Roland Wilson Guilty!

[Keen_Ed]

I wonder how much of his decision making was driven by his past as someone involved with driving ships - at whatever level he was involved with that in the Navy. I would think that most of us would think that once we're across the bow, the best move is to get east asap, and any turn made by the ship would take them behind us.

 

[fireball]

I wonder how much of his decision making was driven by his past as someone involved with driving ships - at whatever level he was involved with that in the Navy. I would think that most of us would think that once we're across the bow, the best move is to get east asap, and any turn made by the ship would take them behind us.

Did you see the video of the vessels tracks - from that it seems that RW turned to go across the HK bow and never made it .. daft thing is - if he'd just carried on heading east instead of luffing up he would've probably avoided a collision ...

 

[A1Sailor]

Did you see the video of the vessels tracks - from that it seems that RW turned to go across the HK bow and never made it .. daft thing is - if he'd just carried on heading east instead of luffing up he would've probably avoided a collision ...

+1.
I'm assuming he anticipated the ship would make her turn to starboard earlier or more quickly, and got caught out. Perhaps local knowledge and having a flat overlooking the Solent isn't always advantageous.
Anyway - lots of "I wonder"... Enough threads and posts to keep the YBW servers occupied!

 

[l'escargot]

I think you are missing the point, he very nearly killed not just himself but his whole crew, that is a trifle more than an 'error of judgement' it is closer to attempted manslaughter. Regrettably he chose to do it in a very public manner which ensured that he would be prosecuted. Then he claimed he was innocent at his trial and thus cost you and me a lot to stage the trial. Had he plead guilty he he would have got a minor fine and a slap on the wrist and it would have all been forgotten.

Yes we all make mistakes but rarely ones that kill people...

I am afraid you can't have "attempted manslaughter", there is no such offence in UK law and his mistake didn't kill anyone. I think his fine was actually quite minor, 2 at 10% of the maximum and 1 at 40% of the maximum. He is also meeting the costs of the prosecution.

 

[maxi77]

I am afraid you can't have "attempted manslaughter", there is no such offence in UK law and his mistake didn't kill anyone. I think his fine was actually quite minor, 2 at 10% of the maximum and 1 at 40% of the maximum. He is also meeting the costs of the prosecution.

Yes most people tend to dismiss such actions especially in boats and cars as silly mistakes that should not be punished.

 

[bedouin]

+1.
I'm assuming he anticipated the ship would make her turn to starboard earlier or more quickly, and got caught out. Perhaps local knowledge and having a flat overlooking the Solent isn't always advantageous.
Anyway - lots of "I wonder"... Enough threads and posts to keep the YBW servers occupied!

Yes - he probably did because the ship had signalled turning to starboard and had started to turn, but then had to reverse the turn to avoid the broken down Mobo. It would have been crazy to have stood on once the ship had sounded starboard.

It is common ground that had the ship continued the turn it started the collision would not have happened, and the action taken by Atalanta to avoid the collision should have been sufficient.

I imagine the reason he was found guilty on the rule 5 is that the Judge decided that once he had made his course alteration he assumed that would be sufficient and took his eye off HK

 

[l'escargot]

Yes most people tend to dismiss such actions especially in boats and cars as silly mistakes that should not be punished.

And I think you often get lots of misrepresentations of such actions with a total disregard of the actual facts which take them totally out perspective... I don't know what the punishment has actually achieved in this case or what punishing mistakes in general achieve.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It is common ground that had the ship continued the turn it started the collision would not have happened, and the action taken by Atalanta to avoid the collision should have been sufficient.

I see nothing to support that suggestion in the publish video of positions and tracks. The HK never started any significant turn. and my the time a turn would have saved the Atalata it would have had to be an absurdly tight one such as any competent watch-keeping officer should have known was impossible.

 

[Uricanejack]

I see nothing to support that suggestion in the publish video of positions and tracks. The HK never started any significant turn. and my the time a turn would have saved the Atalata it would have had to be an absurdly tight one such as any competent watch-keeping officer should have known was impossible.

the reconstruction as posted showed no turn to starboard or port just a series of course orders followed by some minor starboard helm a port helm order almost immediately countered with a starboard order and hard starboard then a collision. no noticeable change in the ships heading.

 

[l'escargot]

I see nothing to support that suggestion in the publish video of positions and tracks. The HK never started any significant turn. and my the time a turn would have saved the Atalata it would have had to be an absurdly tight one such as any competent watch-keeping officer should have known was impossible.

Have another look at the video. In the time it takes for the Atalanta to pass from the point of impact on the bow to the stern of the tanker it turns through at least 45 degrees. That's a pretty tight turn which all ships need to make to go about almost 180 degrees within the area of concern.

 

[John.edwards]

Can we save the pommy baiting until after the Ashes series...

'nuff said

 

[robertj]

Should have pleaded guilty and saved a whole load of costs.

That the whole idea. It sends a message to us sheep that, if you try, but fail to prove your innoscence then you will be hung, drawn and quartered financially.
Who now will contradict the judiciary, with not only the possible loss of ones freedom but huge penalties hanging over you?

 

[robertj]

Can someone please explain to me....

Condor Vitesse Skippers - wholly inappropriate speed through fog, results in the sinking of a boat and the death of a skipper. PUNISHMENT = c.£15,000 of fines and costs.

Roland Wilson - made a silly error which ultimately resulted in the scratching of paintwork. PUNISHMENT = £103,000 of fines and costs.


We lived in an utterly f*****g twisted world. Essentially the message to commercial skippers is don't worry if you're complete lack of care and attention kills someone and sinks someones livelyhood. Message to recreational skippers - get in a our way and we will ruin you

how lovely.

Yes it's about regulation and the future fines and penalties to help the treasury.

 

[robertj]

I didnt miss anything. It's virtually irrelvent. someone got hurt - they recovered. Pretty hard to recover from death.

How do people not see it? Essentially commercial skippers are being forgiven for monumentally awful decisions whilst some guy ina sailing boat that does damage to his crew and boat and nothing else has a life-changing fine levied.

It's disgusting.

sorry for the rant

It's simple don't get all got under the cooler it's the way future regulation works, find a high profile stupid case, publicise it, get the sheep on your side, then enforce regulation on said sheep, easy.
Look at drink boating, the statistics from the the mca were more or less misleading lies, a formulate here investigated a the deaths apparently caused by being drunk in charge of a vessel to find they disproportionately mislead the statistics to look as they wanted it to look so that regulation could easily be passed.

 

[robertj]

I think that the real worry for all of us is that it could have been any of us facing a criminal charge for what was perhaps better described as a well-intentioned mistake.
Wilson clearly took action that he thought would avoid the path of the tanker. As events unrolled, perhaps confused by the verbals from the patrol boat, he made another turn which we all know now was the wrong one. Can anyone see any deliberate decision to break the law?
If this case sets a precedent in how the law is to be implemented in future, then all Solent users should take note.

Yes bang on

 

[robertj]

Solicitors when acting for private clients, when on the winning side routinely overstate costs. I don't know what the situation is with the CPS and their barristers. If you think about it £100K is a hell of a lot of money for not very much and shows the law to be a rip off once again. The person paying costs can ask for them to be assessed (previously known as taxation), the costs can become a case within a case.

He could I suppose ask for an itemised legal costs bill, then enter a dispute, if or undisclosed amounts seem disproportionate to their profession etc., then when challenged enter the civil courts for justice?

 

[bedouin]

the reconstruction as posted showed no turn to starboard or port just a series of course orders followed by some minor starboard helm a port helm order almost immediately countered with a starboard order and hard starboard then a collision. no noticeable change in the ships heading.

You should read the reports of the evidence given at the trial - then listen to the sound track on the MCA video you will hear them giving the order to put the helm to port.

At least two witnesses at the trial stated that it was the delay in the turn of the tanker that caused the incident.

 

[robertj]

You should read the reports of the evidence given at the trial - then listen to the sound track on the MCA video you will hear them giving the order to put the helm to port.

At least two witnesses at the trial stated that it was the delay in the turn of the tanker that caused the incident.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but I understood the turn to port was initiated after 'he's going down the port side John' comment (this I understood to be one of the bridge crew informing the skipper) which the avoiding action would indeed be to try and swing the stern away from the yacht on the port side by now.

 

[rotrax]

That the whole idea. It sends a message to us sheep that, if you try, but fail to prove your innoscence then you will be hung, drawn and quartered financially.
Who now will contradict the judiciary, with not only the possible loss of ones freedom but huge penalties hanging over you?

Except the majority of posts accepted his culpability and questioned the wisdom of defending the case.

British Justice working.

His fines for the offences he was found quilty of were small.

The costs, however, leave the clear message not to defend a hopeless position.

I cant find much wrong with that.

Bottom line is he and his legal team took a punt on the outcome and lost-please dont imagine for one moment that the costs were a shock to him-he would be aware of them from the amount of time his defence spent on the case, muliplied by their hourly rate plus expert witness costs.

I can state that if I had been the one hung up by the spinnaker on a huge tanker-in an exclusion zone I would have kept quiet, paid the fines and probably change both my and the boats name!

 

[Seven Spades]

Except that he didn't think his position was hopeless.

From his perspective, he saw the tanker and made an early adjustment to his course. He then made a further adjustment to his course, then the tanker signalled one thing and did another. I think that had this been before a jury and possibly a judge that was not an "expert" he might have achieved a different verdict. I don't think the rest was a foregone conclusion and I do not think justice is served by financially ruining someone just because they had the temerity to put their side of the case.

If we want justice in this country then I think we should pay for that, his punishment was £3000.