Roland Wilson Guilty!

toad_oftoadhall said:
Because the state buying, crewing and maintaining an extra escort vessel to save the mast/gelcoat of a single careless yottie every 20-30 years strikes me as very poor value. Far more important priorities.
Click to expand...

No need to go to that expense. There will e multiple boats and multiple crews. Just arrange overlapping shifts during Cowes week.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
Open if you happen to be able to attend in person on weekdays In Portsmouth. A transcript is not available without spending a small fortune. None of us know what basis these verdicts were arrived at, some of us even doubt the wisdom of one of them.

The snippets of the summing up in no way explain the reasons for the District Judge's conclusions.

I assume District Judge made the right decisions for the right reasons but for all we know a coin was flipped. So, I don't think it's remotely open.

Digressing a bit, from what I've read of the comments of the District Judge and the two Solicitors/Barristers, 90% of the precedings are utterly irrelevant chatter. The summing up is ludicrous and contains an assessment of the general capabilities of the people on the boat - utterly irrelevant to the sentence or the verdict. I get the feeling that the whole thing could have been decided in an afternoon if they'd all stuck to the point.
Click to expand...

You have obviously missed your vocation Toad-you should have been a Judge-I bet you would soon put 'em right.............................
 
JumbleDuck said:
The fine is for what happened at sea; the costs are for not putting his hand up to it. Three weeks of court time doesn't come cheap.
Click to expand...

Actually I think this is all wrong.

This man genuinely felt that he had a defence, he made an alteration of his course before he entered the MPZ anticipating a turn to starbord and the ship even signalled to starboard. Had the ship fulfilled both its intentions and the expectation of Mr Wilson, then no incident would have occurred. Once the ship did not turn as it had signalled Mr Wilson was in an impossible position. That is I believe his position.

The signal this court is sending out is, even if you think you have a good defence, don't bother to put it forward otherwise we will ruin you. That is not justice, we as tax payers should foot the bill for the prosecution, that is the price we must pay for living under a just system. We all saw the Nat West three prosecuted in the US for something they did in the UK which was not a crime in the UK, none of the men were able to plead not guilty even if they thought they had a defence because they were told in advance that the sentence was going to be 20 years or more for wasting the courts time. I don't want to see a justice system in this country like that it is all wrong. Both sides should be able to put their side of the argument and let the court decide innocence or guilt. It is wrong to penalise some one for having the audacity of defending themselves.
 
I wonder if he'd been have keen to have his case before a judge and run up huge court costs if he had to foot the entire bill himself? That said I can only assume that there was favourable advice from chambers or specialists in maritime law as I can't imagine any insurance underwriter footing such a bill without good reason to do so.
 
johnwest said:
The people I feel sorry for are the Captain and Pilots on board the tanker.

j
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Seven Spades said:
Actually I think this is all wrong.
Click to expand...
Why is it wrong?

The Mr Wilson had a defence, it was heard and found not to be as good as the prosecution's case, he lost - happens all the time.

The legal system is expensive and everybody knows that. You defend a case like this knowing that somebody will need to dig deep into their pockets and lawyers will always be happy to take your cash. Mr Wilson knew that when he started his defence, he knew the rules in the area he was sailing in, he took the risk. Personally, I would have looked at the big red ship and sailed away from it, but I don't race and am far less risk averse than most.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
A transcript is not available without spending a small fortune.
Click to expand...

I'm pleased to be able to save your small fortune. In a magistrates' court a transcript is not available at any price, for none is kept. There will be contemporaneous notes, but these are normally available only to interested parties, which would not include the chattering classes.
 
Camelia said:
Why is it wrong?

The Mr Wilson had a defence, it was heard and found not to be as good as the prosecution's case, he lost - happens all the time.

The legal system is expensive and everybody knows that. You defend a case like this knowing that somebody will need to dig deep into their pockets and lawyers will always be happy to take your cash. Mr Wilson knew that when he started his defence, he knew the rules in the area he was sailing in, he took the risk. Personally, I would have looked at the big red ship and sailed away from it, but I don't race and am far less risk averse than most.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Seven Spades said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

lustyd
VHF course help
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
2K
billskip
billskip
O
South Coast - Cheap boating option
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
Chiara’s slave
Chiara’s slave
J
Volvo Penta MD5a
Replies
2
Views
172
JohnBeck
J
R
Brokers.
Replies
6
Views
475
Irish Rover
Irish Rover

Share this page

Top