|
Post by gordon on Apr 5, 2011 16:42:33 GMT -8
Thanks For The info.
|
|
|
Post by swartzbaydreaming on Jul 18, 2011 20:58:05 GMT -8
Wow, several years later and I still think of the Queen of the North. It is hard to imagine her on the sea floor. I think I will choose to remember her as a kid the first time I saw her as she headed to Deas. Something you don't forget, great lines for a ferry and the sweet old pastel blue and dogwood!
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 5, 2011 6:42:18 GMT -8
Here is a view of the QotN's successor, the Northern Expedition, southbound in Wright Sound. In the background is the shoreline of Gil Island at Juan Point. On the shoreline, just above the rocks and ahead of the ship's bow, you can just barely make out some markers... 3 August 2011. From the JST Flickr photo site ©
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 5, 2011 7:15:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 6, 2011 20:01:28 GMT -8
Juan Point shoreline, Gil Island, with markers for the couple (Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette) that were lost with the sinking of the Queen of the North on 22 March 2006 [photo © JST - 2 August 2011] From the JST Flickr photo site ©
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Sept 24, 2011 9:16:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 24, 2011 22:05:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 17, 2011 13:50:32 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Jan 4, 2012 23:17:35 GMT -8
In the January edition of Western Mariner, maritime law expert Darren Williams analyzes the November BC Court of Appeals ruling that found BC Ferries was in the right in dismissing Colin Henthorne, master of Queen of The North the night it sank off Gil Island. In the article titled, 'Must the Captain Always Go Down with the Ship?', Williams says, "In essence, the Court confirmed that, while the captain need not physically perish with his ship, he must always take ultimate responsibility for the happenings of his ship, whether they are within his control or not."
The Court found that it was not Henthorne's conduct at the time of the accident, but his attitude and compliance in assisting the inquiry afterwards that occasioned his dismissal.
Worth a read, if you can pick the magazine up.
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Jan 6, 2012 0:04:59 GMT -8
If I recall my ISM training, one of the core values is to not lay blame at the first convenient door step but to locate the root cause of the problem.
Look up at the Herald of Free Enterprise, in that case the investigators didn't stop at the persons responsible for closing the bow doors. They looked a little further into the complete ferry company operations.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 22, 2012 6:27:58 GMT -8
Can someone refresh my memory as to whether trials are still pending for Karen Bricker and at least one other ' North officer? I don't recall hearing of a resolution of those actions. If they are still ahead, it's another example of the ridiculously glacial pace of Canadian 'justice'. Or maybe I just forgot. I did a Google search on the names "Karen Bricker" and on "Karl Lilgert" and the most recent news item was a 2010 Globe & Mail article that Karl was finally charged and was expected to plead not-guilty. I don't think the legal items for Bricker & Lilgert have been resolved yet. - And those two characters central to the grounding have not yet explained (to the victims' families) what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 22, 2012 6:56:28 GMT -8
If this doesn't come to trial soon or resolved another way, it is quite likely the case against Karl will be thrown out. The backlog in the courts is serious, particularly in BC, but there may be other legal issues still simmering with the case. At some point charges have to be withdrawn or the case dismissed, and I would think that would be within a year.
Additional civil cases could still be launched, as they often wait for the resolution of a criminal case.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 22, 2012 9:20:26 GMT -8
There was never ever any instance of equipment nor procedural malfunction. There was a problem with some new equipment installed in the off-season refit of 2005/2006 year. - Or at least the bridge-crew didn't know how to dim a too-bright monitor, and so instead they turned it off and didn't use it.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Mar 22, 2012 9:41:56 GMT -8
A lady of the waters was murdered by insideous and incompetent handling by those who were trusted to keep her trim and sailing with the pride she conveyed. Perfect example of why a proper trial is necessary; the court of public opinion is governed by generalized inflammatory language that doesn't need to be supported by evidence, since nothing is at stake other than the opinions of the speaker. There were indeed mitigating circumstances that may have affected the level of culpability of the people concerned, and we've been over that a number of times. If six years isn't time enough to build a case for negligence or other wrong doing, any outstanding charges or investigations should be dropped and the suspected parties should be allowed to get on with their lives.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 22, 2012 10:59:16 GMT -8
Charges by a Crown Prosecutor can be laid, but there would have to be definitive evidence of an offence against a statuatory Act or other in order for said charges to stick. Crown Prosecutors are wary of laying charges with insufficient and evidencial facts that can be definitively proven in court. Statute of Limitations does come into the picture as noted. Paul - 1. stop trying to write like a lawyer; 2. as a result of the verbose nature of your post I am confused as to what you are actually trying to say. A charge was laid, so why the rant about requirements of the Crown? and; 3. there is no statute of limitations for serious offences in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Mar 22, 2012 11:12:51 GMT -8
Charges by a Crown Prosecutor can be laid, but there would have to be definitive evidence of an offence against a statuatory Act or other in order for said charges to stick. Crown Prosecutors are wary of laying charges with insufficient and evidencial facts that can be definitively proven in court. Statute of Limitations does come into the picture as noted. Paul - 1. stop trying to write like a lawyer; 2. as a result of the verbose nature of your post I am confused as to what you are actually trying to say. A charge was laid, so why the rant about requirements of the Crown? and; 3. there is no statute of limitations for serious offences in Canada. Translated to English: "Charges can be laid, but you gotta have actually broken the law and have evidence of that for those charges to stick. Prosecutors don't like to lay charges unless they have solid facts that can be proven in court." ;D And that statute of limitations slur at the end makes no sense.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Mar 22, 2012 12:29:56 GMT -8
:)this melancoly marine tragedy is one which never will escape my memory, but every time I see the slugs on her funnel, I can't help but feel she went to her watery grave not wanting to wear such a hedious livery! mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 22, 2012 12:55:56 GMT -8
Would like to see cite (court docket number) of current charges being heard in court, that is a cite of preliminary hearing. There hasn't been any earth shaking court actions in media in about a year other than the petition of appeal by the crew member Appellant seeking to re-establish his employment with BC Ferries being dismissed, so the original decision made by BC Ferries that he was fired for his role stands by judicial decision. So, in English, you agree with everything I said, and have the same question as Neil. It would be interesting to see why this charge does not seem to have gone anywhere? It almost assuredly is not because of case volume, because of the seriousness of any homicide accusation and the public interest it likely would not sit around for a long time without cause.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Mar 22, 2012 13:23:04 GMT -8
Would like to see cite (court docket number) of current charges being heard in court, that is a cite of preliminary hearing. There hasn't been any earth shaking court actions in media in about a year other than the petition of appeal by the crew member Appellant seeking to re-establish his employment with BC Ferries being dismissed, so the original decision made by BC Ferries that he was fired for his role stands by judicial decision. So, in English, you agree with everything I said, and have the same question as Neil. It would be interesting to see why this charge does not seem to have gone anywhere? It almost assuredly is not because of case volume, because of the seriousness of any homicide accusation and the public interest it likely would not sit around for a long time without cause. Paul was mistaken in his earlier statement that "the courts had dealt with the incident", and I was mistaken when I said it had taken them six years to examine the case. The timeline, so far: Sinking: March 22, 2006. Case sent to Crown: February 2008. Charges laid against Karl Lilgert: March 2010. Lilgert's preliminary hearing: May 2011. Jury trial expected: Late 2012. Prosecutors have stated no one else will be charged. Still, the pace of proceedings is astonishing. Down south, Americans have in recent years prosecuted a large number of white collar criminals in very complex, involved cases regarding corporate law and have examined, tried, and concluded prosecution in far less time than it takes Canadian officials to figure out what happened between a few individuals over the course of a few minutes on the bridge of a ferry. Were people not paying attention, were they looking out the window, were they properly trained, was navigation equipment working properly? Hmmh... let's not jump to any conclusions... gotta take at least four years to determine if somebody might have been culpable. Meanwhile, families of the two victims have to have a sense of being let down by the justice system, and Karl Lilgert, quite possibly innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, has had this hanging over his head for six years. What a dreadful system. It's not serving anyone very well right now. And it doesn't look like we'll ever get a proper inquiry into all the circumstances around the sinking.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Mar 22, 2012 15:24:56 GMT -8
This is supposed to be a thread in memoriam to the victims and the actual sinking, not a presentation of defence in favour of Ligert, the Defendant. From the heading of this thread as well as the body of posts in it, I don't see any such limitations to the scope of discussion. Since the beginning, people have commented, fairly and unfairly, on the role of the participants, and I do not have a clue how you can discuss this incident without refering to the role of the crew. Since pretty much my first post on the topic I've advocated against blanket condemnations of the crew involved, before all the court and inquiry proceedings are concluded. You've chosen to be pretty firm in your assignation of blame, which doesn't quite square with telling the rest of us to wait for the court's verdict.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 22, 2012 16:13:36 GMT -8
A basic principal of our law is that those charged with a criminal offense are innocent until proven guilty . Why, because they just might be innocent, or there is insufficient proof to convict.
The sinking of the Queen of the North was due to many factors. To just simply lay all of the blame at the feet of two crew members is, in my opinion, a bit much.
One piece of the pie that I have never heard an explanation for is: Why was there only one licensed officer on duty 'conning' the ship? It is my understanding that the female deck hand present was not licensed. The other officer of the watch was away on a meal break. Was it (Is it) normal practice for BC Ferries to leave a major vessel to be conned by just one licensed crew member?
Furthermore, about all that fancy electronic navigational aid equipment - was it on or off? If it was in use why were there no audible 'off course' alarms. BC Ferries sacked the ship's captain even though he had only been promoted to that rank just weeks earlier, and he was off duty sleeping in his quarters at the time of the grounding.
In my mind BC Ferries, as an organization, and probably the union too, has gotten off pretty much blameless in this affair, and to me that appears wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Mar 23, 2012 0:33:17 GMT -8
Issues aside: Here's a photo I took on the morning of March 22nd, 2012 of the ship that was initially purchased to cover in place of the Queen of the North, the Northern Adventure. This is taken from the Coast Guard Warf at Port Hardy, looking across at Bear Cove Terminal at Sunrise. It had just been snowing just before daybreak. RIP Queen of the North
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 9, 2013 14:28:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jan 10, 2013 7:21:40 GMT -8
We still do not know exactly was happening on the bridge of the Qof T N at the time the time the fatal error was made but it seems obvious that the defendant was not paying the necessary amount of attention that he should have been. hopefully the 6month case will bring all pertinent information in to the public domain.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 17, 2013 19:01:11 GMT -8
|
|