Yacht vs Supertanker

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by whisper

*After the incident the crew said that they regretted wearing orange tinted sunglasses

(* = Not strictly true)

ROFL..... Again :-)

Simon

Sent from my iPhone using Rib.net

[m chappelow]

Make no wonder there's some groups out there wanting some sort of compulsory qualifications or basic boat driving licence for Any boat users ; )

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by m chappelow

Make no wonder there's some individuals & groups out there wanting some sort of basic compulsory qualifications or boat driving licence for All boat users ; )

Don't see how that would have made any difference... Apparently this chap was about as qualified as your going to get

Peter @ Boatsandoutboards4sale ~ www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk ~ 07930 421007

[C2 RIBS]

It will be an interesting case, if he does not change his plea on the court day.

The video evidence with the harbour patrol boat out front, the audio warning signals given, sailing in a restricted area that is listed( and shown of charts given to crews) on all Cowes Race day documents to remain vigilant and to keep out of the way of large vessels, failing to avoid a collision , failing to keep watch, endangering the crews life will all come out at court.

It still chills me to watch the video and aftermath and am very pleased everyone is about to tell the court what really happened. I am sure there will be a defence given but will it be believed is another issue and what the jury will listen to. It will be interesting if they ask jury members if they have seen the video before signing them up and also if they sail etc, as if this is in Southampton Crown Court a large number of people will know(or think they know) the rules of sailing etc. Still people think sail as right of way at all times!!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by PeterM

In this country we have a right to express opinion. I'm with Nos....guilty...just watch the bloody film!!!!

He's still not guilty until a court decides so. The Crown have the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by chris.moody

I think the issue here is that he broke the rules (which we all have done, who hasn't exceeded a speed limit or parked for too long in a parking space), got caught red handed, and is now trying to worm his way out of it by pleading not guilty.

Well, its the right of citizens in a civilised society to "put the crown to the test". Depending on who the Crown witnesses are, getting hold of some of them at a trial could be challenging (e.g. the ships crew - who will probably be at sea, and may well be foreign) and he might fancy his chances at their being insufficient admissible evidence?

Plenty of people do the "same" by trying to 'wheedle' out of speed camera charges etc every day. Just because this is high profile doesn't make it any different.

The court case will no doubt cost the taxpayers (us) a fortune.

Well, in an English court IF he is found guilty he may well be charged court costs for the privilege of contesting his case.

Originally Posted by macattack101

He cocked up and should stand up and take his penalty even if it was a one off. Pleading not guilty faced with that evidence points to him being a muppet!

Or possibly acting on the advice of his lawyer. If there are technical issues/uncertainties with some of the charges it is not uncommon to initially plead not guilty, and then negotiate a plea with the CPS perhaps guilty to one of the charges and not to the others.

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

It will be an interesting case, if he does not change his plea on the court day .... I am sure there will be a defence given but will it be believed is another issue and what the jury will listen to. It will be interesting if they ask jury members if they have seen the video before signing them up and also if they sail etc, as if this is in Southampton Crown Court a large number of people will know(or think they know) the rules of sailing etc. Still people think sail as right of way at all times!!

BBC article seemed to imply it was at the Magistrates Court.

If found guilty after trial he can expect a 30% higher sentence than pleading at the earliest opportunity - so assuming he has sought legal advice, and knowing that the fines are quite significant for marine offences anyway you might assume that he is either hoping to make a point, or has reason to believe he may get off with at least some of the charges.

[C2 RIBS]

Poly- if it goes to Magistrates then, what is a max fine etc for this or could Magistrates decide they want the Crown Court to sentence if found guilty?

[Tim M]

Originally Posted by Boats&Outboards

Don't see how that would have made any difference... Apparently this chap was about as qualified as your going to get

Peter @ Boatsandoutboards4sale ~ BoatsandOutboards4Sale | Hand-picked boats & motors, fully tested, delivered nationwide. ~ 07930 421007

The chap in question is a friend of a friend. I've met him a couple of times. He's not a numpty, and I very much suspect this was all a result of him getting too much "into the zone" and genuinely thinking he could beat that tanker (if very close) in order to do well in the race.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Tim M

He's not a numpty

I can show you a video that says otherwise

[Tim M]

Touche

[Nos4r2]

[IanH]

Definitely not guilty.

He's not being charged with hitting the boat, he's been taken to court on 3 other charges (none of which are 'massively cocking up') that any half decent lawyer will argue or provide mitigating circumstances and probably get him off.

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by Tim M

and I very much suspect this was all a result of him getting too much "into the zone"

Into the zone?.....yeah i'le say he was in the zone alright...so far into the exclusion zone he hit the fecking tanker!

Sorry but i think that's bollox, his primary concern should have always been the safety of his crew.....Apreciate that it's maybe a strange concept for RN folk to understand but instead of concentrating on "the mission" he should have paid more attention to the bigger picture.

I admit i'm somewhat biased as he could of caused some serious issues for our tug behind but irrespective of that, i think the guy was a tw@ .

Simon

[Mollers]

Originally Posted by Tim M

.. genuinely thinking he could beat that tanker (if very close) in order to do well in the race.

He is genuinely fecking mental then.
A vessel that size a effectively no brakes and no steering over such short distances. No one in their right mind would take such a risk for the sake of sport.
It's akin to loading a minibus with some good mates and trying to beat a train across a level crossing, great bloke.

[Adamn]

Originally Posted by Tim M

The chap in question is a friend of a friend. I've met him a couple of times. He's not a numpty, and I very much suspect this was all a result of him getting too much "into the zone" and genuinely thinking he could beat that tanker (if very close) in order to do well in the race.

Looking at the video I would say the same. That's not saying he was right! But I think he was hoping to get past the tanker first.
I motor past these tankers in Falmouth bay whilst they wait to take on low sulphur fuel and I think 200m is close and they are stationary. They are truly huge close up.

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by Tim M

The chap in question is a friend of a friend. I've met him a couple of times. He's not a numpty, and I very much suspect this was all a result of him getting too much "into the zone" and genuinely thinking he could beat that tanker (if very close) in order to do well in the race.

In which case he'd be guilty as charged IMHO as based on your points he's clearly seen the tanker (deciding to try and run a red light so to speak) and also impeded it (wittingly or not) by failing to get in front of it to win his race, being "in the zone". Just like if I jumped a red light and crashed into a car with actual right of way. I'd be guilty of not just jumping the light but causing the crash having made the wrong initial decision.

As you suggest I'm sure he's usually a very accomplished chap but when all is said and done he's made an error in judgement and IMHO and even bigger one trying to fight it out.

Peter @ Boatsandoutboards4sale ~ www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk ~ 07930 421007

[willk]

Perhaps a local WAFI could clarify if there are any race penalties for infringing PA regulations regarding commercial traffic? If there aren't, it fairly much confirms what I suspect is the case:

"I say! Carn't yew see that we're Racing!"

[Poly]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

Poly- if it goes to Magistrates then, what is a max fine etc for this or could Magistrates decide they want the Crown Court to sentence if found guilty?

Ian, assuming this is under the Statutory Instrument that enacts the col regs, then it looks like Summary Conviction in the Magistrates' Court would be a maximum of £5000. Your courts are a bit different but as far as I can see the Crown Court would have no additional powers for this offence if the Magistrates found guilty (if the Magistrates chose to they could have passed up to a Jury court for trial - which could have carried a prison sentence etc). I think cases are only (normally) passed up from Magistrates for sentencing after trial if custody > 6 months is desired - but there is no custody option for summary (no Jury) conviction in this case.

Costs, and your bizarre "Victim Surcharge" etc would be in addition...

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Poly

Or possibly acting on the advice of his lawyer. If there are technical issues/uncertainties with some of the charges it is not uncommon to initially plead not guilty, and then negotiate a plea with the CPS perhaps guilty to one of the charges and not to the others.

This will be his line .. his guilt isnt in doubt (to most) but there are always ways good lawyers will mitigate the position. Being a f*nny on you tube doesent really count in a court,... it comes down to proven negligence and other proveable positions of neglect legally.

That said .. he and his crew , who were other naval officers must feel like a bunch of twats, and rightly so

[paddlers]

On a similar scenario I spent the weekend at Largs a couple of years ago and I know I was in a powered craft but preferred to wait a long time and alter my course to pass behind the ferries running across the channel !!! Even with an engine only an idiot chances a collision that the other party may have no chance of avoiding.........
Sorry but looking at the video that was foolhardy & at its worst could've got somebody killed !

[SDGANDER]

Originally Posted by timw

It's probably escaped your notice, but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, as a Naval Officer, he is likely to have far more knowledge of the sea and navigation than you will ever have, so perhaps you should wait until the verdict of the court is announced before making these "armchair pundit" comments.

The officer may be found innocent or indeed guilty, but I believe you should not comment again until the court has reached it's verdict.

Seriously?!

Did you see the video?
Do you know the Southampton waters bylaws and exclusion zone rules!
Do you understand the IRPCs?

IMHO he pleaded not guilty to delay the inevitable court marshal as it was an RNSA yacht.

Given the publicity at the time and comments on numerous boating including 'wafi' dominated forums it's unlikely that anyone's opinions here even if they are considered experts it professional operators would be deemed sub justice

SDG