• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Loss of Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
12,322
Points
1,360
With what justification, SKT? 🤨
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,160
Admiralty Courts are weird places. When WIN got hit (while minding it’s own business while tied up alongside) in Esquimalt harbour by an American fishing trawler that lost control on it’s way to the Graving Dock, the Admiralty Court still assessed a small part of the blame to her.

Not disputing that Admiralty Courts may be weird places, however the "Admiralty Court" in HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. THE SHIP "AMERICAN DYNASTY" AND OTHERS did not render any decision as the suit was withdrawn when the owners of American Dynasty settled with Canada for a reported sum of $3.1 million.

The TSB report on the collision. Marine Investigation Report M13W0057 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

A search of court files for the Federal Court of Canada (which performs the function of Admiralty Courts in Canada) using the court number T-2482-14, ship name "American Dynasty" or party name "American Seafoods" provides a list of documents and actions.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
17,923
Points
1,160
It will be interesting to see how the Officer of the Watch defines their innocence in this particular case.


Maybe he was busy forward.... ;)


titanic kate winslet GIF
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,785
Points
1,090
It will be interesting to see how the Officer of the Watch defines their innocence in this particular case.

If there was ever a case of "Shut the heck up & let your lawyer do the talking..." this would be it 😬
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
694
Points
910
He is being prosecuted. That is a criminal trial and the criminal negligence test, not the tort of negligence that makes you liable to pay compensatory damages, is what is at issue.

The criminal test is more demanding on the prosecution. There has to be proof of criminal intent or of such level of carelessness as to amount to an absence of care for any resulting consequences of one's reckless actions. Simply failing to pay attention, or being distracted or failing to notice a developing situation you ought to have noticed, etc. does not necessarily constitute criminal negligence (far from it), else most car accidents would result in prosecution. Only the more callous ones attract such criminal attention.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
6,405
Points
1,160
He is being prosecuted. That is a criminal trial and the criminal negligence test, not the tort of negligence that makes you liable to pay compensatory damages, is what is at issue.

The criminal test is more demanding on the prosecution. There has to be proof of criminal intent or of such level of carelessness as to amount to an absence of care for any resulting consequences of one's reckless actions. Simply failing to pay attention, or being distracted or failing to notice a developing situation you ought to have noticed, etc. does not necessarily constitute criminal negligence (far from it), else most car accidents would result in prosecution. Only the more callous ones attract such criminal attention.
Norway uses a Nordic version of Civil Law, does that still apply in this case?
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
694
Points
910
Colin, in all countries, even those with Civil Law, criminal matters are dealt with separately. By definition, Civil law is the law that applies between people in their relations to one another. It is just as distinct as common law in the various Canadian provinces is distinct and separate from criminal or penal laws.
 
Top