MystyBlue2
Active member
That i do agree ?
Sad case of deaths at sea.....not keeping watch
- Thread starter Fimacca
- Start date
- Status
Achosenman
Active member
Adios
...
Yes all round white light on a mast above the cabin makes the most sense for a small boat for all those reasons. One bulb does everything and is at the right height. Bit distracting for the helm depending on the position but for visibility much better than a low stern light.
As for anchoring, well, I think what we could all do with about now, to relax the thread, is a bit of Cunliffe. Ahhhh
rotrax
Well-known member
There are lights for 'Engaged in Fishing'. All round red over all round white IIRC.
And, it would be a good thing to display them in darkness.
Unless fishing at anchor where an anchor light would be used.
Having been angling in small boats many, many times, I am reminded how unseaworthy some are in comparison to more substantial vessels.
If my chosen fishing vessel could risk being swamped by the wash from a passing boat I imagine I would be very careful where I fished and would keep a very good look out.
I certainly would not blame others on the ocean for making it difficult for me.
And, I dont think I would claim the moral high ground if other vessels passed by.
Unless, of course, they were REALLY out of order.
What happed to the anglers off Shoreham was a tragedy, and one easily avoided with more care by all parties.
IMHO, of course.
Last edited:
prv
Well-known member
“Fishing” for colregs purposes is trawling, potting, seining, gill netting, etc. A small motorboat drifting around with a rod over the side is not a fishing vessel for the purposes of Rule 18 and shouldn’t be showing red or green over white (and indeed I’ve never seen one doing so).
Pete
Pete
rotrax
Well-known member
Yet many show day shapes.
My current berth neighbour has a 16 foot small angling boat. He has two hinged 1.5 metre poles with the shapes attatched on the wheelhouse roof.
When anchored he uses the ball, when drifting the two facing cones.
He rarely fishes in the dark - the battery might not fire up the donk after a few hours of lights................................
Uricanejack
Well-known member
The case was a technical one of whether he'd kept a proper watch. No one is expected to keep a perfect 100% of the time watch so really the trial was if he had kept a reasonable and professional level of watch. What is a reasonable level of watch is not something easily ascertained by someone with zero experience of keeping watch on a ship. In my profession if there is a misconduct case it is heard by a panel of peers in the same profession. If there is a court marshal in the military it is by a panel of peers from the same force. A bit like farming vs city folk I imagine seafaring is another world to people who don't go there. Very little cross over. In practice there could have been a tribunal of experienced seaman and then if guilty passed to the crown court for sentencing.
In this trial all the prosecution had to do is imply that there can never be an excuse for hitting anything, as clearly if you were watching fully attentive you'd have spotted it. The jury had no reason borne of real world experience to doubt that line of thinking. They wouldn't know what's reasonable below a 100% level of watch. Are some indirect lights in a cabin really so visible that there is no excuse for not seeing them? Should he be able to hear someone at sea level shouting from within a wheelhouse with engines running? I doubt the jury had a night time sea trial to get an impression of these things. Instead both sides will have brought conflicting experts paid to make their case for one side or the other. Give me a dispassionate panel of experts any day over 12 angry vegans from Brighton who view all fishermen as evil murders already.
I do hope I'm not playing devil's advocate for a lazy arse who just put his feet up with the paper.
No, just a last arse who was playing on his phone. Papers are out of date.
This is probably the point behind the charges, The actions of the deceased are not relevant. The charges are about his actions and or inactions.
12 regular people, not 12 experts, just our peers, regular people, decide if the prosecution made the case beyond a reasonable doubt,
The defence gets to call experts as well. And cross exam in witness . including the experts.
Niether side gets to use the MAIB report as evidence.
Will changing this guy make a difference, I doubt it. what is the likely hood he will re offend?
Will this be a deterrent to others? Maybe.
To successfully appeal and overturn the decision,
Would require an error of law. Or new evidence which would probably have effected the juries decision.
The phone records, computer records, and tracking information all point to someone who was distracted by the phone and computer. Imeadiatly prior to the collision and most likley at the time of the collision.
So the question for the jury, was he looking out like he was supposed to, or was he looking at his phone.
The jury found him guilty, so they must have believed he was not looking out, he was looking at his phone.
Last edited:
Adios
...
Like I say you can persuade a jury of landlubbers that sailing a boat is the same as driving a car, he wasn't paying 100% attention to the road therefore he's guilty. I remember this case Lord Ahmed jailed for sending texts while driving before fatal crash where he texted nearly 2 miles before hitting a drunk driver who had spun out on the M1. It was bizarre. The phone use had already become such an emotive thing. 2 miles at 60mph is 2 minutes. Plenty of time to refocus on the road. But somehow they linked it while admitting it wasn't linked. In the boat going 7mph 1/2 a mile is getting on for 5 minutes between whatsapp use and near miss. Totally unrelated but see how it is made the focus. Plenty of time to scan the horizon and if the boat had been lit he would have seen it. Using whatsapp is used like a bad character reference. As Gary says people who use social media on watch are vermin. But as you say its just the new newspaper. Unlike in a car, and this is the bit the prosecution can unfairly take advantage of the landlubbers ignorance, we all do other things while on watch and its not unreasonable as long as we don't travel fast enough that we reach the area we could not see the last time we scanned the sea ahead or time enough for things to approach us. How long would that be? Its not constant like in a car where you really can't put a kettle on while driving. A panel of seafarers would understand that so i'd say he'd get a fairer trial with his actual peers.No, just a last arse who was playing on his phone. Papers are out of date.
This is probably the point behind the charges, The actions of the deceased are not relevant. The charges are about his actions and or inactions.
The phone records, computer records, and tracking information all point to someone who was distracted by the phone and computer. Immediately prior to the collision and most likely at the time of the collision.
So the question for the jury, was he looking out like he was supposed to, or was he looking at his phone.
The jury found him guilty, so they must have believed he was not looking out, he was looking at his phone.
how confusing for laymen to hear conflicting experts. It would help to have experience to be able to judge which expert to believe.
Is that how it works? I did wonder how the survivor was able to seemingly change his story from what it looks like he told the MAIB or rescuers, before lawyers got involved and settlements were thought of
Last edited:
Uricanejack
Well-known member
Fishing with a rod, or hand line, I have been doing all my life. No its not a vessel engaged in fishing.
My thought, All round red over white, tells me what i need to know, its fishing, its not underway just drifting. being a gentleman i would go round it.
Many of the local sport fishing vessels here? Stick their landing net up vertically. Is it a basket? No. Is it in the call regs as a shape ? No, are they fishing? yes, Are they vessels engaged in fishing. No
But if I can see them and figure out what they are doing and why they are doing it?
So from my perspective, a small boat, drifting at night, Go ahead show red over white,
Only annoyance, I might be looking for a gill net. which doesn't exist. Gill nets (here) are only permitted to be 200m long so I will pass 1 cable away JIK.
Its better to be seen. Than not seen. So a nice bright red over white does the trick.
Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Guess that if James 2 was showing her Port n Starboard lights but not a Stern or a Steaming Light it could have represented a Sailng Boat, plus if showing those lights when angling (not fishing) there was a complete blank spot in her stern area ? which would NOT have been at all helpfull to another Vessel
Mark-1
Well-known member
As others have said, the convicted skipper wasn't on trial for causing the near miss or the deaths. He was on trial for failing to keep an adequate watch. There's a vast array of evidence to support that charge beyond reasonable doubt, even if we discount the bits of evidence we don't like.
For the same reason that a 30 month old toddler can cycle on the road.
For the same reason that a 30 month old toddler can cycle on the road.
Last edited:
Uricanejack
Well-known member
Not doubt sometimes it is confusing for laymen. "The chap on the Clapman Omnibus". The point being hopefully they don't have a preconceived idea. Just an open mind. Obviously this doesn't always work out. sometimes juries have read the papers, seen the news reports or even discussed it on internet. Its the legal system we have.
I don't know. I would guess most lawyers would object to Juriors who had knowledge of the subject. They might make their decision based on knowledge which is not in evidence.
Achosenman
Active member
Are you saying 30-month toddlers cycle on the road without close and constant supervision?
FWIW my first mate has just read this comment from you. I won’t repeat her response because I’ll get shore leave...
Last edited:
dom
Well-known member
We have to be careful here before declaring the UK's entire judicial and accident & investigation structures unfit for purpose!!
Your point though, what about inconsistencies in evidence? First, statements to the MAIB aren't given under caution and aren't really formal testimony. Which is why the MAIB writes in every report:
"This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 14(14) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012, shall be inadmissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or blame."
In 2019, in relation to a commercial dispute, a UK Court held that MAIB findings are inadmissible without the express permission of the Court, which the Court went on to decline. Some may find the judges thinking helpful:
“The reason for the general inadmissibility of those parts of an MAIB report in proceedings concerned with blame is not difficult to discern. It is because the purpose of an MAIB report is the improvement of maritime safety, and not the determination of blame which is usually the purpose of subsequent legal proceedings. To use an MAIB report for the determination of blame would be likely to prejudice future accident safety investigations because those who are asked in any future investigation to provide information may be reluctant to do so if they know that the resulting report may be used to determine blame. It is also because the IMO and other states support the approach that reports by maritime investigatory bodies should not be admitted into proceedings that may lead to the determination of civil liability.”
Last edited:
Achosenman
Active member
The reason is to get true facts without fear of incriminating oneself. It allowed lessons to be learned by the maritime community, so is the greater good.
As such, I'm inclined to believe the MAIB report rather than any subsequent court proceedings where the threat of sanction is present.
Last edited:
Adios
...
Exactly. And the promise of compo which in this case the new testimony seems to very much enhance. Even without the report though there seems to be dramatically different statements quoted in the press in quote marks. Ranging from the boat hitting them and tearing their engines off to it just felt like it hit them. I guess because collision or near miss were both as bad as each other as far as not keeping a watch goes that wasn't focused on but I would use that to dismiss everything else he said as not being beyond doubt.
I wonder if the reports finding that there was no stern light was mentioned in the trial or the most likely angle the boat would have been while drifting? It would be a bit stupid if the findings of the most expert accident investigators are also inadmissible (not just peoples statements)
Sandy
Well-known member
As usual an excellent forensic examination in the MAIB.
There is an interesting debate about the consequences of the incident. That was for the court to decide, what the MAIB did was to find the root cause of the incident. Clearly both parties contributed to the loss of life.
MystyBlue2
Active member
But if you did the exact same scenario,No, just a last arse who was playing on his phone. Papers are out of date.
This is probably the point behind the charges, The actions of the deceased are not relevant. The charges are about his actions and or inactions.
12 regular people, not 12 experts, just our peers, regular people, decide if the prosecution made the case beyond a reasonable doubt,
The defence gets to call experts as well. And cross exam in witness . including the experts.
Niether side gets to use the MAIB report as evidence.
Will changing this guy make a difference, I doubt it. what is the likely hood he will re offend?
Will this be a deterrent to others? Maybe.
To successfully appeal and overturn the decision,
Would require an error of law. Or new evidence which would probably have effected the juries decision.
The phone records, computer records, and tracking information all point to someone who was distracted by the phone and computer. Imeadiatly prior to the collision and most likley at the time of the collision.
So the question for the jury, was he looking out like he was supposed to, or was he looking at his phone.
The jury found him guilty, so they must have believed he was not looking out, he was looking at his phone.
Behind the wheel of a car and killed 3 innocent people in a head on collision with another vehicle whilst being distracted by a phone and then leaving then scene of an accident, I could guarantee he would get a lot more than 12 months imprisonment, And rightfully so!
Causing death by dangerous driving,
Driving without due care and attention,
leaving the scene of an accident,
Theres 3 laws he has broken with probably alot more the deeper you delve.
Marrs got off extremely lightly in my eyes, i feel for the poor family of the men that where killed at the hands of this IDIOT and his fatal mistakes!
12 months imprisonment, 6 months with good behaviour is a failure of the justice system given the circumstances and the outcome of what he had done!
Last edited:
Gary Fox
N/A
Totally agree.
Adios
...
Its an interesting and worrying case because on reading the press report and seeing the verdict I gladly went along with the narrative that skipper had his head in his phone and should have seen the boat.
Then on reading the MAIB report I felt like the skipper had no chance of seeing the hopelessly ill suited unlit boat. That the deaths were caused by the skipper of the small boat's negligence in ensuring his boat was suited to the sea and his passengers were suitably equipped. His not taking any action which he had plenty of time to do. That they were drinking all day and night and the likely effect of that. The deaths were not caused by the near miss or the bigger boats skipper according to the report.
On the one hand the court case isn't about the deaths its about him keeping a watch which is what he is charged with. On the other its all about the deaths as of course he wouldn't be in court for nearly hitting a boat with no casualties, so it is all about the deaths which were not his fault.
Any of us could run into an unlit dinghy full of drinking fishermen not wearing lifejackets one night and the same scenario could play out for us.
- Status