USA people routinely plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because they are offered a plea bargain of 3 months if they plead guilty or 10 years if they don't. Consequently they don't get to put their defence because it is simply too high a risk. We are on a slippery slope of saying plead guilty of face financial ruin, there is no much of a difference here, consequently only those that are very wealthy can afford justice.

In this particular case I don't think his defence was without merit, it could easily have gone the other way. I really do not understand how he was found guilty of failing to keeping a proper lookout, it is an undeniable fact that he altered course to avoid the ship even if he did not achieve his aim. When a fishing vessel ploughs into a boat because no one is on the helm they are guilty of failing keeping a proper lookout that was manifestly not the case here.

My view as well, I would add that the ship had its responsibilities too. I think the judge was playing to the gallery and basically had it in for Wilson. The costs of £100K are ridiculous and shouldn't have been levied.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

The root cause of the accident seems to be that because Atalanta was under spinnaker, her ability to manouver was restricted in the time available. However, do not the IRCPS impose a duty to carry sail etc. so as to be able to manouver as expected? So it could be argued that he was in breach of IRCPS by continuing under spinnaker when within an area where other vessels were given precedence?

 

[awol]

I am disappointed that there hasn't yet been a call for donations from Solent forumites to help defray the legal bill and also to fund an appeal. It might appear that the magistrate/judge showed a totally unacceptable bias with comments like :-

"This was not some Saturday afternoon jaunt by some inadequate vessel crewed by inexperienced, clueless and foolhardy people who frankly have no business being on the water at all."

Privately harbouring such views or expressing them in a social context is understandable but pronouncing them in open court could lead to them being taken seriously, and then where would the forum be?

 

[Beadle]

My view as well, I would add that the ship had its responsibilities too. I think the judge was playing to the gallery and basically had it in for Wilson. The costs of £100K are ridiculous and shouldn't have been levied.

The usual procedure is for the prosecution to ask for their costs and the defence may challenge the figure.

Don't know if the defence challenged the figure, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Trouble with costs in this case is that such cases are few in number and the specialist lawyers with expertise in these areas can (and do) charge arms and legs, and someone has to pay. Don't forget that if it isn't the defendant who lost the case its the taxpayer who gets to pay

There is an argument that the taxpayer should pay for all cases "in the interests of justice". I suspect if that was the case we would need a lot more courts and worse still, a lot more lawyers.

 

[John.edwards]

I am disappointed that there hasn't yet been a call for donations from Solent forumites to help defray the legal bill and also to fund an appeal. It might appear that the magistrate/judge showed a totally unacceptable bias with comments like :-

Privately harbouring such views or expressing them in a social context is understandable but pronouncing them in open court could lead to them being taken seriously, and then where would the forum be?

surely this would only be the case for those who think the judgement was incorrect. What is the point of sailing carefully to avoid huge obstructions yourself when you are 'volunteered' to defray the costs of the numpty who failed in the same task?

 

[lpdsn]

I don't. I feel they were lucky not to have been charged with an equal no of infractions.

Of course there was no public pressure to prosecute them.
The only person to feel sorry for is the injured party

I certainly don't believe there were any ground whatsoever for charging or even blaming the master or pilot of the tanker.

From their point of view, the guard boat was dealing with a racing boat that wanted to cross their bow from port to starboard and had already crossed, so even at that late stage wouldn't have been expected it to have posed any real risk. You can tell from the helm orders on the recording that they were actively trying to avoid a collision when it became apparent there was a real risk of one and even tried to stop the turn to avoid sideswiping the yacht as it passed down the starboard side (and it wasn't exactly the best location for the tanker to stop the turn).

£103,000 in fines and costs is just a wholly disproportionate amount for someone who was genuinely trying to avoid a collision.

 

[lpdsn]

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

The root cause of the accident seems to be that because Atalanta was under spinnaker, her ability to manouver was restricted in the time available. However, do not the IRCPS impose a duty to carry sail etc. so as to be able to manouver as expected? So it could be argued that he was in breach of IRCPS by continuing under spinnaker when within an area where other vessels were given precedence?

I don't believe that is the root cause. The cause was that he tried to go the wrong way to avoid the collision. In the last minute or two the spinnaker was a handicap, but if he'd gone the right way the spinnaker would've given him the speed to get out of there.

 

[awol]

surely this would only be the case for those who think the judgement was incorrect.

I would have thought it was self-interest for the

"inexperienced, clueless and foolhardy people who frankly have no business being on the water at all."

to finance the appeal to refute such elitist thoughts before Judge Jeffries' mates think up legislation to ban them from the Solent.

 

[Resolution]

5. Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.​

I imagine the question was not whether he kept a lookout (he is reported as saying that he saw the ship five miles away) but whether it was a proper lookout i.e. one which made a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. His defence seems to have been that the Hanne Knutsen did not do something he expected her to do, which does not seem to me as strong an argument as claiming that a ship did something unexpected.

So why was the tanker not prosecuted for the same offence? They failed to spot the motor boat that was "broken down" and in their path? (and as an NUC had priority over their RAM...)

 

[flaming]

So why was the tanker not prosecuted for the same offence? They failed to spot the motor boat that was "broken down" and in their path? (and as an NUC had priority over their RAM...)

But they didn't hit the NUC boat did they?

I think any attempt to blame the tanker in any way is rather missing the point. The local rules clearly give the tanker priority. What we should be focussing on as sailors, and solent sailors even more so, and racing solent sailors in particular, is the lessons we can learn.

For me this is quite how far West the tanker came before it turned, coupled with the fact that the patrol boat was not actually preceding the tanker on the route it will take.
This is something I've always assumed that it did. And I can easily see how if Mr Wilson and his navigator thought the same they would be reluctant to sail between the tanker and the patrol boat.

I do wonder if the fact that it was the patrol boat captain's first day in charge had any bearing on this.

 

[Tidewaiter2]

But they didn't hit the NUC boat did they?

I think any attempt to blame the tanker in any way is rather missing the point. The local rules clearly give the tanker priority. What we should be focussing on as sailors, and solent sailors even more so, and racing solent sailors in particular, is the lessons we can learn.

For me this is quite how far West the tanker came before it turned, coupled with the fact that the patrol boat was not actually preceding the tanker on the route it will take.
This is something I've always assumed that it did. And I can easily see how if Mr Wilson and his navigator thought the same they would be reluctant to sail between the tanker and the patrol boat.

I do wonder if the fact that it was the patrol boat captain's first day in charge had any bearing on this.

Flaming, I concur with most of what you conclude.
You and I have both raced and cruised the area of the collision enough to know you give the big ones a wide berth- i'm sure you've seen the car carriers 'handbrake turning' at speed at 15+degrees of 'lean' off the Bramble at times-an impressive sight, but also cautionary.
(once lost 5 matchracing places, 1st to sixth, avoiding the dredger 'City of Chichester' off Browndown- neither the Skipper nor I as Nav/Tac was up for chancing our Sunscum damage deposits).

I differ on the escort launch position;
I've never assumed any lead escort launch is cutting a track exactly as his convoy intends-after all his job is to ensure a clear path and to warn off potential intruders into the 1000m zone ahead, which usually entails nipping about like a sheepdog after various small craft at busy times.

With a NUC small craft in play as well this time, maybe the case is now made for two escorts during very busy times, and/or large ribs in close support stationed off Cowes ready to tow any NUC's/dismasted etc, casualties clear during regattas?
One escort can only be in one place at a time.

IMRC, didn't the Hants Police launch have anearly similar close call a few years back with a broken down small mobo, just getting them clear from under a ships bows-Coxswain got a gong as i remember??

 

[C08]

One of the things crucial to this case is that of assuming you think know where another vessel is going to go and acting on that only. Some years ago I had a large ship coming out of Liverpool on my port bow as I was closing the Anglesey Coast from the Isle of Man. Although my normal inclination (at a couple of miles off would have been to steer to port and go around its stern) I assumed that it was heading for the TS around the Skerries so I carried on...and on until I realised it was actually going to anchor off Moelfre and eventually steered to port around its stern. No crisis but a lesson I remembered.

 

[Seajet]

While I suspect the crew of Atalanta were very much in the wrong, I can't help thinking the comments were disproportionate as was the fine; surely getting dismasted and hung out to dry here was punishment enough ?!

 

[[70521]]

My comment was not about the wisdom of his course or otherwise, it was a comment on the justice system evolving in this country.

Well I think it should be obvious to you but I will spell it out again. In the USA people routinely plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because they are offered a plea bargain of 3 months if they plead guilty or 10 years if they don't. Consequently they don't get to put their defence because it is simply too high a risk. We are on a slippery slope of saying plead guilty of face financial ruin, there is no much of a difference here, consequently only those that are very wealthy can afford justice.

In this particular case I don't think his defence was without merit, it could easily have gone the other way. I really do not understand how he was found guilty of failing to keeping a proper lookout, it is an undeniable fact that he altered course to avoid the ship even if he did not achieve his aim. When a fishing vessel ploughs into a boat because no one is on the helm they are guilty of failing keeping a proper lookout that was manifestly not the case here.

Thank you for the clarification. It is a very different view to the legal system that I, as a layman, have.

 

[Giblets]

IMRC, didn't the Hants Police launch have a nearly similar close call a few years back with a broken down small mobo, just getting them clear from under a ships bows-Coxswain got a gong as i remember??

Even SP (Southampton Patrol) has to tow 'em out of the way at times.

View attachment 36313

 

[Seajet]

I thought SP was Self Preservation; you just can't help some people...

 

[Keen_Ed]

Statement from Cowes Week.

http://www.aamcowesweek.co.uk/web/code/php/main_c.php?section=regatta&page=news&storynum=995

Cowes Week Limited works in close partnership with the harbour authorities to ensure Aberdeen Asset Management Cowes Week is run as a safe event within the busy shipping channel in the Eastern andCentral Solent. The tanker collision on the first day of the 2011 regatta was the first incident of its type in at least the last 20 years.

Since the collision, CWL has assisted the authorities with their investigations and has also produced a safety film, co-sponsored by Associated British Ports (ABP), Red Funnel Ferries, Cowes Harbour Commission and CWL, to assist safe sailing at one of the world’s largest regattas. The film is available here: http://aamcw.co/safetyvideo

Following the conclusion of the court case relating to the collision, CWL will continue with the important task of ensuring the world’s best-known sailing regatta is run as a safe event and that sailors taking part in the regatta observe the rules and regulations.

 

[Resolution]

But they didn't hit the NUC boat did they?

I think any attempt to blame the tanker in any way is rather missing the point. The local rules clearly give the tanker priority. What we should be focussing on as sailors, and solent sailors even more so, and racing solent sailors in particular, is the lessons we can learn.

For me this is quite how far West the tanker came before it turned, coupled with the fact that the patrol boat was not actually preceding the tanker on the route it will take.
This is something I've always assumed that it did. And I can easily see how if Mr Wilson and his navigator thought the same they would be reluctant to sail between the tanker and the patrol boat.

I do wonder if the fact that it was the patrol boat captain's first day in charge had any bearing on this.

Sorry Flaming, I know I was stretching the point about keeping a proper lookout. Only excuse is that I was riled by the repetition of the red letter wording without any attempt to translate into what this would have meant under the Atlanta circumstances. I am now sitting in the bad boys corner for ten minutes.

 

[flaming]

Even SP (Southampton Patrol) has to tow 'em out of the way at times.

View attachment 36313

Quite brilliantly google suggests that this is a Royal Navy services yacht! (Obviously therefore probably NOT skippered by the chap mentioned as skipper in this link)

http://www.roundtheisland.org.uk/we...ion=results&page=boatdetails2011&boatref=1706