Criminalisation of Seafarers

There have been numerous case of arrrest of ship masters, Erika, Dec 1999, Prsetige, Nov 2002, Tasman Spirit July 2003, Hebei Spirit, Dec 2007, to name a few.

Maritime accidents were previously investigated by traditional maritime inquiries (ie, in local courts with one judge and two expert assessors). The inquiry conducted a general examination of the accident and its causes and considered safety issues and the allocation of civil and criminal liability. The questioning of witnesses would usually be conducted by a maritime inspector with experience as a master on merchant vessels.

It is the EU's belief that in order to strengthen the protection of the environment, especially that of the seas, stiffer sanctions must be introduced in the form of criminal law. The term "serious negligence" is vague, subjective and ill defined. It is a fundamental principle that criminal law must be clear and specific. Thus, the term "serious negligence" is legally defective and inconsistent with the global regime. It is imprecise, subjective and lacks clarity and will therefore be most prejudicial to the accused in the climate of public sentiment commonly experienced after a pollution incident.

Changing  employment  conditions  place  less responsibility on the Shipowner to assist a Seafarer who works onboard his vessel under short term contract and is not in his regular employ. If his problem with the Law is connected with his work  onboard  the  Shipowner  has  to  assist  him  as  it  involves  his  ship.  But  in  situations physically and legally unconnected with his work he may be left to his own devices without any support from the Shipowner. An Internationally practicable solution has to be found to effectively and promptly assist Seafarers in time of need while in a foreign country. One way of solving the problem would be for IMO to persuade the International Group of P&I Associations to include a Mandatory Legal Assistance Cover for all bonafide Seafarers serving onboard a vessel anywhere in the world. This should  be  a  Precondition  to  entering  a  Vessel  in  one  of  the  P&I  Clubs  without leaving the Shipowner any choice. This  would  neither  involve  the  Government  of  any  country  nor  conflict  with  its  laws  or Sovereign Rights. It would obviate the necessity for an International Convention which is a time consuming and cumbersome procedure and not the best way to solve such problems. It would ensure that Seafarers have legal cover and protection in any country in the world in accordance with  its  Sovereign  laws,  without taking into consideration whether his offence is of a civil or criminal nature and whether it is connected with his work on the ship or not.This would bring Seafarers at par with other nationals of THAT country in such matters.

The majority of the world’s trade is carried by sea, and the safe, secure, efficient and effective operation of maritime transport is critical to global prosperity. Most of this cargo is carried safely and efficiently in high quality ships crewed by well-qualified professionals and managed in compliance with the international conventions.

Yet, as a consequence of the actions of the relatively few who choose to avoid their responsibilities, those who crew the ships and move the cargoes are often viewed with suspicion and contempt. These attitudes severely impact on the industry’s ability to attract and retain personnel. Its workforce is regularly villified, criminalised and portrayed as socially irresponsible. Not surprisingly the industry has little attraction for job seekers.

This, coupled with the growing threat of piracy and armed robbery attacks, is leading to a crisis for the retention of skills and the stability of long-term labour supply; given the long lead-time to qualify a senior officer.
The seafarer is an easy target, a person with no political or economic status, a ready scapegoat. A fully transparent system would enable responsibility to be sheeted home to the real culprits, the owners and operators who wilfully decide to run sub-standard ships and avoid their responsibilities. The current system provides fertile ground for rogue manning agents, owners, operators and some administrations that are corrupt and exploitative.
More worrying is that such a system is not only open to abuses of personnel; it presents almost endless opportunities for lawlessness and terrorism. Many things have changed for the better; the involvement of Ports in the security system, closer scrutiny of charterers, better controls over certification, easier access to information on Flag State performance and moves to enhance construction standards are all positive moves to improve conditions.

Human Error - On Ships

Here is something brilliant I read by Jack Devanney :

“human error” is usually a code phrase for “blame the crew”. As we shall see, in many tanker casualties, the crew made one or more mistakes. Most investigations focus on these mistakes. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Crew errors are usually easy to recognize. Lousy design, lousy maintenance, lousy enforcement of the construction rules, and flaws in the rules themselves tend to be much harder to identify, often requiring specialized technical knowledge. But we are all experts on human nature, especially when it comes to pointing out somebody else’s mistakes.

2. The writ of many investigating organizations is to identify only the most proximate causes. Most of the investigators themselves are or were operators. Operators are conditioned to accept the system as it is and deal with it as best they can. They naturally focus on operational problems.

3. But by far the most important reason to blame the crew is that it is an easy out. A crew screw-up means we don’t have to look into the culpability of the owner that provided the under-sized crew with a lousy, poorly maintained ship. We don’t have to look into the culpability of the yard that built the lousy ship. We don’t have to look into the culpability of the regulatory system which approved the lousy design and overlooked the lousy maintenance. Many of the so-called investigation reports are written by people who have

a big stake in blaming the crew. A Classification Society report will almost always exonerate the Classification Society. A Flag State report will invariably exonerate the Flag State. Neither want to upset their customers: the shipyards and the shipowners. That leaves the crew, who have little means for defending themselves.

One result of all this is that there is no section on “Systemic Factors” in the IMO synopsis. It probably never occurred to the IMO bureaucrats to put one in.

"Canada's new boating licence a national joke".....http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/680334

A Joke!!??
I would have not known if "Canada's new boating licence a national joke", had I not bothered to check out the online exam!!! I only made the effort to check this out as I was told that my qualification as Master Mariner was not acceptable for a position I had applied for, with Transport Canada. Instead I should have had this joke of a card which anyone could have sat on online, cheated and easily obtained. Why not make it easier for us to obtain other licences in a similar fashion, would save a lot of money all around.... there would be no need for maritime colleges, driving instructors and all of us could merrily pass online exams and get our licences. Infact why have an exam....all should take is for people to go online and claim to be proficient and that should suffice.