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

[dom]

If the CPS believed they had a hope of proving he was responsible for the deaths he would have been charged with that. There was no collision, he wasn't weaving dangerously all over the sea, his boat was well lit, their boat was unlit, they admit seeing his boat in plenty of time. They admit taking not action to avoid the collision which they should have as a vessel underway. They admit to drinking neat whisky while in charge of the vessel after drinking during the day, they admit the small boats skipper was in the cabin not keeping watch as the bigger boat approached, they admit he was told it was coming and dismissed the issue. They admit not wearing lifejackets or even having them to hand.

Perhaps their multiple admissions helped convince the court that they were telling the truth? Perhaps the defendant hadn't been so forthcoming about using his phone and PC.

The defendant's side will have been free to make what they wished of this in court. The defendant's side will also have been free to try and convince the jury that the angling vessel was indeed unlit and that torches were not flashed as claimed.

They failed. They might have failed to convince us lot too?

And the defendant is probably free to appeal if he wishes.

Perhaps this forum should accept that, in possession of a few newspaper snippets, it is not seriously in a position to challenge the verdict of a competent court?

But I somehow doubt it !!

 

[Adios]

Perhaps this forum should accept that, in possession of a few newspaper snippets, it is not seriously in a position to challenge the verdict of a competent court?

But I somehow doubt it !!

When I was only in a position of a few newspaper snippets I believed it was a open and shut case of irresponsible skipper. Then I read the MAIB report which was not allowed to be used for his defence. Now I have serious doubts about how open and shut the case is. I don't know why the skippers defenders failed to convince a jury but my suspicion is the jury was convinced because their only point of reference is assuming its like a case where a car driver is on his phone. It took 2 trials to get a guilty verdict so even in court it clearly wasn't an open and shut case.

 

[dom]

When I was only in a position of a few newspaper snippets I believed it was a open and shut case of irresponsible skipper. Then I read the MAIB report which was not allowed to be used for his defence. Now I have serious doubts about how open and shut the case is. I don't know why the skippers defenders failed to convince a jury but my suspicion is the jury was convinced because their only point of reference is assuming its like a case where a car driver is on his phone. It took 2 trials to get a guilty verdict so even in court it clearly wasn't an open and shut case.

And that's the point, we don't even know the legal arguments pertaining to the question of guilt in relation the specific charge of "keeping a proper lookout".

All we have is the MAIB report which is explicitly not designed for this purpose.

In which circumstances there is little point trying to second guess the court's decision, let alone introducing dubious and possibly irrelevant motoring arguments.

 

[madabouttheboat]

We know that James 2 was not displaying the correct lights, but that got me thinking about what the correct lights were. The James 2 was drifting with engine off while fishing with rods. The best I can come up with would be red, white, red. Restricted in ability to manoeuvre with a status of underway, but not making way. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

If that is correct, I very much doubt this boat, or any of the hundreds of others like it, are equipped to display such lights. So what would be a suitable alternative? An all round white maybe suggesting a boat an anchor, or a power driven vessel under 7m capable of less than 7 knots, which I suspect would sum up the James 2 quite well. Neither would be 100% correct when drifting, but would at least allow the boat to be seen from all angles.

EIther way, the actual lights on display, port and starboard, were definitely wrong and would have suggested a sailing boat underway from the front and sides, and nothing at all from behind.

 

[Sandy]

When I was only in a position of a few newspaper snippets I believed it was a open and shut case of irresponsible skipper. Then I read the MAIB report which was not allowed to be used for his defence. Now I have serious doubts about how open and shut the case is. I don't know why the skippers defenders failed to convince a jury but my suspicion is the jury was convinced because their only point of reference is assuming its like a case where a car driver is on his phone. It took 2 trials to get a guilty verdict so even in court it clearly wasn't an open and shut case.

Prosecutions are handled by MCA Enforcement unit, who will collect their evidence under the Police And Evidence Act 1984 so that it is admissible in court.

 

[Achosenman]

a power driven vessel under 7m capable of less than 7 knots,

I thought he had a 30hp outboard mounted. If so, he was probably capable of way more than 7kts.

 

[TernVI]

The skipper of the fishing boat didn't see the James 2, not unreasonable to say he's guilty of not keeping a proper lookout.

But in my view that happens all the time, usually with no consequences because the other boat simply moves out of the way.

It takes two to collide, the James 2 did not have an effective lookout either. An effective lookout would have been capable of judging a risk of collision and acting in good time to start the engine and move.

 

[Achosenman]

Click MAIB short video James 2

 

[shaunksb]

We know that James 2 was not displaying the correct lights, but that got me thinking about what the correct lights were. The James 2 was drifting with engine off while fishing with rods. The best I can come up with would be red, white, red. Restricted in ability to manoeuvre with a status of underway, but not making way. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

You are oblidged to display the required lights on your vessel when underway, not necessarily when making way.

__________________

 

[shaunksb]

Prosecutions are handled by MCA Enforcement unit, who will collect their evidence under the Police And Evidence Act 1984 so that it is admissible in court.

A MAIB report is inadmissible in court when it comes to apportioning blame.

___________________________

 

[Sandy]

A MAIB report is inadmissible in court when it comes to apportioning blame.

Correct. That is why the MCA Enforcement unit do any prosecutions. Collecting and using evidence that is admissible in court. Perhaps I could have been more explicit in my posting.

 

[Davy_S]

Whilst not taking sides with either vessel, i have been involved in small boat fishing for years,all the boats were fast fishers and carried navigation lights, most had a small folding mast with a vhf Ariel and an all round masthead light, it would not matter if we were anchored or drifting, the masthead white would always be switched on at night without fail, to me, it makes sense to be seen as well as keeping a lookout.

 

[Fimacca]

It is hard to see smaller craft , even if showing lights ( were they really). As for hitting a small craft, unlikely to hear that either in such a large vessel.
But deaths occurred, and someone has to take the blame.

Glad I posted this - it makes us all more aware......................

 

[mjcoon]

But deaths occurred, and someone has to take the blame.

No-one should believe that (unless it was written ironically, which is a dodgy thing to do...)!

 

[Adios]

No-one should believe that (unless it was written ironically, which is a dodgy thing to do...)!

Unfortunately thats become the dominant thinking. No such thing as an accident any more.

 

[dom]

No-one should believe that (unless it was written ironically, which is a dodgy thing to do...)!

?

 

[Stemar]

If you drive along an unlit country road at night and drive into an unlit cyclist with dark clothing, did the driver cause the accident?

Yes.

You're supposed to drive at a safe speed having regard to the conditions. That means being able to stop within the distance lit by your headlights. Yes, the cyclist bears some responsibility, but if it were a child walking home from school? or a cow got loose from a field?

It behoves anyone at sea to keep a good lookout. In your analogy, the cyclist may not have had the correct lights, but he was waving a torch at you, but you ran him down anyway. Death by dangerous driving.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Yes.

You're supposed to drive at a safe speed having regard to the conditions. That means being able to stop within the distance lit by your headlights. Yes, the cyclist bears some responsibility, but if it were a child walking home from school? or a cow got loose from a field?

It behoves anyone at sea to keep a good lookout. In your analogy, the cyclist may not have had the correct lights, but he was waving a torch at you, but you ran him down anyway. Death by dangerous driving.

Well I do wonder if this Poster has atually read the reports, posts and any other info o this matter, as It contains inaccuracys

For a START the Angling Boat did not wave any tourches, by reading the Personal accounts, they at it seems the latest moments actually wave their Head lighting gear which s very very very low lighting levels indeed

To tell a Tale allegedly told by non other than Uffa Fox during the WW2 period .Uffa was driving home after a late night Drinking Spell , the Car had the WW2 blackout lighting on; they were waved down by the local Police in a Road Block, Uffa drove on; He was tracked down and summond to appear in Magistrates Court which he did; during the Trial Uffa asked one of the Poicemen what they were wearing that night, it was stated that they were wearing standard Camaflage uniform, Uffa ask whats the point of that uniform, a policemen stated well its so that we cannot be seen; result the case was thrown out; so similar in this case I suggest; So the point about the Angling boat waving their head torches and without adequate Vessel lighting on stands . The Angling Vessel was without adequate lighting to be seen at all, by anyone I guess.

 

[dom]

Well I do wonder if this Poster has atually read the reports, posts and any other info o this matter, as It contains inaccuracys

For a START the Angling Boat did not wave any tourches, by reading the Personal accounts, they at it seems the latest moments actually wave their Head lighting gear which s very very very low lighting levels indeed.

As I’ve seen this mentioned a few times here, where do you get this “very very very low lighting levels indeed” statement from?

 

[jordanbasset]

Again this was a clear moonlit night with good visibility and a calm sea. I suggest that a good look out would have seen the boat anyway, regardless if they had a light or not. Either way the skipper made the decision not have two look outs as official guidance says, was looking at social media at the time of the incident and either did not have his radar on or did not know how to use it properly. In addition he had two bright forward facing lights, which together with looking at social media meant his night vision would have been impaired to say the least.

More information here from the CPS
Conviction over maritime incident which left three men dead | The Crown Prosecution Service
''During the trial, the jury heard expert evidence from a master mariner, who explained that a proper lookout on a ship requires the watch keeper to give full attention to their task and to be continually visually scanning ahead and around.

They also need to be mindful that smaller vessels may only be detectable at a short range and that marine guidelines state two people should always be on watch during the hours of darkness.

Investigations showed that both the main and back-up radars of the Vertrouwen were replaced on 3 August 2017, just days before the incident happened, and checks were made to ensure they were working.

The first mate also confirmed that the radar equipment was working correctly when he took over the shift just hours after the incident.

Evidence also showed that the defendant appeared to be using the ship’s laptop computer around the time of the incident and was also sending WhatsApp messages to a friend''


Not surprised the jury found him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of not keeping a proper look out