JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
From my very limited sailing on the Solent, if you got rid of all the inexperienced, clueless and foolhardy people who frankly have no business being on the water at all the place would be empty.
Roland Wilson Guilty!
- Thread starter cryan
- Start date
From my very limited sailing on the Solent, if you got rid of all the inexperienced, clueless and foolhardy people who frankly have no business being on the water at all the place would be empty.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
"Genuinely" isn't enough. "Competently" was what was needed.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
They missed it, didn't they?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
The fine doesn't seem unreasonable, but the expenses seem a bit vicious. It sounds as if the judge didn't think very much at all of the defence case, but even so I don't see much point in bankrupting the poor sod over it.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
Competently avoiding the tanker would've incurred no charge. I was making a distinction between the skipper making a genuine though admittedly incompetent attempt to avoid the tanker and the arrogant racer in the mind's eye of the lynch mob who made no real attempt at avoidance whatsoever.
The message from the court is quite clear. If anyone is ever in this situation again they should go out and do a bit of real crime, a few burglaries, shoplifting, a few muggings, being careful not to go beyond ABH, then when they get caught and are being sentenced to a few months in prison, with the prospect of being out in a few weeks for being well behaved, just admit to accidentally scratching the anchor of a tanker too.
The proceeds of the crimes might even help pay for a new mast & spinnaker.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I do agree that it appears to have been incompetence rather than arrogance. I wonder how late he and his crew realised it was all going bulbous bow shaped?
Seajet
...
Jumbleduck,
I'd prefer to think not all Solent types, I have sailed in Scottish waters too and managed to avoid the Forth Bridge and Nessie !
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Why oh why should we the ever generous taxpayer pay for some one who clearly should have plead guilty to have their grandstanding day in court. The guy very publicly f*cked up and broke the law, his solicitor and legal team persuaded him to plead not guilty to line their pockets and the judge rightly ensures the guilty person has empty pockets for a long time
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Jumbleduck,
I'd prefer to think not all Solent types, I have sailed in Scottish waters too and managed to avoid the Forth Bridge and Nessie !
I do apologise. I should have written "practically empty".
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
If he truly believed he had a defence, he should not be bankrupted for presenting it in court rather than rolling over. Even if he was deluded, £100k is too much to hit him with. Sometimes in the interests of a just and fair society, we the people just have to suck it up. Ten grand? Maybe. A hundred grand? Unfair.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
I think that comment just shows how limited your experience of the Solent is...
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
He won't be bankrupted over it. Costs cannot be awarded that someone cannot be reasonably expected to pay within a year. As he is currently unemployed and I doubt whether he is of significant independent means, the judge must be satisfied that there is a source of funding - I would guess insurance or the services legal aid organisation that funded his defence.
Seajet
...
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
That's what he's cost the MCA (aka - us) so why shouldn't he repay us?
savageseadog
Well-Known Member
I think this is a contemptible post made by someone who must never have made a mistake
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
[Citation needed]
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Pete7
Well-Known Member
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Thank you. It looks as if the must-be-payable-within-a-year business has gone now.
The general rule was that a defendant should not be ordered to pay costs in such a sum, which through lack of means, could not be paid within a reasonable period of one year. However the case of R v Olliver and Olliver, 11 Cr.App.R.(S)10, CA where fines, costs and compensation would take two and half years to pay by instalments it was held that there was nothing wrong in principle with the period being much longer than a year, provided that it was not an undue burden and so too severe a punishment, having regard to the nature of the offence and the offender.
Beadle
Well-Known Member
Must say that I agree with this
I would have expected the 3rd party bit of his insurance to cover this sort of thing.
Not sure about the not paying more than he can afford bit of damages. I would expect to be repaid any loss I suffered as a result of someone else's negligence whether he could afford it or not. I'd want everything up to and including any gold fillings.
