# Prestige Master convicted.



## John Briggs (Feb 12, 2006)

He now has a criminal conviction and has to serve time in jail.
Glad I came ashore many years ago.

http://maritime-executive.com/article/prestige-captain-convicted-of-recklessness


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Convicted because in their quest for a scapegoat the Spanish government didn't like the original "not guilty" verdict.
The poor bloke spent years in prison before even being charged with a crime. I think he's in his 80s now.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Don't they have "Double Jeopardy" in Spain? Can they just keep trying you until they get the result they want? 

Mind you, I just found this for South Africa:

"The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction."

Over to you, Oscar Pistoffalot.

John T


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

They were only delaying the trial for so long in the hope that the public would, as it seems to have done, forget the attempt by the Spanish State to murder Prestige's entire ship's company (as evidenced by the commanding of the rescue services in such a manner that only mentally challenged might not appreciate the likelihood of a fatal outcome - not to mention the probability of pollution).

At one time it did appear this formerly competent seafaring nation did have some conscience in the matter as the executive in charge at the time soon wasn't.

However, if we compare the British performances with Napoli (excellent) and MSC Flaminia (certainly not as good) one might conclude that we have been further written out of the equation with ars-covering replacing that expression.

For Flaminia we have to accept that the issue was, by then, a matter only of pollution and hardware the staff having been rescued (not without casualties and one? fatality). It did seem, 'though, that the authorities were playing handies to see who would be left with the pollution rather than trying to avoid that outcome (which was avoided but more by accident than design).

Capt. Mangouras must certainly have known that his vessel was not the most seaworthy of its kind. Still, more a Master than the ****holes that denied Prestige refuge, the least likely option to avoid pollution per se. With the added advantage (albeit of no popular consequence) of being the least hazardous to the ship's company.

As it was the action taken was the most likely to result in the ships loss along with her crew and was obviously so, ergo Gross Negligence. That is what makes the difference between manslaughter (perhaps accident, depending on the claimed competence of those concerned) and murder.


----------



## Chris Isaac (Jul 29, 2006)

trotterdotpom said:


> Don't they have "Double Jeopardy" in Spain? Can they just keep trying you until they get the result they want?
> 
> Mind you, I just found this for South Africa:
> 
> ...


Fine but the charge is now murder not manslaughter. So double jeopardy does not apply.


----------



## trotterdotpom (Apr 29, 2005)

Chris Isaac said:


> Fine but the charge is now murder not manslaughter. So double jeopardy does not apply.


Right , I forgot that - the "Go back to Gaol Free Clause".

John T


----------



## G0SLP (Sep 4, 2007)

Regarding "Prestiege", I've seen it reported elsewhere yesterday that the authorities are now claiming that the ship was overloaded by some 2000 tonnes. I'm pretty sure that this was never mentioned before. If true, it would surely have been raised before now?

In any case, this whole thing is utterly shameful. Regardless of the above, even if proved to be true, the ship requested a port of refuge; this was refused by the authorities, who have never been properly brought to account.


----------



## Basil (Feb 4, 2006)

IF she was overloaded by 2000T that is only about 2.5% but, in her condition, perhaps material to the rupture of the hull.

I wonder if the owners claimed on her insurance and if that would give a pointer to her true owners?


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

I believe that Rajoy was the minister in charge of this incident. He is now in a political quagmire, being Prime Minister of a party that has no majority. There are so many corruption scandals attached to his party, at present, that nothing that anyone does surprises me. So, there seems to me to be a typical political "kick it under the carpet " approach to this.

My personal opinion is that the Port Captain acted correctly in not letting that ship into port. She was breaking up with all that cargo of oil and the best place for her was the Atlantic. Imagine the mess she could have caused in the El Ferrol area!

The captain knew what condition his ship was in. The 2000 overloaded tons, I'm not sure about but, if true, he had to know about that, too.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Whilst your opinions seems to chime with that of the public, sod the sailors if there's a risk of environmental damage, I am somewhat relieved to see you are retired and unlikely to seek an executive post in Marine Rescue.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Sorry, Varley, I have sympathy for the Master, but it was his fault. He took the job when the previous Master resigned because the owners would not carry out the needed repairs. I have long passed the stage when I excuse people, just because I am one of the profession.


----------



## Chris Isaac (Jul 29, 2006)

I also must agree with Split but I do not agree with the "sod the sailors" remark. I am sure the Port Captain would have done evrything to rescue the crew but the ship itself is of no such importance.
I have spent time on a sinking ship and we were not granted access to any nearby port nor to the Suez Canal and I would have no quarrel with any of those decisions. To risk closing a port or rendering it useless would have profound economic consequences for many of the local population.
I am sure the captain knew he was overloaded and one has to ask what effect on the hull did this extra 2000 tonnes have?


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Split said:


> Sorry, Varley, I have sympathy for the Master, but it was his fault. He took the job when the previous Master resigned because the owners would not carry out the needed repairs. I have long passed the stage when I excuse people, just because I am one of the profession.


And so, had it not been the master's 'fault', condemning her to almost certain loss would still have been justified? I fail to both agree and to understand - murdering someone is OK because they aren't competent? (or more likely because they did not stand up to the owner - who did?).

I have accepted that the Master was not without sin, but the greater sin was in failing to offer succor.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Chris Isaac said:


> I also must agree with Split but I do not agree with the "sod the sailors" remark. I am sure the Port Captain would have done evrything to rescue the crew but the ship itself is of no such importance.
> I have spent time on a sinking ship and we were not granted access to any nearby port nor to the Suez Canal and I would have no quarrel with any of those decisions. To risk closing a port or rendering it useless would have profound economic consequences for many of the local population.
> I am sure the captain knew he was overloaded and one has to ask what effect on the hull did this extra 2000 tonnes have?


But he did not. Basil has calculated the overload as 2.5%. I would guess well within Class contingencies for a sound hull (which, of course, we assume this wasn't but that is not the issue. It would have been less difficult to challenge, too, had she been brought safely alongside. As is, arguably, the least unlikely'what-if').


----------



## skipni (Dec 24, 2013)

2,000 mt over laoded, using the TPC for a simular sized ship, I think being 30cm deeper in the water would have been noticed.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Varley said:


> And so, had it not been the master's 'fault', condemning her to almost certain loss would still have been justified? I fail to both agree and to understand - murdering someone is OK because they aren't competent? (or more likely because they did not stand up to the owner - who did?).
> 
> I have accepted that the Master was not without sin, but the greater sin was in failing to offer succor.


For Heaven's sake, stop exaggerating. Who was murdered and who was incompetent? He took the job of Master knowing the condition that ship was in. The previous Master resigned. That's, really, all there is to it. 

Once in command, he had problems and tried to save his ship by going into a Spanish port. The Spanish authorities refused. France and Portugal, also, refused. The British government was not asked. If they had been, what would the answer have been?

The times have passed when giant oil tankers, leaking 70,000 tons of oil can go into the nearest port for help. They have a dangerous cargo so they should stay away from land. However, he was the Turk's Head, I agree to that. I hope that he was paid a decent salary, otherwise he was a fool, as well.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Bearing in mind the man was almost 70 when the incident occurred, I'd be surprised if he was there having chosen that ship/company from a surfeit of opportunities.
The other issue is he was found not guilty, however in their desire for a scapegoat the Spanish government didn't like the verdict and so had another go until they got the one they wanted.
This incident also caused widespread pollution over a large area of the Biscay coast (thousands of kilometres) - something that could have been avoided if the vessel had been granted a port of refuge as any incident would have then been far more localised.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

James_C said:


> Bearing in mind the man was almost 70 when the incident occurred, I'd be surprised if he was there having chosen that ship/company from a surfeit of opportunities.
> The other issue is he was found not guilty, however in their desire for a scapegoat the Spanish government didn't like the verdict and so had another go until they got the one they wanted.
> This incident also caused widespread pollution over a large area of the Biscay coast (thousands of kilometres) - something that could have been avoided if the vessel had been granted a port of refuge as any incident would have then been far more localised.


I admit that this was a political issue. This was a bigger disaster than the Alaskan spill. There is not a country in the world where this would not have been a political nightmare. 

Apart from that, though, there is a moral issue to this and the results of it all are rarely seen by seafarers, unless they live on the coast unfortunate enough to get the oil. The victims-landowners , fishermen and their employers, the cannng industry, all wanted blood and the Master of this ship was the only one available.

With due respect, whether this tragedy could have been avoided if the ship had been given refuge is not proven and, in any case, is hindsight. Prestige could have broken up at any time and the problem made much worse. The decisions and events taken by the authorities had to be taken then, not now. and it is not easy, as any shipmaster will verify.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

No one was murdered. It was only competent attempt at the act. The decision to deny refuge clearly had a high risk of fatal consequences. Clear, unarguably clear! My point you want to dodge is that you seem to consider only giving refuge to impeccably run oil free tonnage is what the Marine Rescue conventions are about. The clue is in the name Rescue. It is up to others to determine seaworthiness and competence. 

You also want to dodge the clear possibility (and I agree that the actual probability remains unknown) that there would have been no pollution at all if she had been given refuge.

I am afraid this is simply repeating the conversation we had last time it hit the news.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Was the crew rescued without loss of life? I've looked all over and that one point escapes me- I believe that they were all taken off. 

Whatever personal opinions are about the case,all the photos are available on Google (Images Prestige Disaster Spain). A picture is worth a thousand words.

Most of the workers in the clean-up operation were unpaid, BTW.


----------



## Basil (Feb 4, 2006)

skipni said:


> I think being 30cm deeper in the water would have been noticed


Without resorting to calculation I hadn't realised it would be that much.


----------

