Sad case of deaths at sea.....not keeping watch

[dom]

Indeed, often hard to judge without being there. Would be interesting to read a more in depth account.

However, of the two, the MAIB was supposed to come out with the relevant information with why it happened, by people who are expert/experienced in that field. It would be interesting to know what experience they had in the court, or how they attached weight to certain bits of information, or whether there was some sort of legal oddity.

Agree. And remember that it is the MAIB's job to try and help prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring in the future. and there were clearly many things the fishing boat could have done better. The MAIB's job is not to establish blame or liability, meaning that just because 'everyone' could have done better does not preclude 'someone' being guilty of a crime.

Being a criminal proceeding the burden of proof will have been "beyond reasonable doubt", much higher than for civil actions. One might imagine, for example, that the furious torch waving was relevant to achieving this standard of proof.

I suspect the real argument here, if there is one to be had, requires detailed knowledge of the court proceedings.

 

[MystyBlue2]

Although bear in mind that the skipper and vessel owners will now both face a raft of protracted civil actions with a substantial risk of consequent bankruptcy.

Yeah but ignorance is bliss until it bites you in the chuff, And unfortunately his overconfidence and negligence has got the better of him and he now needs to suffer the appropriate consequences for his actions.

 

[Achosenman]

The survivor's statement has inconsistencies that trouble me.

the crew had seen the Vertrouwen from about 1km (0.6 miles) away, and all four had been signalling "like mad" as it approached,

The MAIB states

As Vertrouwen began to emerge over James 2’s stern as a large black shadow with two bright floodlights, the sea anglers suddenly realised the danger they were in, and called Mircea to the deck. Mircea immediately started the boat’s engine while the other three men shouted and waved torches toward the approaching vessel.

So which was it?

 

[Trident]

The MAIB report on that says NOT lit. The theoretical distance and time he could have seen it was assuming it was lit when the report says it wasn't. What can I say but something sounds off doesn't it.

View attachment 111166

Juries in courts of law are not unknown to be overturned at appeal for good and obvious reasons. Its not that definitive.

I shall look forward to the appeal that will no doubt be made if what you have posted proves to be correct.

If the boat was unlit - which is not what the survivor says - then the skipper is not morally at fault though still using social media on watch which might still make him guilty legally. I take watch keeping seriously but I'm sure I've made a cup of coffee or changed music etc during night watches to help keep wakeful so I won't really judge him morally for looking at his phone - except to note a bright screen at night will have limited his vision for quite a while making say cabin lights and head torches harder to see. If he was facing aft on a lap top then 12 months should be 12 years...

The report you quote also says it did have sidelights which should have been visible from at least 1 mile away , even though it did not have an all-round white and if stern to, the court accepted the cabin lights would be visible from astern - though if off that would be a problem. Of course the crew may have turned them off when going over the side to aid their vision or cut distractions or just have bumped the switch as they panicked .

Hopefully if something is off an appeal will be swift and justice done.

 

[LittleSister]

It was a calm, moonlit night. A small fishing boat would likely have been visible even without lights had anyone been keeping a good look-out ahead.

The MAIB Report highlights that the Vertrouwen had its forward facing floodlights on. As the Report indicates, this would likely have had the effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the relevant forward visibility (a bit like driving in clear conditions with fog lamps on). On the other hand it would have brightly illuminated the James immediately before the collision had anyone been looking forward - too late to avoid it, but easily enough to show the 'event' and prompt a stop and search, I would have thought.

 

[MystyBlue2]

I have been victim of "Im bigger than you...So get out my way"

As i have a small 14ft mobo and had only 3m SIBS before that, i have honestly lost count how many times the BIGGER boats have bullied me into moving places and ive had to react super quickly to prevent a collision or being swamped.

This happens alot more than anyone thinks or would like admit. From trawlers nearly touching me to drop his pots, To cruise ships staying dead on course and making everyone move out of his way regardless of who is there. Its disgraceful.

 

[mjcoon]

Juries in courts of law are not unknown to be overturned at appeal for good and obvious reasons. Its not that definitive.

Sorry, but the image of an overturned jury sounds exactly like Chapter XII from Alice in Wonderland!

 

[Adios]

Sorry, but the image of an overturned jury sounds exactly like Chapter XII from Alice in Wonderland!

perhaps just the decision then

 

[Adios]

The survivor's statement has inconsistencies that trouble me.

The MAIB states So which was it?

I keep making this point but the inconsistently reported torch waving keeps being quoted as the deciding factor.

Being a criminal proceeding the burden of proof will have been "beyond reasonable doubt", much higher than for civil actions. One might imagine, for example, that the furious torch waving was relevant to achieving this standard of proof.

How can one person who must been the same person who gave the very different testimony to the MAIB be considered so reliable that his word alone makes the case beyond doubt. I wonder if juries consider potential financial motivation of witnesses? I also wonder if due to some technicality the MAIB report can't be used in court if its not for deciding blame. In which case the original testimony might not have been known by the jury. Otherwise I can't see how he had so much credibility as a witness.

 

[TernVI]

My general theory is that it takes two to collide and that the law is fickle.
If you've ever done jury service, you may know that what gets said in court and what gets written in the papers can be pretty different.

 

[duncan99210]

Reading the MAIB report, one of the things that is mentioned is the guidance for watchkeeping at night is that there should be 2 people on watch yet Vertrowen (and many other vessels) only had one, the skipper. So not only was the skipper totally distracted by administrative tasks and his social media feed, he ignored the opportunity to tell one of the 3 other men on board to stand watch with him on a rolling pattern.
His habit of not turning off the deck lights impacted on his night vision and ability to see beyond his own vessel: that in itself prevented him keeping a good lookout. His indulgence in spending time on social media rather than monitoring his radar or looking out of the window simply reinforces his lack of care.
All that said, the other boat was slow to react, wasn’t well suited to the trip it was making and all 4 folks on board had been drinking.
Whilst you can argue the toss about the division of blame here, Marr wasn’t charged with manslaughter but with failing to keep a lookout. It’s not impossible that the skipper of James 2 could also have been charged with the same offence if he had survived.
You may recall that the Pride of Bilbao v Ouzo incident led to the bridge crew being charged with manslaughter and being found not guilty. I’ve often wondered what the verdict would have been if they’d been charged with failing to keep a lookout.

 

[Achosenman]

Reading the MAIB report, one of the things that is mentioned is the guidance for watchkeeping at night is that there should be 2 people on watch yet Vertrowen (and many other vessels) only had one, the skipper. So not only was the skipper totally distracted by administrative tasks and his social media feed, he ignored the opportunity to tell one of the 3 other men on board to stand watch with him on a rolling pattern.
His habit of not turning off the deck lights impacted on his night vision and ability to see beyond his own vessel: that in itself prevented him keeping a good lookout. His indulgence in spending time on social media rather than monitoring his radar or looking out of the window simply reinforces his lack of care.
All that said, the other boat was slow to react, wasn’t well suited to the trip it was making and all 4 folks on board had been drinking.
Whilst you can argue the toss about the division of blame here, Marr wasn’t charged with manslaughter but with failing to keep a lookout. It’s not impossible that the skipper of James 2 could also have been charged with the same offence if he had survived.
You may recall that the Pride of Bilbao v Ouzo incident led to the bridge crew being charged with manslaughter and being found not guilty. I’ve often wondered what the verdict would have been if they’d been charged with failing to keep a lookout.

Can we expect the Skipper of the James 2 to stand trial? It seems clear he was in breach of the Colregs.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Mioght venture the apparent FACT that the smaller vessel was not showing an ALL AROUND WHITE LIGHT was the MAJOR factor in this scenario

If such a small vessel was showing normal Navigation Lights doubt it would have made any difference to the collision at all' Normal Navigation lights used when UNDERWAY show very differently to a vessel approaching from its Stern

Lotsa Anglers show no sign of respecting or understanding the Colregs or any other Boating /Shipping rules or regulatins at all

Nearly ALL the Anglers I talk to are ONLY interested in getting to their Fishing Marks asap , then casting, then relaxing ; To these Anglers BOATING comes a poor second in their interests and even further back in their understandings

Guess that the Trawler Skippers 'Night Sight' was badlyinfluenced by the glare from Mobile /Computer screens if it was nearly Pitch Black that night

RIP x 3

 

[jordanbasset]

Can we expect the Skipper of the James 2 to stand trial? It seems clear he was in breach of the Colregs.

As he is dead, I doubt it

 

[Capt Popeye]

Ok but any vessel not under command means ENGINE NOT RUNNING and this rule applies to all, trawler vessels, jet ski's, Tenders etc.

If the smaller boat was stationery and engine was not running it means he was "immobile" and could not get out of the way, Therefore the larger trawler skipper is at fault. No ifs or buts.
If you notice, All the COLREGS cover all scenarios, therefore someone is ALWAYS to blame amd in this scenario its easy to decide who.

Yep guess that the Rules about a Vessel being Under Command, Under Way, Engines Not Running apply in a similar way to decodeing whether a Sailing Vessel is actually reguarded as a Sailing Vessel or not depending upon Whether it has it Engines running at that time ?

 

[Adios]

Some more from the survivor Sea tragedy survivor's horror and panic as pals drowned after near miss

“We were looking at the lights, they were about 1km away,” he said. “I was worried and I told Mitch there were two lights.
“We did not think it would run us over, we were relaxed.”
But quickly they realised they were in danger. Mr Cojocariu said: “It was coming, coming, coming. We can see that it was urgent to leave.
“We were desperate, flashing our head torches.
“No one saw anything. There was no answer. It (the Vertrouwen) went straight ahead.
“It was on autopilot and it didn’t lower the speed.

Picturing the scene I guess at first they sat there thinking they had a right not to get out of the way, then some alcohol induced angry fist waving still thinking they had a right not to get out of the way, until it too slowly dawned on them this situation wasn't someone cutting them up in traffic. At what point they started flashing torches won't be provable, they might not have done that until after quite a lot of shouting, but that seems to be the deciding factor for a man being in jail. Of course immediately they identified it as a potential danger when it was 1km away, or at least lets say 1/2km away when it didn't change course, they should have started the engine and monitored the situation, motoring out of its path if needed. Having power on to turn the boat into its wake at least. But of course rods were out! We're fishing!! How dare you!!!

“It just went straight ahead. The other boat tore our engines off.

Engines plural. I thought this was odd as the MAIB report didn't mention it. When the boat was raised the main engine is missing but i can't seen any damage to the transom. Would the divers remove anything likely to pollute first?

Those holes make it look as though it was bolted through? Not clear on this one

But the auxiliary outboard is still in place,

I can't imagine how a blow from the ship could lift the main engine off without damage. I'd think it would press down on it or spin the boat around, not lift it cleanly off. Would it come off when the boat settled on the seabed? I guess the boat could have moved away from the engine so it wasn't found to be examined?

“Immediately after the impact, the water started coming in.
“It was Mitch’s idea to bail the water out quickly but there was no chance.”

Seems strange now he is saying it was an impact when all before was talking about the waves, even the title of the news article is "near miss". The MAIB report found zero damage. It must shift the focus (and blame) away from the ridiculously low freeboard at the stern and solely onto the other boat if there is said to have been a collision.

 

[Achosenman]

As he is dead, I doubt it

Yep, my bad. I got the impression the Skipper survived. Nothing about this case fills me with confidence.

 

[Achosenman]

Mioght venture the apparent FACT that the smaller vessel was not showing an ALL AROUND WHITE LIGHT was the MAJOR factor in this scenario

If such a small vessel was showing normal Navigation Lights doubt it would have made any difference to the collision at all' Normal Navigation lights used when UNDERWAY show very differently to a vessel approaching from its Stern

Lotsa Anglers show no sign of respecting or understanding the Colregs or any other Boating /Shipping rules or regulatins at all

Nearly ALL the Anglers I talk to are ONLY interested in getting to their Fishing Marks asap , then casting, then relaxing ; To these Anglers BOATING comes a poor second in their interests and even further back in their understandings

Guess that the Trawler Skippers 'Night Sight' was badlyinfluenced by the glare from Mobile /Computer screens if it was nearly Pitch Black that night

RIP x 3

MAIB

On 6 August 2017, in Sussex Bay, the wind was north-westerly in direction at 5kts, the sea was slight with a low swell from the south-west. The weather was fine, with a clear sky and a nearly full moon. High water at Shoreham occurred at 2300 on 5 August and the tidal stream was setting to the north-west into the bay.

 

[jordanbasset]

More on it here
Trawler skipper was on WhatsApp when three men died - court hears
'Weather conditions and visibility were very good and the Vertrouwen had been fitted with new radar and backup equipment....
“Mr Marr says his forward facing lights were off, we don’t accept that,” Mr Richards said.
“He knew those lights should have been off...
Mr Richards said: “Throughout the voyage, the master of a vessel should ask a couple of questions.

“What’s out there, what’s ahead of us?

“Mr Marr didn’t do that, the crown will seek to prove.

“He had little understanding of the operation of his radar.

“He failed to notice James 2 on the radar.

“He failed to see the James 2 ahead for the nearly six mins the Vertrouwen sailed directly at her.

“He failed to see the head torches or the shouts from the James 2 as he passed very close by them.

“He was either absent or failing to pay attention.

“At the time the Vertrouwen bore down on and swamped the James 2, he was sending the messages and trying again and again to send the messages.

“And on his phone, it revealed he was concerned with the movements of his friend's boat at the same time.

“He was concerned with doing other things at the moment the James 2 sank,” Mr Richards said.'

At the end of the day as others have said he was found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by the Court and he will serve around 6 months of his sentence, I do not find it a strange verdict or unduly hard sentence

 

[Adios]

More on it here
Trawler skipper was on WhatsApp when three men died - court hears

How many different versions will this witness tell and still be considered credible?

“Mr Popovici pointed out a boat about 1km away.
“They didn’t think there was any need to worry.
“All that could be seen were two bright forward facing lights.
“It continued to head straight at them.
“When it was 200-300m away, he started waving his head torch at it and telling Mitch to move out of the way.
“It hadn’t changed course or speed.
“They could make out the dark shape behind the lights and it seemed like they were going to be run over.
“The larger boat passed very close by.
“It felt like a collision, Mr Cojocariu said.

One minute the engines were ripped off, next it only felt like a collision. One minute 4 people are waving torches furiously from when it was a KM away, now he guesses it was a couple of hundred meters which would be getting close to being below the level for seeing over the bow from the wheelhouse. Was he waving it all around or was he trying to point it directly at the wheelhouse which is the only point it will be properly visible from a distance.

Way too much inconsistency by the sound of it. No wonder the first trial failed to reach a verdict. I wonder if its ever safe for trials of this nature to be heard by a non-seafaring jury. Things aren't the same as on land