# Ship's Captain fined £,2000 At Brighton



## Lifeboat1721 (Mar 15, 2007)

I have just read an article in the National press where a Ships captain has been fined £,2000

He was collared in Newhaven Sussex after a drinking binge,

He has made Legal history as he has been charged under the Road Traffic Act, and there was No precedent as he was NOT in charge of the vessel at the time, And was charged under the drink drive laws of the UK.

He was fined £,2000 and jailed for 5 days which he spent in Lieu


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

Here's the story.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...per-fined-under-drinkdriving-laws-865059.html


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

I must admit I did a double take on this one and as previously stated there is no precedent recorded, however I have to disagree with lifeboat, If the Master is on board he is ultimatly "In charge" This is how I think it was done.

Charge; Drunk in charge of a Vehicle.

Vehicle; A means of Transport.

I admit it is a guess on my part, so if anybody knows different I would be interested to hear.


----------



## Pat Thompson (Jan 25, 2006)

Greetings,

I suspect that the law, in this case, was intoxicated with power and have, thus far, been allowed to indulge their own peculiar fantasies. Sadly we do not have a method of measuring such bureaucratic and legalistic interventions, it is time somebody invented the "Bullsh1tometer!

But this case, tragic init.

Aye

Pat Thompson

You can't get enough photo's of "O'Boats"


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

I suppose you can say at least he was stopped from sailing the ship and perhaps causing a serious accident or loss of life.

Chris.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

If the Master or his Solicitors do not appeal and have it overturned it then becomes "A Precident in Law" we await further developements on this one!! The Master can't have eat enough Nutmeg, unless his 1st Mate took charge of the vessel, "The Caine Mutiny" all over again, hopefully he did not pinch the balls out of a "good spare" bearing.

Santos, I think that was most probably the aim the Crown Pros Service who will have scoured the legislation just to try and hold him and prevent him from sailing on her in the interest of Safety as you rightly say.


----------



## Cisco (Jan 29, 2007)

Pat Thompson said:


> Greetings,
> 
> it is time somebody invented the "Bullsh1tometer!
> 
> ...


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

The law was changed a few years ago , it is now illegal to be in command of any vessel ( inland waterway to ULCC ) if you are over the car drink drive limit. There are only a very few exceptions where you will not get prosecuted being if you are living onboard a pleasure craft and do not have an engine running , I think for commercial it is assumed that officers on watch should be below the drink drive limit at all times. This Captain was intending sailing not long after he was boarded so was in no fit state to be in command.

I can't find the online reference to the change in the rules but will post it when I find it


----------



## notnila (Apr 26, 2006)

Did he"Log"himself when he got back aboard?


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

Why do HM Customs carry breathalysers? Is it to see if seamen are dutiable.
What other governmental agency personnel are allowed to carry them?


----------



## Basil (Feb 4, 2006)

*The Act*

Don't see why he was charged under the Road Traffic Act ??

Chapter and verse in Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030020_en_1

Part 4
Shipping: Alcohol and Drugs
81 Prescribed limit (1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is— 
(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, 
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and 
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

. . and think yourselves lucky - the limit for aviation pilots is only a quarter of the above (Pint)


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

As I indicated earlier I have never heard of it before and I have done two "Sessions" of Court Work, one over 40 years ago and the second 20 yrs ago, it appears a situation of "by hook or by crook we will stop this man sailing" was employed, if he wants to appeal later then that is up to him to sort it out.


----------



## hawkey01 (Mar 15, 2006)

I cannot see why we should get on our high horses about this. He was drunk in charge of a 17,000 vessel. He could have caused a major disaster sailing into the very busy channel. I am sure the mate or similar would have taken charge but who is to say. I am certainly no teetotaler but I never drink and drive. I used to but now never.
Plus we can see from Ian's post that the act has been in force since 2003. Maybe the press got the facts wrong and he was charged under the shipping act.

Hawkey01


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Giving further thought on the matter, It must be something to do with it being a Foreign Captain of a Foreign Ship. In regards to Customs Officers having breathalysers it is most probably to check as to whether it is drink or drugs based, if it is drugs based then the will most probably "Rummage" the ship. Looking at the Act quoted it appears to be "British" based. I agree hawkeye it was all done in the interests of Safety and rightly so.


----------



## Lifeboat1721 (Mar 15, 2007)

Marconi Sahib,
Thanks for finding the full story, I looked in the Sussex news and Brighton news but could not find it.

Ian


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Ian Haldane said:


> Don't see why he was charged under the Road Traffic Act ??
> 
> Chapter and verse in Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003
> 
> ...


Thanks for finding the reference Ian. I had read about this in a few of the yachting magazines and I think there was a bit about it in the Fishing News newspaper at the time but couldn't remember where to find the details.

As for this being a foreign captain on a foreign ship , well this act applies to ALL masters or anyone in command of any ship from what ever nationality so this is just the first prosecution as far as I know. This means that either checks are not being done on a regular basis or that the problems with drunken masters/watch officers are very few and far between.


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

All I am Trying to do Chaps is explore the reasons why he was charged under the Road Traffics Act rather than the Railways and Transport Act 2003 so I will go back to my previous view;
Drunk in charge of a Vehicle 
Vehicle; a form of Transport
I think that there may have been a number of Prosecutions under the Transport Act, mainly amongst Coaster Size Masters, but he is the first Master (recorded )under the Road Traffic Act in this particular way and it will be interesting if he Appeals and what the outcome is!! It is good to see that drunkeness is not a problem amongst "Senior" crew, It was not always the case, as a person who went "Contracting" it was very prevalent amongst Foreign Masters which is why some Foreign Companies always preferred a British Master and a British C.E. which kept me in work!!


----------



## joebuckham (Apr 1, 2005)

i think the paper had it wrong the torrent i remember is only 1700 tons. 

that`s no excuse however, he could have still done a lot of damage


----------



## John N MacDonald (Apr 1, 2008)

Can't see how he could have been charged under the Road Traffic Act because there is the definition of what is covered by this act and I'm sure the sea is not mentioned in the definition.
I will need to check up on that though.


----------



## monty (Jul 9, 2004)

*Drink Driving*

One of Klynes coastgard vessels ran aground on the west coast of Scotland. The Master was breathalised and found to be over the limit and was taken to court. I think he went to jail. There was some pollution. The tug was Anglian ?


----------



## John N MacDonald (Apr 1, 2008)

That was the Anglian Soveriegn which went aground off Shetland if I remember rightly.


----------



## Pilot mac (Jun 28, 2005)

Torrent is 999 grt. 

Dave


----------



## SHM 078 (Feb 11, 2007)

The full story as far as i can remember was in the local "Evening Argus"
This is quite local to me and the ship in question has docked locally in the past,

Marc


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

As far as I am now aware the Drunk Master refused to take the Breath Test but it still leaves the outstanding matter of under what Section was he charged with and more interestingly which Act? I am not defending this Master far from it I am just curious as to whether it really was under the Road Traffic Act ( or was that just a Newspaper Headline "hook") and If true what was the reason behind it when other Acts appear to be more suitable.


----------

