Yacht vs Supertanker

[Crusher]

Originally Posted by Searider

have a look at a reconstruction of the tracks of the two vessels. I can see his point about expecting the ship to turn - it was right down on the southern end of the restricted area and would have to turn to starboard to come up to Fawley. Unfortunately we've only got the tracks of the two vessels and not all the other traffic.

OMG I haven't seen this track before!!
In my opinion this makes it look even worse for his defence. If the vessel had turned to starboard he would still have been within the Ships forward exclusion zone . You can see the track of the pilot vessel obviously telling him to get the £%#* out of the way !!
What a prat!!!!

[C-NUMB]

It looks like If the wafi would have kept his original course, nothing would have happened.

Anybody know why the tanker was choosing to sail so south in the lane, or is it normal routing, maybe other traffic?

[biffer]

Originally Posted by C-NUMB

It looks like If the wafi would have kept his original course, nothing would have happened.

Anybody know why the tanker was choosing to sail so south in the lane, or is it normal routing, maybe other traffic?

I think there was a incident earlier that made him come over that far

[C2 RIBS]

From a professional position I believe the case result is correct on the three charges, He has been heavily fined but has to pay prosecution costs circa £100,000 which seems extreme?

[Into The Blue]

From what the press seem to be saying, he is not paying the costs - being met by the Armed Forces Legal Aid Authority, is it possible the Tax payer is footing the bill?

Is it actually possible he would not have got Legal Aid if his plea had been guilty? So he proceeded to spend £100k of tax payer money on the very long shot that he just might get off on a technicality?

Someone tell me I've got the wrong

[HUMBER P4VWL]

Originally Posted by Into The Blue

From what the press seem to be saying, he is not paying the costs - being met by the Armed Forces Legal Aid Authority, is it possible the Tax payer is footing the bill? Is it actually possible he would not have got Legal Aid if his plea had been guilty? So he proceeded to spend £100k of tax payer money on the very long shot that he just might get off on a technicality? Someone tell me I've got the wrong

Just typical of our system if true.

[Crusher]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

If indeed he's not liable for his costs, then he'd nowt to lose by pleading not guilty:facepalm

What about credibility, honesty, integrity?
If you make a mistake no matter how big surely better to say so?

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Crusher

What about credibility, honesty, integrity?
If you make a mistake no matter how big surely better to say so?

Maybe he's in training for a job in the banking sector?

[biffer]

Politician

[ShinyShoe]

Would his yacht insurance not potentially cover those costs? Not sure why the rib.net jury have concluded that the MOD legal aid scheme (which only applies for civilian courts if no other legal aid scheme applies) was involved... ...unless he was actually racing on Navy time as part of a Navy Jolly with some Navy Mates...

Whoever did the reconstruction should be given a slap... the MPZ should have been marked on the map.

As for why the ship was so far over in the zone - the ship was where he wanted to be and was allowed to be.

Now where's the prosecution for the motor boat who sounds like he was also in the MPZ when he had engine failure?

[Brian]

Don't you imagine that the conversation between the sailor and his lawyer went something like this:

Sailor: I am in real trouble about this. What do you advise?
Lawyer: Well I would plead not guilty if I were you.
S: Why, I am as guilty as hell?
L: Well not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it, it merely says to the prosecution "Prove it". And it will be a very complicated case with all those colregs etc. so you stand a good chance of being found not guilty/proven.
S: Well what about the costs then?
L: Don't worry about the costs-we'll get Armed Forces Legal to pay any costs, IF, IF, you are found guilty. Even if you, do you will only get a little fine. Same as if you plead guilty. No brainer really.

Just supposing really.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by Crusher

What about credibility, honesty, integrity?
If you make a mistake no matter how big surely better to say so?

Better not to have a legal conviction for job applications etc... ...in reality this isn't much different to causing an accident by jumping a red light. Minor injuries etc. You may get charged with Dangerous Driving etc which I think most job applications would expect to be declared or you may get charged with jumping the lights which most wouldn't expect I don't think (although maybe thats only if you take a fixed penalty).

Its fine to hold your hands up and say you got it wrong. He may have been better to do that and say 'Yes your honour, I did enter the MPZ, I did inhibit the ship in its passage, but I was keeping a proper lookout - I did know the ship was there and we thought we were on a safe course." and then to explain that the ship was turning caused confusion as a mitigating circumstances. I'm think the fine should have been reduced if he did that.

[Festinghouse]

i got told that if you get leagl aid for anything, it isnt exactly free, as if you own your own home they can put a charge on it so as to recoup the money at some later date such as when the house gets sold following death etc. does anyone know if thats true, and if so, would that be the case with the legal aid offered by the mod?

[Bigmuz7]

Well Mud sticks .. if nothing else he'll be remembered for his actions, whilst being a professional sailor above all, I suppose. Regardless of his ignorance/arrogance If this is what our naval colleges or services are putting out, between him and his colleagues who manage to run a multi million pound nuke sub aground in the shallows .. gawd help us

[SDGANDER]

Are the costs he is liable for not those of the prosecution? In addition to his (which may or may not be paid by the legal aid).

Given that it is a MOVING exclusion zone maybe the motorboat wasn't in it when he broke down?

SDG

[biffer]

He won't get legal aid, he earns too much and has assets.

[Into The Blue]

I've been corrected on the Armed Forces Legal Aid - he may well have got Legal Aid from them but they will have warned him that if he got found guilty they will come after the money.
Unless he declares himself bankrupt the tax payer should be ok.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by Brian

S: Why, I am as guilty as hell?
L: Well not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it, it merely says to the prosecution "Prove it". And it will be a very complicated case with all those colregs etc. so you stand a good chance of being found not guilty/proven.

If you ever get yourself in a corner try and avoid that conversation with your lawyer. The aren't allowed to defend you if they KNOW you are guilty. Now if your conversation was:
"I don't think it was ALL my fault the big ship tooted to say he was going round the corner then didn't turn and ploughed straight into me." the lawyer may have said "OK we might have a case to argue and with a bit of luck you'll get a judge who knows nothing about boats and we can get them confused with all the rules and stuff about you only being able to sail with the wind etc"

Originally Posted by Festinghouse

i got told that if you get leagl aid for anything, it isnt exactly free, as if you own your own home they can put a charge on it so as to recoup the money at some later date

I gather that's if you want legal aid to pursue or maybe defend a civil case. This was a crown vs defendant job so I don't think it applies.

Originally Posted by SDGANDER

Are the costs he is liable for not those of the prosecution? In addition to his (which may or may not be paid by the legal aid).

Yes the £100k costs are the costs associated with taking it to court, those costs would have been avoidable if he'd pled guilty. But I don't think he's liable, I think his defence is. Otherwise one day if you or I was wrongly accused of something and were in court defending ourselves we might wimp out of defence because we are worried about the cost if we lost.

Given that it is a MOVING exclusion zone maybe the motorboat wasn't in it when he broke down?

Possibly. The wording in the bye-law is: "The master of a small vessel shall ensure that the vessel does not enter a Moving Prohibited Zone."

Originally Posted by biffer

He won't get legal aid, he earns too much and has assets.

Does he? He's no longer paid by the Navy?

[biffer]

If he's longer being paid by the navy then they ain't going to give him legal aid are they, if he's got a house and car he won't get it, it's hard to get legal aid