Roland Wilson Guilty!

[redkat]

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?

Well said that man +1

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Well said that man +1

The man was fined £3000 - not an excessive amount, and well below the maximum tariff for the offence he was found guilty of. He had legal insurance to cover the costs, as most of us do - our house insurance often includes cover for legal costs; it is an inexpensive and often integral add-on to a lot of insurance policies. I haven't looked at my boat insurance in this light, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it covers legal costs.

OK, the costs seem high; he can challenge them in his own legal representatives think they are excessive. But to suggest that he was liable personally for the whole lot is somewhat ingenuous; it has been stated quite clearly that his costs were covered by insurance.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

We agree then. The tight turn which the HK made was not as tight as would have been needed to miss the Atalanta.

 

[Stork_III]

The man was fined £3000 - not an excessive amount, and well below the maximum tariff for the offence he was found guilty of. He had legal insurance to cover the costs, as most of us do - our house insurance often includes cover for legal costs; it is an inexpensive and often integral add-on to a lot of insurance policies. I haven't looked at my boat insurance in this light, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it covers legal costs.

OK, the costs seem high; he can challenge them in his own legal representatives think they are excessive. But to suggest that he was liable personally for the whole lot is somewhat ingenuous; it has been stated quite clearly that his costs were covered by insurance.

I suggest you look. Some Legal expenses policies cover your legal cost, but not fines or costs awarded against you. Mine doesn't.

 

[l'escargot]

We agree then. The tight turn which the HK made was not as tight as would have been needed to miss the Atalanta.

No, they were prevented from making that turn by the broken down motorboat...

 

[maxi77]

Did we really need to spend so much Tax Payers money to prove this?
Would an instant Fine from MCA not have been more sensible?

Two problems, the MCA does not have this facility, and more importantly fixed penalties depend on the accused actually admiting their guilt something the defendant in this case was not prepared to do. He, or perhaps if you have a cynical view on life his lawyers, wanted to have their day in court. Had he plead guilty then the whole thing would have cost a lot less, which is probably why the judge it him for the court costs

In fact the only people to profit out of this are the lawyers

 

[l'escargot]

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?

The court will have examined the costs claimed, there is an accepted scale of fees and charges.

 

[redkat]

The man was fined £3000 - not an excessive amount, and well below the maximum tariff for the offence he was found guilty of. He had legal insurance to cover the costs, as most of us do - our house insurance often includes cover for legal costs; it is an inexpensive and often integral add-on to a lot of insurance policies. I haven't looked at my boat insurance in this light, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it covers legal costs.

OK, the costs seem high; he can challenge them in his own legal representatives think they are excessive. But to suggest that he was liable personally for the whole lot is somewhat ingenuous; it has been stated quite clearly that his costs were covered by insurance.

Regardless of who picks up the tab, whether it be insurance companies (which we the consumer pay for anyway in our premiums) doesn't it sicken your stomach to see such huge sums of money charged for this circus. There are people starving in this world, sense of perspective wouldn't go amiss

 

[JumbleDuck]

No, they were prevented from making that turn by the broken down motorboat...

That's not the point. The point is that the skipper - and possibly crew - of the Atalanta held on until a point where the Hanne Knutsen could not have made a turn sufficiently tight to avoid the collision. I presume, by the way, that the broken down motorboat was on the HK's starboard side and therefore clearly visible to the Atalanta.

 

[bedouin]

That's not the point. The point is that the skipper - and possibly crew - of the Atalanta held on until a point where the Hanne Knutsen could not have made a turn sufficiently tight to avoid the collision. I presume, by the way, that the broken down motorboat was on the HK's starboard side and therefore clearly visible to the Atalanta.

No - even the HK didn't realise it was in the way until after they had started their turn - so there was realistic way that atalanta could have taken account - the HK could have avoided collision by going hard to starboard at any time up to about 30 secs before impact, but they actually ordered a turn to port.

 

[JumbleDuck]

No - even the HK didn't realise it was in the way until after they had started their turn - so there was realistic way that atalanta could have taken account - the HK could have avoided collision by going hard to starboard at any time up to about 30 secs before impact, but they actually ordered a turn to port.

What a shame that there hasn't been some way to have all the evidence presented to and heard by a legal expert of some sort.

 

[Seajet]

Yup - they could save a lot of time & money by binning the AIB and jurys, just get judges to sign on here !

 

[awol]

Yup - they could save a lot of time & money by binning the AIB and jurys, just get judges to sign on here !

Are you sure the judge in question is not already a forumite? Some of the self-confessed Bavaria owners on here show sufficiently reactionary views to make one wonder and there has been a suspicious lack of participation by at least one of the usually outspoken ones.

 

[TQA]

No - even the HK didn't realise it was in the way until after they had started their turn - so there was realistic way that atalanta could have taken account - the HK could have avoided collision by going hard to starboard at any time up to about 30 secs before impact, but they actually ordered a turn to port.

Do you actually think they should have done this. Fair enough to make a course change for for a boat that is dead in the water. But to make a change for some WAFI flying a pink spinnaker. Sorry that is politically incorrect, strike the word pink.

The HK is constrained by his draft and has an exclusion zone in front of it. WAFIs are supposed to stay out of the zone and not to attempt to skitter across his bow.

 

[l'escargot]

That's not the point. The point is that the skipper - and possibly crew - of the Atalanta held on until a point where the Hanne Knutsen could not have made a turn sufficiently tight to avoid the collision. I presume, by the way, that the broken down motorboat was on the HK's starboard side and therefore clearly visible to the Atalanta.

No they didn't hold on, they turned sharply in the belief that the tanker would turn sharply sooner - it didn't. I doubt very much whether they could identify one motor boat out of all the ones there and see that it was broken down.

 

[JumbleDuck]

No they didn't hold on, they turned sharply in the belief that the tanker would turn sharply sooner - it didn't.

And at that point they held on to their new course, even when it was clearly impossible for the Hanne Knutsen to turn fast enough to avoid collision. I don't find the argument that "they responded correctly to a movement the other vessel didn't make" terribly convincing. And neither did the judge.

 

[l'escargot]

And at that point they held on to their new course, even when it was clearly impossible for the Hanne Knutsen to turn fast enough to avoid collision. I don't find the argument that "they responded correctly to a movement the other vessel didn't make" terribly convincing. And neither did the judge.

Two boats on a converging course both turning to starboard in an attempt to avoid a collision, but we've been over this before and you didn't get it then... If both had turned a short time earlier or if the Atalanta had kept it's way on without the spinnaker collapsing, it would have been classic collision avoidance as per the ColRegs and no one would have even had heard about it. It didn't happen that way, the skipper of Atalanta misjudged it, the tanker carried on a bit further than he planned because of the broken down motorboat and it all came together into a collision. Subsequently the court has decided the blame should be placed on the Atalanta but has punished him with only small fine amounting to 20% of what it could have been.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Two boats on a converging course both turning to starboard in an attempt to avoid a collision, but we've been over this before and you didn't get it then...

Converging course? They were nowhere near converging when Atalanta turned directly into the path of the Hanne Knutsen. That turn, it seems was based on a wholly inaccurate prediction of what the HK might do and the Atalanta had several minutes in which she could have sorted things out.

Subsequently the court has decided the blame should be placed on the Atalanta but has punished him with only small fine amounting to 20% of what it could have been.

First offences normally attract lighter punishments.

 

[l'escargot]

...That turn, it seems was based on a wholly inaccurate prediction of what the HK might do...

There you go, I think you are starting to get it. The actions/course changes were based on a prediction that the tanker would follow the course most ships take when entering Southampton Water and the course it would have taken without the broken down motorboat. Then a failure to see that things were in fact happening differently and not reacting accordingly. A misjudgement or error of judgement and not an arrogant or reckless act.

 

[bedouin]

Do you actually think they should have done this. Fair enough to make a course change for for a boat that is dead in the water. But to make a change for some WAFI flying a pink spinnaker. Sorry that is politically incorrect, strike the word pink.

The HK is constrained by his draft and has an exclusion zone in front of it. WAFIs are supposed to stay out of the zone and not to attempt to skitter across his bow.

You are missing the point - they should have turned to starboard as that was the course they were following. They even signalled they were turning to starboard and started the turn - then then put the helm to port to avoid a MOBO and as a result of that unexpected manoeuvre there was a collision..

They did put the helm hard over anyway after the collision.

Atalanta had every right to expect that HK would turn to starboard earlier, that is not to say that they are blameless but there are very strong extenuating circumstances.

Atalanta had taken early and obvious action to avoid crossing the bows of HK