[32511]
...
Should have pleaded guilty and saved a whole load of costs.
The Armed Forces Legal Aid Authority funded Wilson's defence. Allan
Wow. That’s got to be sobering for every boater … the consequences of a dumb/reckless decision or mistake can cost, in addition to a refused insurance claim and injuries/lives, a six figure sum. Bankruptcy is amongst the risks we take every time we go out!
And in this case, it's probably cost him his naval career & a gold plated pension too.
That does not necessarily mean they will pay the costs from the other side. It is true that under UK law a general principle exists that costs should not be disproportionate, so Microsoft would not be awarded $20 million legal costs if a punter sued it for something small. But, it is a subjective decision very much up to the judge, who has a margin of discretion the HK could easily sail through. And the problem with appeals is that it raises the stakes even higher.
I cannot even begin to understand why a not guilty verdict was ever entered in the first place.
When was a not guilty verdict entered? I thought this was the first court case?
I am offended by the Judges summing up.
Who do I sue?
I assume being a District Judge he's fairly low in standing. His summing up puts him even lower in my book.
SERIOUSLY...
a lot of thinking and re-writing of local racing rules, harbourmaster's regs, and similar control environments needs to be undertaken, to make sure the lessons from this incident reduce the risk of further accidents.
This was a very, very minor case. We've only got hot and bothered about it because it's our hobby and, tbh, watching someone crash into something the size of Swindon is really quite amusing.
How many of these stupid sailors have got hung-up on a ships anchor whilst said ship is under way
I am offended by the Judges summing up.
Who do I sue?
I assume being a District Judge he's fairly low in standing. His summing up puts him even lower in my book.
"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."
Fairly sure Dom meant to write "plea".
Pete
I am offended by the Judges summing up.
Who do I sue?
I would fully expect the costs to be dramatically reduced on appeal. There is a criteria that costs must not be disproportionate to the offence.
A few years a go a rather enthusiastic physics lecturer managed to run up a £14,000 costs bill when he tried to prove that his wife (iirc) had not been speeding by brining up issues about the camera which caught her. My understanding is that they land land you with anything up to the full cost, and the more unreasonable your defence is considered to have been, the higher a proportion you'll be told to pay.
Couldn't see anything there which looked unusual in the HK's course.