The appeal case went to the Court of Appeal this autumn. 18 days with 23 witnesses who have once again explained themselves in court, just over half a year after the warden was found guilty in the district court and sentenced to 60 days’ probation. On Wednesday, the verdict came in the Court of Appeal: The warden was sentenced to 60 days in prison. – The public prosecutor’s office hopes that with this unanimous and thorough judgment we can now put an end to the criminal law case, state prosecutors Magne Kvamme Sylta and Benedikte Høgseth write in a press release. In the judgment, the Court of Appeal is clear that the defendant should be sentenced in line with the indictment, and that he should have intervened much earlier to avoid a collision. They still find a certain degree of excuse since the Sola TS went forward with deck lighting. Nevertheless, the court believes that the commander of the watch should have taken into account that not all ships behave in the same way. “In this case, Sola TS’s behavior was not surprising, but stable and visible to the defendant over a long period of time. The defendant received several signals that something was wrong, even in the form of his own admission. He had immediate access to several alternative effective navigational aids which, with basic use, would have clarified the misconception. The defendant can clearly be blamed to such an extent that there is a basis for criminal liability for negligent navigation,” the judgment says. The convicted warden was wearing a uniform when the case against him went to the Court of Appeal earlier this autumn. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news The warden’s defender: – Went to the basement The warden was responsible for navigation, and the prosecution believes he made serious mistakes when the warship sailed south at Stureterminalen, 8 November 2018. – He went to the basement when he got the message, said the watch commander’s defender Christian Lundin. Lundin met the warden just before 11 o’clock, and he announced the result from the Court of Appeal. He still believes it is incorrect that the warden should be sentenced. Christian Lundin says that his client is sorry, and that the case has been a big burden. Photo: Jon Bolstad / news – We will go through the judgment thoroughly with a view to an appeal. Is the mistake made of such a nature that it is criminally correct to sentence him, Lundin asks himself. According to Lundin, the warden is disappointed and sorry. – He did the best he could, and is sorry that he was sentenced for this. This has been a very stressful case for him and his family. The entire proceedings are in breach of the ECHR and the sentencing is affected by this, Lundin believes. The Helge Ingstad accident Before the collision between KNM “Helge Ingstad” and the tanker “Sola TS” on 8 November 2018, the frigate participated in the NATO exercise “Trident Juncture” off the Norwegian coast. Heading south, the frigate sailed without AIS being active. During the night, a navigation error occurred when Helge Ingstad thought the oncoming tanker was a stationary oil platform or land. The watch commander and the crew on the frigate had the wrong understanding of the situation on the bridge, it was said several times in court. This understanding of the situation is central to the case: Does it come from the commander of the guard’s decisions, or was it an organizational failure on the part of the Armed Forces? When they realized the mistake, KNM “Helge Ingstad” tried to make an evasive manoeuvre, but it was too late. The frigate collided with the tanker, suffered serious damage and eventually sank. The crew evacuated the ship, and all 137 on board were rescued without serious injury. The incident led to significant material damage and the frigate, worth NOK 4.3 billion, was subsequently sold as scrap metal for NOK 18 million. The case was followed by extensive investigation to determine the cause of the collision. The warden at KNM, “Helge Ingstad”, was the only one to be brought to court. The trial focused on allegations of negligence and errors in decision-making that led to the collision. The prosecution argued that the warden did not act sufficiently to avoid the collision, while the defense argued that he acted according to instructions and that he “did the best he could”. The prosecution satisfied with the verdict The prosecutor, State Attorney Benedikte Høgseth, believes that nothing new came to light in the appeal case. – I think there has been no new evidence. It has been more of the same. All these allegations were also presented and dealt with in the district court, so as we consider it, there is no new evidence, said Høgseth after the trial was over. The prosecution’s claim was 120 days of suspended prison, as it was also in the district court. State prosecutors Benedikte Høgseth and Magne Sylta were prosecutors when the case against the warden went to court. Photo: Jon Bolstad / news According to the prosecution, the length of the sentence is not of decisive importance. – The central point for the prosecution has been to establish the relationship of responsibility in the case, and that in peacetime the same due diligence requirements apply to responsible navigators on board Norwegian Navy vessels as to navigators on board civilian vessels. The length and form of the sentence imposed have not been central to the prosecution, write Høgseth and Sylta further in the press release.
ttn-69
Now he has been sentenced in the Court of Appeal – news Vestland
