aardvarkash10 1,034 Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 17 minutes ago, K4309 said: I'm not sure if this H&S charge is a criminal charge requiring 'beyond reasonable doubt', or is it some civil thing with 'the balance of probabilities'. Be great if someone can clarify that. I suspect that legal test will be pivotal to a conviction or not. Beyond reasonable doubt. Which is why the issue of relative culpability will be important. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Psyche 684 Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 To roll a boat you need the following conditions; Wave height must match the beam of the boat (risk of knock-down and rolling) The boat needs to be broadside or oblique to the wave The boat needs to be struck by a breaking wave: unless the wave is breaking, the boat should ride up and over the wave regardless of the wave height in comparison to the boat length and the boat’s orientation to the wave When the wave height reaches 50% of the boat length, there is a high probability of capsizing, with more than 60% the boat is going to be capsized every time of course only if broadsided and with breaking waves. The most commonly used criterion for wave breaking is that it happens when the wave height to water depth ratio exceeds approximately 0.78. This means a 6-meter wave will typically start breaking at a water depth of approximately 7.69 meters and a 6m wave is a horizon darkening monster 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 53 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said: You must have missed the bit where the EPIRB track lined up with the drift modeling - proving that the Easterly turn wasn't Aliens but was actually the expected/modelled tidal drift. I think you have a better chance of convincing people that it was Aliens which moved the EPIRB, the Flybridge and all the debris from 1mile north east of the EPIRB activation point into the Northern tidal stream at the 10m contour. Cause you'll never convince anyone who knows anything about the tide, that a 1Nm wide eddy was moving at 6knots in a WSW direction. I still assert that even the report says "as likely as not", meaning 50:50, and for a prosecution you need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Note I've not been saying the capsize occurred where the skipper said, but I've been saying you can't rely on the location being where the modelling said. It could have been fairly much anywhere. But anyway, lets move on. What does it mean for the case if the capsize occurred where the modelling suggests it did? - as opposed to anywhere else other than where the skipper thought he was, which could be anywhere. They were heading in to anchor, in how deep water 5m? (I haven't actually checked), is it not unreasonable to transit 10m of water when heading into an anchorage? Is 10 m some sort of problem? He didn't run aground, and wasn't caught in surf. There is an assertion there is a higher risk of rogue waves when close to landforms like that. But the defense is the wave was rogue. Definition being entirely unpredictable, freak occurrence etc. How can any reasonable skipper predict an unpredictable, freak occurrence? Then there is the question of reasonable, as in what would any other reasonable skipper do? The media made a big deal about the Florence Nightingale and her own (Nate Davy?) laying into this skipper and saying he shouldn't have left the 3 kings, it was way to rough, etc etc, turns out his boat was fishing the whole time. So there is evidence to suggest the next best example of a reasonable skipper thought the conditions were fine. We know there is high uncertainty as to the timing of the capsize, as there is uncertainty around the location. Given all witnesses had a near death experience, I think issues with recollection and accuracy of details can be expected. The skipper made a very big point at the start if his evidential interview he was very emotional and was denied a support person. That was made very clear. Was he even in a fit mental state to give an evidential interview? He may not have been where he thought he was at the time of interview. He is clear he had a route and stated he was following it. Would a reasonable skipper know where they were, this skipper thought he did. All witnesses report a rogue wave. Very large, "too high to see the top of" "substantially taller than the boat" etc. We've had no evidence to say the skipper was stoned. Wasn't drunk. Apparently wasn't otherwise distracted, on Only Fans or facetiming a Ukrainian Single. He was on the bridge, driving, wasn't he? There is no smoking gun of gross negligence (and if it is shown he was drunk, stoned or doing lines of coke, I'll be the first to change my tune). So linking back to the current topic of the thread around the position of capsize, it was a rogue wave which was unpredictable and a freak occurrence, does it matter where he was? Given the 10knts and 2m swell, would any other skipper have been heading for the same anchorage along the same route? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Black Panther 1,641 Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 Oceanographerd use oranges to study currents. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 108 Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/rogue-waves-ship 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 666 Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 11.45am 22nd July the judge will deliver the verdict. Be interesting which way it goes. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 10 hours ago, harrytom said: 11.45am 22nd July the judge will deliver the verdict. Be interesting which way it goes. 2 months to form an opinion. Wow. After 3 weeks of trial. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aardvarkash10 1,034 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 20 minutes ago, K4309 said: 2 months to form an opinion. Wow. After 3 weeks of trial. Yes, forming a defensible legal opinion to support the conviction (or not) of a person involved (or not) in the wrongful (or not) death of 5 individuals should be a rushed thing. Speed is of the essence. There shouldn't be any need to refer to precedence or consider the wider circumstances as set out in the Sentencing Act. No need to wade back through the volumes of evidence, cross referencing and untangling the various lines of the submissions from prosecution and defence. Really that stuff is just so much toilet paper. As for the endless writing and rewriting of the findings - they go on for pages quoting case law and legislation thats just irrelevant - all that is needed is guilty or not guilty, get on with it. I support anyone who moves us closer to Judge Dredd - perfect justice is summary. No messy loose ends that way. 5 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 7 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said: Yes, forming a defensible legal opinion to support the conviction (or not) of a person involved (or not) in the wrongful (or not) death of 5 individuals should be a rushed thing. Speed is of the essence. There shouldn't be any need to refer to precedence or consider the wider circumstances as set out in the Sentencing Act. No need to wade back through the volumes of evidence, cross referencing and untangling the various lines of the submissions from prosecution and defence. Really that stuff is just so much toilet paper. As for the endless writing and rewriting of the findings - they go on for pages quoting case law and legislation thats just irrelevant - all that is needed is guilty or not guilty, get on with it. I support anyone who moves us closer to Judge Dredd - perfect justice is summary. No messy loose ends that way. Fair enough. It just goes to show that it is absolutely not clear cut. I'd assume if the guy was stoned off his chops or drunk as a skunk they'd be able to form an opinion in 5mins or less. To the lay person (which I am, zero legal training or knowledge) needing 2 months to form an opinion (having already had the best legal minds in the country set it out word by word over 3 weeks) would indicate there is 'reasonable doubt' about any (possible) conviction. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waikiore 431 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 There may be a nominal fine, but he is still operating ...... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Psyche 684 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, K4309 said: Fair enough. It just goes to show that it is absolutely not clear cut. I'd assume if the guy was stoned off his chops or drunk as a skunk they'd be able to form an opinion in 5mins or less. To the lay person (which I am, zero legal training or knowledge) needing 2 months to form an opinion (having already had the best legal minds in the country set it out word by word over 3 weeks) would indicate there is 'reasonable doubt' about any (possible) conviction. Judges do not like their rulings to be appealed successfully and clear cut isn't a legal definition. The law can be extremely detailed in complex cases and every word or phrase needs careful consideration. This is not a criminal case but he is facing huge fines if found guilty. The Judge has to make a judgement on whether he is guilty of the charges and if so set a fine which if high enough could ruin him. He needs to send a deterrent message but also weigh up the harm to Goodhew, this is not a traffic fine. "Goodhew is charged by Maritime New Zealand with breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and in doing so, allegedly exposing individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine. His business, L and M Goodew Ltd, has been charged with a breach of the Maritime Transport Act in operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel by not having a current medical certificate at the time of the incident, which comes with a maximum penalty of a $100,000 fine. The business is also charged with exposing individuals to the risk of death or serious injury carrying a maximum penalty of $1.5 million" 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 40 minutes ago, Psyche said: Judges do not like their rulings to be appealed successfully and clear cut isn't a legal definition. The law can be extremely detailed in complex cases and every word or phrase needs careful consideration. This is not a criminal case but he is facing huge fines if found guilty. The Judge has to make a judgement on whether he is guilty of the charges and if so set a fine which if high enough could ruin him. He needs to send a deterrent message but also weigh up the harm to Goodhew, this is not a traffic fine. "Goodhew is charged by Maritime New Zealand with breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and in doing so, allegedly exposing individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine. His business, L and M Goodew Ltd, has been charged with a breach of the Maritime Transport Act in operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel by not having a current medical certificate at the time of the incident, which comes with a maximum penalty of a $100,000 fine. The business is also charged with exposing individuals to the risk of death or serious injury carrying a maximum penalty of $1.5 million" All but one of those charges were dropped before the trial. Including the one with the $1.5million maximum penalty. It would be handy to keep up with what charges he is actually facing... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Because it turns out Maritime NZ's key witness was lying, and was out fishing all day when they said the weather was too bad to go out: Maritime NZ prosecutor Sam McMullan said he had "narrowed the particulars he was relying on for a guilty verdict". He said if, for a guilty verdict he must prove Lance Goodhew could've foreseen at 1:30pm when he left on the journey home that a giant 10-metre wave was likely later that night, then on that basis alone its case is "weak." Judge retires in Enchanter trial, asked to weigh up 'utterly extraordinary and unpredictable event' | Newshub Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Interesting story here on penalities for grossly unsafe operation of a boat. 250hrs community service. Admittedly no-one died in this example, but that was by good luck than good management. The skipper clinging desperately to a sunk boat with waves crashing over him, in the dark, in a remote corner of NZ. The skipper was facing a $5,000 fine, but that was set aside as he has no income, is on a benefit, has $9,000 in outstanding fines, owes IRD $23,000 and has a loan of $9,000 on top of all of that. The skipper ran the boat aground on Fairwell Spit having fallen asleep. Moreso, he sailed without the minimum number of crew, which was two. And for some random reason, was in the complete wrong area. The boat being based out of Greymouth and apparently limited to an area between Jacksons Bay and Karamea. The owner cannot understand why the boat went to Nelson and thus needed to transit Fairwell Spit at all. So anyway, a complete clown breaks a number of rules, completely ignores good seamanship, and gets 250 hrs community service. I guess IF Goodhew gets convicted, he actually has assets and money so will face a far greater penalty than this womble. Retired man's life savings sunk with fishing boat after grounding on Farewell Spit | RNZ News Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waikiore 431 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Not a passenger carrying vessel. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cameron 90 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I think making everyone wait for 2 months is used by many organisations to make themselves more important / justify high fees or pay etc! Councils are great at using this tactic. It's true the judge has numerous things to consider and you want decisions that stand up to appeal etc but how much time over the 2 month period will he actually put into the decision? By setting a time when the decision will be announced before the decision has been made/written up will inevitably result in delays as extra time gets built in as a safety margin. Maybe a better system is the Judge goes away and considers all factors and makes his decision then sets a time it will be announced at the earliest opportunity? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aardvarkash10 1,034 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 49 minutes ago, Cameron said: I think making everyone wait for 2 months is used by many organisations to make themselves more important / justify high fees or pay etc! Councils are great at using this tactic. It's true the judge has numerous things to consider and you want decisions that stand up to appeal etc but how much time over the 2 month period will he actually put into the decision? By setting a time when the decision will be announced before the decision has been made/written up will inevitably result in delays as extra time gets built in as a safety margin. Maybe a better system is the Judge goes away and considers all factors and makes his decision then sets a time it will be announced at the earliest opportunity? Builders too. And plumbers ime. I'm still waiting for a cabby to come back and adjust some cupboards two years after they were fitted. We never saw the joinery firm that fitted the sliding doors without a header. They all claimed that they had other jobs on - I'm picking its the same with judges. We know courts and the judiciary are underfunded for the workload and we have voted in a new team who want ot increase that workload - perhaps its just a case that we (society) has decided we can't afford more timely justice? The thinking behind giving a date for the decision is tht it reduces uncertainty for everyone. Including (or especially) the defendant. I think that is more reasonable than having some undefined period of time during which the defendant can't really move forward. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K4309 320 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 3 hours ago, waikiore said: Not a passenger carrying vessel. I didn't realise the H&S at work Act, nor the Maritime Transport Act only applied to passenger carrying vessels. Serious question, does Maritime NZ not have jurisdiction over commercial vessels that don't carry passengers? Life was put in grave danger by the actions of the skipper... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 666 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 37 minutes ago, K4309 said: I didn't realise the H&S at work Act, nor the Maritime Transport Act only applied to passenger carrying vessels. It doesnt,it relates to any private/commercial/passenger or non passenger/fishing vessels etc Part of MNZ and over rules any club/ynz etc 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.