Sandyman
Well-known member
Tx on AIS !!!!............starting to wonder.
Sos - aussies in need of assistance
- Thread starter sarriba
- Start date
Tx on AIS !!!!............starting to wonder.
sarabande
Well-known member
doesn't need Clouseau to look for and find some open questions here. It sounds a very sad and convoluted affair, with some signs of less than competent handling by both parties. It can scarcely have come as as surprise to the owners that they were being targetted in some way.
Reverend Ludd
New member
What are you wondering ? (pm)
GAJ
Member
Far fetched your story may sound but having had a similar experience myself in Spain some years ago I can well believe it and sympathise with your situation.
I was arrested and handcuffed at gun point due to the allegations made by a mentally ill ex-girlfriend back in the UK and was promptly put in front of a 'kangaroo' court. (Just trying to keep the Oz feel). There is nothing like a silver revolver and a few sub machine guns pointing at you to make you do as you are told I found.
It was extremely stressful, what with an artillery piece mounted in the back of a truck pointing at me and the boat, along with all the various Spanish military and police factions represented, all waiving guns. And the gunboat and helicopters, oh and the divers under the boat, oh and the 'secret agents who had followed me for weeks. Then there were the submarines that surfaced alongside us on more than one occasion...............
BUT it was all sorted out eventually (in Spain after a week) even though I couldn't speak the lingo as I was innocent, even without the help of the British Consulate and Embassy who were worse than useless and cannot be relied upon for assistance. There was then an interview with Special Branch when I got home. All that because someone said some bad things about me without any foundation.
It is understandable that your story initially was met with a certain amount of disbelief, I was one who initially doubted but as you have posted more info I have changed my mind. I am sure that if I had posted my story on this forum it too would have been met with disbelief but it is true and much more besides.
I do hope that the allegations are unfounded and that you can prove your innocence as you say and that the Law works as it should. Good luck.
I was arrested and handcuffed at gun point due to the allegations made by a mentally ill ex-girlfriend back in the UK and was promptly put in front of a 'kangaroo' court. (Just trying to keep the Oz feel). There is nothing like a silver revolver and a few sub machine guns pointing at you to make you do as you are told I found.
It was extremely stressful, what with an artillery piece mounted in the back of a truck pointing at me and the boat, along with all the various Spanish military and police factions represented, all waiving guns. And the gunboat and helicopters, oh and the divers under the boat, oh and the 'secret agents who had followed me for weeks. Then there were the submarines that surfaced alongside us on more than one occasion...............
BUT it was all sorted out eventually (in Spain after a week) even though I couldn't speak the lingo as I was innocent, even without the help of the British Consulate and Embassy who were worse than useless and cannot be relied upon for assistance. There was then an interview with Special Branch when I got home. All that because someone said some bad things about me without any foundation.
It is understandable that your story initially was met with a certain amount of disbelief, I was one who initially doubted but as you have posted more info I have changed my mind. I am sure that if I had posted my story on this forum it too would have been met with disbelief but it is true and much more besides.
I do hope that the allegations are unfounded and that you can prove your innocence as you say and that the Law works as it should. Good luck.
jordanbasset
Well-known member
I think you have hit the nail on the head there, so it would help win over the sceptics on this site if you said where you are. There are many people who visit this site but do not contribute, am sure some are in Gibraltar, if they knew where you are they could give moral support atleast. Others may have useful contacts in Gibraltar, think if you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by posting the details of where you are. Good luck
jimbaerselman
New member
Yes. I believe Australia has strong stalking laws, and they are criminal law, not civil. The behaviour you have described would easily obtain a conviction if committed there.
Interestingly, I believe Queensland also allows that if any one episode of stalking occurs in the state, then activities outside the state can also be taken into account. Given that your sufferings also include injury, that implies imprisonment.
Hoping that your current situation resolves satisfactorily (the immediate problem!) the longer term stalking solution may involve checking Queensland law to see if my understanding is right. If so, a stalking act in Queensland may result in her imprisonment. Of course, that may not occur or be practical.
Gibraltar largely follows UK law, and UK does not have a stalking law. However UK has The "Protection from Harassment Act 1997" which defines a similar criminal law offence. Perhaps a similar offence is defined in Gibraltar law. Worth a check?
Cardo
Active member
The Protection from Harassment Act is the "stalking law". It was the reason the law was introduced, although as with many other laws it is more commonly used to deal with other matters.
Tranona
Well-known member
Have followed this with interest, waiting for something concrete to emerge that shows there is a genuine issue here.
Despite what some might think, the police in Gibraltar would not take the kind of action described without some support. You cannot just walk into a police station and tell them to impound a boat just because you believe the people on it owe you money. That can only be done with a court order, so at some point the person has been able to persuade a judge that she has a legitimate case.
It may well be (for example) that the person has obtained a court order in Malta, and the OP has left there in defiance of the order. That might well be sufficient for the court in Gibraltar to hold the boat.
The OP, of course is trying to persuade us that she/they are blameless, marshalling sympathy votes with tales of aged parents, mad ex girlfriends, lovely couple taking them on shopping trips and so on. If they are so blameless, they would not be in this situation in the first place, and if it is all a misunderstanding, they should have no difficulty in convincing a court they are right.
By their nature, these sorts of disputes are not simple and clearcut - if they were, there would not be a dispute in the first place. Painting a picture of the other party as mad, deranged, a stalker etc and yourself as blameless only raises suspicions that this is a dispute that has gone beyond the stage where it can be solved without some kind of outside intervention - which is ultimately what the courts are for. Hopefully outside advisers such as a lawyer can help resolve the issues without going to the courts.
Despite what some might think, the police in Gibraltar would not take the kind of action described without some support. You cannot just walk into a police station and tell them to impound a boat just because you believe the people on it owe you money. That can only be done with a court order, so at some point the person has been able to persuade a judge that she has a legitimate case.
It may well be (for example) that the person has obtained a court order in Malta, and the OP has left there in defiance of the order. That might well be sufficient for the court in Gibraltar to hold the boat.
The OP, of course is trying to persuade us that she/they are blameless, marshalling sympathy votes with tales of aged parents, mad ex girlfriends, lovely couple taking them on shopping trips and so on. If they are so blameless, they would not be in this situation in the first place, and if it is all a misunderstanding, they should have no difficulty in convincing a court they are right.
By their nature, these sorts of disputes are not simple and clearcut - if they were, there would not be a dispute in the first place. Painting a picture of the other party as mad, deranged, a stalker etc and yourself as blameless only raises suspicions that this is a dispute that has gone beyond the stage where it can be solved without some kind of outside intervention - which is ultimately what the courts are for. Hopefully outside advisers such as a lawyer can help resolve the issues without going to the courts.
NornaBiron
New member
I will reiterate what I said a few days ago, these people are genuine and are just looking for support. Please don't add to their worries by doubting them. If you can't be constructive or supportive please don't comment. They don't need the added stress of people doubting them and being unsupportive.
We really hope that things are moving on positively for you both xx call us if we can help x
We really hope that things are moving on positively for you both xx call us if we can help x
lenseman
Active member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2006
- Messages
- 7,077
- Location
- South East Coast - United Kingdom
As far as I can see, your 'yacht' weighs in excess of 300 tons (DW) and as such, you are required by law to transmit AIS 'A' especially as "Sarriba" is registered as a 'Fishing Vessel'? Your husband is in the fishing industry?
The AIS Class 'A' transmitter is possibly how the other female was able to keep track of your journey throughout the Mediterranean? It is an offence to turn off this transmitter as it is mandatory on a ship this size and you probably cannot turn it off anyway.
Also, you travelled from Malta on to Crete and then to Gib? Are you just cruising around or trying to return to Australia?
You state that you 'hold' all 65 shares? I suspect that your share ownership is only 64 shares which is the maximum [total shares in a boat = 64]. Please can you confirm the number held?
There are a number of documents which I have looked at regarding Maritime Law in Gibraltar and I suggest you read the following PDF document:
http://www.shiparrested.com/wp-content/uploads/Gibraltar-@-Ship-Arrests-in-Practice-6th-ed.pdf
and
http://www.gibraltarport.com/ship_arrests.cfm
Contact me by private email if I can be of any further assistance?
sarriba
New member
The name sarriba is not the name off our yacht sarriba is a fishing vessel vessel in Australia that I was the skipper of for 15 years the vessel is owned by a Oz fishing company regards the Captian
jimbaerselman
New member
Forgive me if I make a purely speculative analysis of what's gone on. I don't have the facts, other than what's been posted, so this may be rubbish. Hopefully, though, it may be helpful.
Noting the edit you've made to your first post, the claim the third party (Her, She) is making comes under:
The bill of sale, and the ship's registration, both show sole ownership lies with Captian (sic!).
Her claim is that money for the transaction came from Her account, and Captian agrees this is true. So Her claim is that the bill of sale is not valid, or was fraudulent, or was created without Her participation or knowledge, and did not reflect her ownership share. If that claim succeeds, the ship's registration of ownership is irrelevant, since it is based on (She claims) a fraudulent bill of sale.
A possible defence would have to show that she owed the purchase funds to Captian, and he accepted (either the funds, or the boat) as repayment of that debt. So Captian would have to prove the purchase funds (or some greater amount) were transferred from his account into Her account, thus creating the debt.
If the debt was less than the purchase money, an explanation would be needed, and without an explanation, it's possible that a part share claim may succeed.
Pure speculation now:
It appears that there was some form of joint purchase plan between Her and Captian at the time of the transaction - presumably verbal - for otherwise Captian would not have had access to Her money or her account. It also appears that She had some expectations of participating in use of the boat. She has probably referred to verbal agreements (if not written) in her claims to the arresting authority.
She appears not to be short of funds, since quite a big deposit (many thousands of pounds) is usually needed to pre-fund an arrest and the subsequent court activity. This is usually recoverable from the boat operator/owner/part owner if the court agrees her claim.
Readers should, of course, ignore all of the above and rely solely on professional advice given by maritime lawyers experienced in this field who also have access to all the facts of the case. And if the case isn't watertight, don't dismiss the idea of a settlement. A settlement, however wrong it feels, is usually much cheaper than paying court costs.
Noting the edit you've made to your first post, the claim the third party (Her, She) is making comes under:
The bill of sale, and the ship's registration, both show sole ownership lies with Captian (sic!).
Her claim is that money for the transaction came from Her account, and Captian agrees this is true. So Her claim is that the bill of sale is not valid, or was fraudulent, or was created without Her participation or knowledge, and did not reflect her ownership share. If that claim succeeds, the ship's registration of ownership is irrelevant, since it is based on (She claims) a fraudulent bill of sale.
A possible defence would have to show that she owed the purchase funds to Captian, and he accepted (either the funds, or the boat) as repayment of that debt. So Captian would have to prove the purchase funds (or some greater amount) were transferred from his account into Her account, thus creating the debt.
If the debt was less than the purchase money, an explanation would be needed, and without an explanation, it's possible that a part share claim may succeed.
Pure speculation now:
It appears that there was some form of joint purchase plan between Her and Captian at the time of the transaction - presumably verbal - for otherwise Captian would not have had access to Her money or her account. It also appears that She had some expectations of participating in use of the boat. She has probably referred to verbal agreements (if not written) in her claims to the arresting authority.
She appears not to be short of funds, since quite a big deposit (many thousands of pounds) is usually needed to pre-fund an arrest and the subsequent court activity. This is usually recoverable from the boat operator/owner/part owner if the court agrees her claim.
Readers should, of course, ignore all of the above and rely solely on professional advice given by maritime lawyers experienced in this field who also have access to all the facts of the case. And if the case isn't watertight, don't dismiss the idea of a settlement. A settlement, however wrong it feels, is usually much cheaper than paying court costs.
chinita
Well-known member
What concerns me is that the evidence presented to the Court in Gib must have been absolutely compelling in order for the Gib authorities to act as they did.
Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harriet could go around having their ex-lovers boats impounded.
Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harriet could go around having their ex-lovers boats impounded.
jimbaerselman
New member
All you have to demonstrate is that there is a case to answer. The dis-incentive for trivial cases is the deposit you have to put down to fund the arrest and costs should your case fail . . . I believe some thousands of pounds . .
Reverend Ludd
New member
The reason I mentioned "Yacht Sarriba" was in response to a question as to wether or not the other woman could read any posts.
Just a guess at the name of your boat
Did you find out what kind of tracking device was on the boat?
Anyway good luck
Tranona
Well-known member
The doubts arise because only one side of the story is being presented.
Leaving aside your personal knowledge of one half of the dispute, what would the reaction be if the first post had read something like
" I am looking for some advice. My boyfriend and myself were cruising on our boat which we jointly bought. In Malta he took money from our joint account, and left me for another woman - now his wife. Unfortunately the boat and all papers were in his sole name, and he left without me and without repaying my money. I have tracked him down to Gibraltar and have obtained a court order preventing him from leaving in the boat without paying me. Is there anything else I could do?"
Just as plausible, and just as deserving of sympathy.
Inevitably when you only hear one side you tend to sympathise with that party, particularly when they identify themselves with the audience (we are just like you, ordinary folks pursuing our dream, but being stalked by a deranged women). The first part may well be true, but the extreme measures being taken by the other party suggest it is not an "ordinary" situation.
If the two parties cannot resolve their differences themselves, then there is no alternative (if they want a resolution) to seeking external help, which may include going to court. If the OP has right on his/her side they should have no difficulty in convincing a court. That may not, of course, deal with the "stalking" issue, but again without knowing the full story one can only suggest seeking expert advice on the remedies available.
sarabande
Well-known member
we have read on the forum of another similar case; that of a disenchanted girlfriend who took her partner's boat (owned fully by him) and sailed off from the UK to the Med.
I think that was sorted out with forum help from various specialists.
Perhaps we have reason to be concerned that we do not have the full unequivocal facts. Sympathy- yes - for the situation, but wariness of a rush to judgement.
I think that was sorted out with forum help from various specialists.
Perhaps we have reason to be concerned that we do not have the full unequivocal facts. Sympathy- yes - for the situation, but wariness of a rush to judgement.
NornaBiron
New member
sarabande;3270094 Perhaps we have reason to be concerned that we do not have the full unequivocal facts. Sympathy- yes - for the situation said:
sarabande
Well-known member
Norna
and help I did, giving direct links straightaway about Gibraltar Admiralty law.
My point is that there is confusion, and if help is to be directed and therefore useful, we need to have facts, if possible in a logical order, but certainly in as full detail as the poster feels safe in giving them.
and help I did, giving direct links straightaway about Gibraltar Admiralty law.
My point is that there is confusion, and if help is to be directed and therefore useful, we need to have facts, if possible in a logical order, but certainly in as full detail as the poster feels safe in giving them.
NornaBiron
New member
Norna
and help I did, giving direct links straightaway about Gibraltar Admiralty law.
My point is that there is confusion, and if help is to be directed and therefore useful, we need to have facts, if possible in a logical order, but certainly in as full detail as the poster feels safe in giving them.
There was no intention to badmouth you in my post, I just picked up on the 'judgement' bit and ran with it - I could have chosen from many other posts with similar quotes, just happened to be yours, sorry.
