Follow on Google News News By Tag Industry News News By Place Country(s) Industry News
Follow on Google News | Obdurate opposition from Crown Law & Maritime NZA Rehearing to clarify the facts of the case would be interesting in a competent Forum.
By: www.maritimenz.com In their submissions Crown Law say on behalf of MNZ that “Bolton was urged to seek legal representation, chose not to do so & seeks to reopen the hearing only after the release of an adverse determination of the charges.” ------------------------------------------------------------ MNZ & Crown Law had both been informed by Bolton that he had assessed M Pigneguy’s claim & prosecution documents with Nautically competent Queens Counsel & other Navigational authorities – his evidence was valid & well prepared. There was no reason that his evidence would be insufficient on a factual basis. Obviously Bolton was only interested in having a Rehearing because of the adverse decision from Judge Davis who unfortunately chose what he thought should be a safe choice to go along with the fiction fed to him by the prosecution Judge Davis had asked at the hearing whose “science” should he adopt & Bolton responded that he would be better off if Mr Young’s “science” was rejected. “I thought he was to be an independent witness & would be helpful, but unfortunately I wasted my time.” Judge Davis would not expect the prosecution witnesses to be leading him astray with fabrications, distortions of the truth & false interpretations of Maritime Collision Prevention Rules. Bolton was not prepared to be facing such dishonesty either. It’s called Perjury, Perverting the Course of Justice & Misleading the Court – something Crown Law is obviously wanting to hide & the boating public is been denied true Maritime determination. End
Account Email Address Account Phone Number Disclaimer Report Abuse
|
|