Will Korean judges contradict each other in looking for ways to cast blame on crew and owner of anchored VLCC, holed (resulting in oil spill) by run-away Samsung crane barge in strong winds and rough weather
December 10 is D-day for a judgement in the Appeal (by Samsung and the Korean Prosecutor’s office) against the ‘innocent’ ruling handed down by a Korean court back in June.
Since the first innocent ruling, the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal (IMST) has published its report, criticizing the Master and C/O of the Hebei Spirit
This is an official report which is not meant to apportion blame but to report on the cause of the collision and resultant oil spill, and to then comment on what can be done to prevent re-occurrence of similar situations in the future.
Despite this, 70percent of the report seems to be focused on finding fault with actions of the crew of the Hebei Spirit (the party found innocent last June), which had been anchored since the previous evening; before the Marine Spread tried to cross its bow, and one of tugs towing wires snapped, in dark and stormy conditions, just prior to dawn.
Very little comment was made regarding the navigation of the marine spread (MS)– why had it put to sea when the forecasted weather conditions exceeded those permitted for the MS to sail?
Why did the tugs masters decide to pass so dangerously close across the bows of the anchored Hebei Spirit
Why was the lead tug using an old crane luffing wire for a tow line, when it was unsuitable for this purpose?
Why was the tow line so short, and the towing arrangements improper?
Why were the Captains of the Samsung tugs not on the bridge (1 of them was in fact asleep till shortly before the collision)?
Why were the tugs not answering initial radio communications from both the Hebei Spirit and the local maritime authorities until shortly before the collision?
All points made in the original court hearings .. but glossed over in the official report by the IMST; especially seeing that Samsung was the party that had previously been found guilty of causing the collision.
In fact, the IMST report showed little interest in factual evidence, just a lot of unfounded assumptions and comments – including an opinion that the tanker and shipping industry as a whole would be horrified at; i.e. that the Master of the Hebei Spirit should have placed the safey of the environment above that of his crew and his ship.
Under international maritime regulations governed by the IMO (International Maritime Organisation), a branch of the United Nations, such a report is normal but is meant to be unbiased and sent to all parties for review and consultation prior to being released, normally after the legal process has been completed.
This did not happen in this instance – in fact the appeal documents lodged by both the Prosecutor’s office and Samsung’s legal team bore a very strong resemblance in points made and results reached - to the official report published by the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal, prior to commencement of the appeal hearings (which in itself is against IMO regulations).
While the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal has tried to distance themselves from this report, stating that the IMST is not the official Korean government body for such reports and is therefore not bound by IMO rules; on the website for the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal (KMST), the IMST is described as a branch of the KMST.
Convenient, yes. Co-incidence on the timing and rulings, just in time for the new Judge in charge of the Appeal to take into consideration, we doubt it.
We hope to have a copy of the IMST report shortly and will bring to the industry’s attention the so called “new evidence” upon which the decision on December 10th will be made.
Should the previous ‘innocent’ judgement be reversed – we believe the sentence will be implemented immediately – even while a further appeal is being lodged and heard – meaning the Master and C/O will commence any prison sentence imposed within the Judge’s decision handed down.
This is not the “level playing field” the shipping industry is looking for.
With the Samsung group of companies being responsible for some 26+ percent of Korea’s GDP we do not see that as sufficient reason for them to be sitting side by side with the Prosecutor’s office and the Hebei Spirit team on the other. We would have expected Samsung lawyers to be intent on their own defense of criminal charges they were found guilty of, as opposed to acting as the 2nd prosecuting team.
We hope that the Korean courts and maritime authorities will take such obvious biased behaviour as well as the non-factual assumptions made in the IMST , into account when handing down their decision on this appeal.
December 10 is D-day for a judgement in the Appeal (by Samsung and the Korean Prosecutor’s office) against the ‘innocent’ ruling handed down by a Korean court back in June.
Since the first innocent ruling, the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal (IMST) has published its report, criticizing the Master and C/O of the Hebei Spirit
This is an official report which is not meant to apportion blame but to report on the cause of the collision and resultant oil spill, and to then comment on what can be done to prevent re-occurrence of similar situations in the future.
Despite this, 70percent of the report seems to be focused on finding fault with actions of the crew of the Hebei Spirit (the party found innocent last June), which had been anchored since the previous evening; before the Marine Spread tried to cross its bow, and one of tugs towing wires snapped, in dark and stormy conditions, just prior to dawn.
Very little comment was made regarding the navigation of the marine spread (MS)– why had it put to sea when the forecasted weather conditions exceeded those permitted for the MS to sail?
Why did the tugs masters decide to pass so dangerously close across the bows of the anchored Hebei Spirit
Why was the lead tug using an old crane luffing wire for a tow line, when it was unsuitable for this purpose?
Why was the tow line so short, and the towing arrangements improper?
Why were the Captains of the Samsung tugs not on the bridge (1 of them was in fact asleep till shortly before the collision)?
Why were the tugs not answering initial radio communications from both the Hebei Spirit and the local maritime authorities until shortly before the collision?
All points made in the original court hearings .. but glossed over in the official report by the IMST; especially seeing that Samsung was the party that had previously been found guilty of causing the collision.
In fact, the IMST report showed little interest in factual evidence, just a lot of unfounded assumptions and comments – including an opinion that the tanker and shipping industry as a whole would be horrified at; i.e. that the Master of the Hebei Spirit should have placed the safey of the environment above that of his crew and his ship.
Under international maritime regulations governed by the IMO (International Maritime Organisation), a branch of the United Nations, such a report is normal but is meant to be unbiased and sent to all parties for review and consultation prior to being released, normally after the legal process has been completed.
This did not happen in this instance – in fact the appeal documents lodged by both the Prosecutor’s office and Samsung’s legal team bore a very strong resemblance in points made and results reached - to the official report published by the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal, prior to commencement of the appeal hearings (which in itself is against IMO regulations).
While the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal has tried to distance themselves from this report, stating that the IMST is not the official Korean government body for such reports and is therefore not bound by IMO rules; on the website for the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal (KMST), the IMST is described as a branch of the KMST.
Convenient, yes. Co-incidence on the timing and rulings, just in time for the new Judge in charge of the Appeal to take into consideration, we doubt it.
We hope to have a copy of the IMST report shortly and will bring to the industry’s attention the so called “new evidence” upon which the decision on December 10th will be made.
Should the previous ‘innocent’ judgement be reversed – we believe the sentence will be implemented immediately – even while a further appeal is being lodged and heard – meaning the Master and C/O will commence any prison sentence imposed within the Judge’s decision handed down.
This is not the “level playing field” the shipping industry is looking for.
With the Samsung group of companies being responsible for some 26+ percent of Korea’s GDP we do not see that as sufficient reason for them to be sitting side by side with the Prosecutor’s office and the Hebei Spirit team on the other. We would have expected Samsung lawyers to be intent on their own defense of criminal charges they were found guilty of, as opposed to acting as the 2nd prosecuting team.
We hope that the Korean courts and maritime authorities will take such obvious biased behaviour as well as the non-factual assumptions made in the IMST , into account when handing down their decision on this appeal.
Posts
The whole effort of Samsung HI is for commercial benefit. There are huge claims filed in Korea by millions of those affected by the pollution. Samsung knows that they have a huge price to pay. They need the ship's owner covered by a big P&I policy to absorb all or part of their liability. To achieve this, the Master and Chief Officer are the scape goats. Only if the prosecutor, ably assisted by Samsung, proves these poor officers guilty and incarcerate them behind bars can they take the next step of making the ship owner and insurers to pay for this massive liability.
ReplyDeleteThis is a text book case of criminalisation of the innocent seafarer to achieve the financial objectives of a huge industrial house. It is a war of Money power against conscience, of state power against individual rights.
WE NEED TO PLACE OUR FAITH IN THE SOUTH KOREAN JUDGES. I AM SURE THEY WILL DELIVER JUSTICE AND SEND OUR INNOCENT SEAFARERS HOME WITH ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR THEIR ONE YEARS DETENTION AND MENTAL AGONY.
IF HOWEVER THE S.KOREAN LEGAL SYSTEM FAILS US, THEN FIGHT WE MUST, FIGHT WE WILL, AND THIS WILL NOT STOP UNTIL OUR SEAFARERS GET BACK HOME. WE NEED TO MAKE KOREAN INDUSTRY FEEL THE POWER OF AN INJURED INNOCENT HARDWORKING COMMUNITY. FOR A START, WE NEED TO GET THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL TV AND PRESS MEDIA TO HIGHLIGHT THIS INJUSTICE. WE THEN NEED TO TAKE THE ASSISTANCE OF INDIAN DOCK WORKERS UNION AND ITF TO BLOCK ENTRY OF SOUTH KOREAN SHIPS INTO PORTS IN INDIA AND AROUND THE WORLD. ALL INDIAN SEAFARERS WITH SELF RESPECT SHOULD REFUSE TO SAIL ON VESSELS WITH SOUTH KOREAN OWNERSHIP. TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE THEM REALIZE THE PAIN AND FURY OF AN INJURED TIGER.