Indictment Capt Glen Aroza And Others Taiwan Prosecutor Free Translation

5,437 views

Published on

Taiwan found without high seas jurisdiction in international law with the exception of Article 16 ROC law on EEZ jurisdiction for marine environment violations

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,437
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Indictment Capt Glen Aroza And Others Taiwan Prosecutor Free Translation

  1. 1. INDICTMENT ISSUED BY HUALIEN DISTRICT PROSECUTORS OFFICE OF TAIWAN File No.: 2009-chen-tzu-ti-1873 Section in Charge: Chieh Section Defendants : KARIM MOHAMMAD REZAUL Date of Birth: April 15, 1981 Nationality: Bangladesh Passport No.: V0149777 currently in custody at Hualien Detention House in Taiwan : AROZA GLEN PATRICK Date of Birth: March 17, 1972 Nationality: India Passport No.: Z1730530 : Eduardo JR, Caballero Mallorca Date of Birth: January 28, 1978 Nationality: Philippines Passport No.: RR0098704 Selective Defence Counsels (acting jointly for the above three defendants) : Cheng Shuei-Wen (Vincent), attorney-at-law Liu Yang-Hao (Howard), attorney-at-law The Defendants are accused of the crime of manslaughter by desertion, and investigation thereof has been closed. The Prosecutor holds that the Defendants should be prosecuted. The facts and evidence of crime committed, and the related laws are described hereunder. Facts of Crime Committed 1. The Defendants AROZA GLEN PATRICK (hereinafter referred to as Captain AROZA), KARIM MOHAMMAD REZAUL (hereinafter referred to as 2nd Officer KARIM), and MALLORCA EDUARDO JR. CA BALLERO (hereinafter referred to as AB MALLORCA) are employees of NYKSM, a Japan-based shipping company. The Defendants were dispatched to work on TOSA, a Panama registered tanker owned by NYKSM, as Captain, 2nd Officer, and AB, respectively. In the evening of April 14, 1
  2. 2. 2009 the Defendants, together with the Chief Officer and the Junior Chief Officer, steered TOSA which had departed from Port of Daesan, Korea and was heading for Singapore while navigating along the edge of the Pacific Ocean southward in a direction of 200 degrees from the north. Captain AROZA was accountable for the tanker’s safety and prevention of a collision. At 22:15, April 16, 2009, the TOSA commanded by Captain AROZA shall be entering the fishing traffic located west- northwesterly to the Senkaku Shoto in accordance with a scheduled route, and thus TOSA was likely to be confronted with expected or unpredictable emergency; hence, he should be on the alert. Also, a Captain of a vessel should give an appropriate order or instruction concisely to prevent a collision, pursuant to International Safety Management (ISM) Code, Article 5.1.3. However, 2nd Officer KARIM was a new hand and AB MALLORCA, an assistant to 2nd Officer KARIM, was unable to substitute for 2nd Officer KARIM, because AB MALLORCA’s experience is insufficient to compensate for 2nd Officer KARIM’s inexperience. Any order made should be feasible and executable rather than just attributable to paperwork conducted with the sole purpose to fool around. Unexpectedly, Captain Aroza indulged himself with sleeping and therefore chose to give an order in writing, by putting in the Night Order Book the following words: the crew on duty should maintain a relatively large safety distance and navigate the tanker along the scheduled route. The aforesaid words are abstract and vague. Hence, Captain Aroza failed to exercise a duty of care that entails instructing, in a concrete and definite manner, a sailor on duty as to what action to take in order to prevent a collision and thereby ensure safety of navigation. Nor did Captain Aroza let the crew on duty know under what situation should the sailors on duty ask him to come to the bridge/steering room to steer the tanker personally or to appoint a competent crew to steer the tanker, so as to prevent a collision, but simply went to the Captain’s cabin to take a rest therein. 2. At 23:00, April 16, 2009, 2nd Officer KARIM and AB MALLORCA took over the Junior Chief Officer’s shift so that 2nd Officer KARIM started to steer the tanker in the steering room and AB MALLORCA started to work as a lookout man and 2
  3. 3. operate the helm as instructed by 2nd Officer KARIM. At the moment when he took over the Junior Chief Officer’s shift, 2nd Officer KARIM knew that plenty of moving or stationary vessels were found at the sea about 9 nautical miles in front of TOSA, and the Junior Chief Officer told 2nd Officer KARIM that the ARPA radar installed on TOSA had long been automatically receiving AIS information “two China registered fishing boats (ZHEYUYU 1998 and ZHUYUYU 4195), Targets A and B for short”, and that two other vessels, namely Taiwan registered fishing boats Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 82 (Target 1 for short) and Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 (Target 2 for short), had been manually locked as targets. During the period of time he was on duty, 2nd Officer KARIM was the commander of TOSA. The 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Rules 8, 15, 16, and Rule 18, Paragraph 1, Item 3 provide: a power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided; should avoid a close-quarters situation with another vessel; action taken to avoid a collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance, and the effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear. In fact, 2nd Officer KARIM was well aware that a large tanker close to a small vessel could bring about enormous sucking currents that suck and endanger the small vessel. The then situation was not unpredictable; hence, 2nd Officer KARIM was obligated to take definite measures promptly to avert danger, for instance, distancing TOSA from its original course so as to give way to the fishing boats operating at the sea ahead. Unexpectedly, 2nd Officer KARIM ignored the dangerous situation and failed to take prompt measures to avoid a collision or decelerate TOSA; hence, 2nd Officer KARIM put TOSA on the brink of disaster as TOSA was edging toward an alarm area where a collision between any vessel therein and TOSA was imminent. Still, at 23:38 on the same day, TOSA was advancing recklessly at 11.4 knots at the location N 25° 48' 32", E 123° 05' 311". By 23:41 on the same day, TOSA had arrived at the location N 25° 47' 587", E 123° 05' 134", and, although the radar warned that the locked vessels were approaching TOSA, 2nd Officer KARIM ignored the radar warning again and failed to take any emergency measures. 2nd Officer KARIM was 3
  4. 4. surprised to find that TOSA was close to China registered fishing boat Target B just before TOSA was going to collide with Target B. In an attempt to prevent TOSA from colliding with Target B, 2nd Officer KARIM ordered AB MALLORCA to turn the helm to port by 20°, but 2nd Officer KARIM did not consider the likelihood that turning TOSA to port persistently at the same high speed in an attempt to avoid a collision would cause TOSA to dash in the direction of Target 1 and Target 2. Steered by 2nd Officer KARIM, TOSA skirted China-registered fishing boat Target B by a distance of 0.18 nautical mile therebetween; meanwhile, 2nd Officer KARIM realized that it was impossible to instantly decelerate or stop TOSA within a short distance and that TOSA’s collision with fishing boats Target 1 and Target 2 was imminent. Hence, 2nd Officer KARIM hurriedly ordered AB MALLORCA to make a quick evasion by turning a large angle with the hard-port helm. Subsequently, at 23:50:02 on the same day, TOSA arrived at the location N 25° 46' 232", E 123° 05' 186", and thus the bow of TOSA still passed the port bow of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 quickly. Ho Hsi-Chuan, the captain of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86, found a short distance of less than 0.095 nautical miles (as indicated by VDR data) between Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 and TOSA and therefore did his level best to attempt to evade TOSA. However, Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 is a large trawler of model CT4-2790 that weighs 99.81 tons, but TOSA has a loaded weight of more than 300,000 tons. Hence, TOSA is much larger and heavier than Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86. As a result, Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 could not resist the enormous suction from TOSA; hence, Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 was sucked by the current created by the trail left behind by TOSA and then hit by the billows generated by TOSA, thus ending up with an extensible crane broken and the fishing vessel being unstable. Hence, 11 sailors aboard Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86, namely Chen Chi-Ming, Sun Shih-Chou, Trisukasih, Magadia Arvin Andaya, Tasiwan, Magadia Fernando Jrandaya, Rasiwan, Asroni, Muktarudin, Adikin, and Taufikurrohman saw the large TOSA approaching quickly and Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 being destined to be hit by TOSA, and thus the 11 sailors, who found it too late to put on safety jackets or take any emergency measures or protective measures, leapt overboard when bare-handed or gripping float balls or buoys. The 11 sailors afloat had to fight against billows at sea in a life- 4
  5. 5. threatening predicament in the night. Captain Ho Hsi-Chuan attempted to reverse Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 and aimed a spotlight at the bridge/steering room of TOSA with a view to sending an alert signal to TOSA. However, Captain Ho Hsi- Chuan made the endeavor to escape the doom in vain, as he and chief engineer Hsu Tsung-Wen failed to leap overboard in time but sank together with the capsized Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86; meanwhile, 2nd Officer KARIM was well aware that Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 had capsized and fully understood that in accordance with Article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, after a collision, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers, to render assistance to the other ship, her crew and her passengers. 2nd Officer KARIM was also well aware that sailors of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 might lost overboard after Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 had been hit. Unexpectedly, 2nd Officer KARIM did not continue to use the hard-port helm and search a large area of the sea on the port side of TOSA for the sailors afloat and endangered so as to fulfill his legal obligation of rescue; instead, 2nd Officer KARIM ordered AB Mallorca to switch to starboard helm operation so as to flee the scene of the collision. 3. AB Mallorca followed the instruction of 2nd Officer KARIM to steer TOSA and was just a sailor who was not empowered to instruct the crew of TOSA to launch a rescue operation after the accident. Owing to his own limitations and environmental limitations, AB MALLORCA was unable to take any measures to launch a rescue operation. Before and during the accident, AB MALLORCA was working inside the steering room/bridge, that is, taking charge of work related to TOSA, that is, monitoring and recording weather, sea condition, and visibility, operating the helm, and steering the tanker. Hence, AB MALLORCA witnessed alarm signals being sent from the Captain of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 by using a spotlight. At 23:53:53 on the same day, AB MALLORCA told 2nd Officer KARIM, “the light spot is gone and out of sight.” In response, 2nd Officer KARIM said, “I don’t think any thing has happened, do you understand? … nothing happened…” Hence, both AB MALLORCA and 2nd Officer KARIM were well aware of the accident, and, under the law, they should have allowed TOSA to stop at the scene of the accident so as to 5
  6. 6. rescue the drowning sailors, and they should have asked Captain AROZA to come to handle the accident in the aftermath thereof. Unexpectedly, in an attempt to evade the liability for the accident, AB MALLORCA, who had conspired with 2nd Officer KARIM, still followed the instruction, at 23:51 on the same day, from 2nd Officer KARIM to steer TOSA back to the original course by the hard-starboard rudder, gradually increase the speed of TOSA from 7.5 knots to 12 knots, change the direction of TOSA from 52.7 degree to 220 degree, and eventually enable TOSA to flee the scene of the accident at an accelerated speed. At 00:30 next morning, the 11 sailors, namely Chen Chi-Ming, Sun Shih-Chou, Trisukasih, Magadia Arvin Andaya, Tasiwan, Magadia Fernando Jrandaya, Rasiwan, Asroni, Muktarudin, Adikin, and Taufikurrohman were rescued by Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 82 fishing vessel in the vicinity of the scene of the accident and, luckily, their lives were spared. At 00:47, April 17, the Coastal Patrol Directorate General (under the Coast Guard Administration of the Executive Yuan) received the accident report, set up an emergency response center, and promptly dispatched patrol cruiser Lien-Chiang of the Northern Sector Flotilla, cruiser RB02 of the Keelung Flotilla, and cruisers 6001 and 10023 of the Su-Ao Flotilla to the scene of the accident to carry out a rescue operation therein. From 01:45, Japan Coast Guard dispatched CHIKU ZEN (a patrol vessel equipped with a helicopter) and PS-11 (a civil servant ship staffed with special rescuers) to help with the search for the missing sailors; however, Ho Hsi- Chuan, the Captain of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86, had been drowned, and chief engineer Hsu Tsung-Wen were confined to the capsized Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 and dead. Hence, both of them were not found by the sailors afloat at sea and the rescue vessels. Afterward, the Coast Guard Administration made reference to data provided by the Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and Japan Coast Guard and thereby determined that TOSA, a Panama-registered tanker, was suspected to be accountable for the accident. Hence, at 08:20, April 17, at a location about 55 nautical miles northeast to Hualien, TOSA was intercepted by cruiser Hualien and cruiser 10023 dispatched by the Coast Guard Administration. However, in an attempt to cover up the crime he had committed, 2nd Officer KARIM did not put down the causes of the accident in the vessel's log 6
  7. 7. book as otherwise required. Accordingly, ignorant of the accident, Captain AROZA was so confused that he refused to be interrogated by an investigator, thereby resulting in a stalemate therebetween. In the early morning of April 18, the Coast Guard Administration was instructed to dispatch cruiser 10029 to lend support to its counterparts. At 07:05, April 18, cruiser 10029 and cruiser Hualien met. At 07:20, cruiser 10029 sent a boat to the surround of TOSA to search for evidence, and the boat discovered a dubious scratch on the left side of the bow of TOSA and found that the scratch was stained with white paint and the rudder blade was entangled with fishing net and buoys. In view of this, cruiser 10029 and cruiser Hualien were prepared to detain TOSA pursuant to Article 16 of the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of China but were eventually unable to board TOSA due to adverse weather. It was not until 08:40, April 18 did Captain AROZA agree, upon communication with the investigator, to go to the Port of Hualien to be investigated therein. At 9am, a representative of the Singapore Branch of Japan-based NYKSM agreed to allow TOSA to enter the territory of Taiwan to be investigated. At 10am, cruiser 10029 and cruiser Hualien started to escort TOSA to an anchorage outside the Port of Hualien. At 17:20, a prosecutor of the Prosecutors Office and Cheng Hsiao-Kuei (the division head of the Forensic Science Division, Criminal Investigation Bureau) got aboard a cruise of the Coast Guard Administration to encircle TOSA so as to carry out an evidence collection operation. Also, the Prosecutors Office appointed a prosecutor to lead officers of the Coast Guard Administration and officers of the Hualien Harbor Bureau onto TOSA to conduct maritime and criminal investigation. A total of 17 documents, such as log book, a GPS track record, a navigation chart, a vessel navigation course record, and an engineer operation record, which were all stamped by Captain AROZA, were brought back to the Prosecutors Office. In the morning of April 19, the Hualien Harbor Bureau dispatched a pilot ship to take the Chief Officer of TOSA, AB MALLORCA, and 2nd Officer KARIM to the Hualien Coastal Patrol Office for investigation, and an identification officer aboard a small fishing boat approached TOSA to examine, at a short distance away from TOSA, any marks left on the surface of the hull of TOSA and took samples of the standard paint on the 7
  8. 8. hull of TOSA. On April 20, the prosecutors of the Prosecutors Office finished interrogating 2nd Officer KARIM and AB MALLORCA, and held that 2nd Officer KARIM and AB MALLORCA had committed the crimes of desertion leading to other people’s death, causing an accident and fleeing, and involuntary manslaughter. To ensure subsequent investigation, the prosecutor immediately sent a letter to the National Immigration Agency under the Ministry of Interior to impose departure restriction upon 2nd Officer KARIM and AB MALLORCA. At 15:45 on April 21, the prosecutor dispatched officers to board TOSA to remove the voyage data recorder (VDR) from TOSA. On April 22, the owners of TOSA hired and dispatched a new Captain and a new 2nd Officer to work for TOSA, and Captain AROZA alighted from TOSA so as to be interrogated. On April 24, the prosecutor sent a letter to the National Immigration Agency under the Ministry of Interior to impose departure restriction upon Captain AROZA, thereby confining the three defendants’ residence to Hualien City. During the period of time from 16:13 to 18:47 on April 29, the prosecutor of the Prosecutors Office led the coastal patrol personnel and identification personnel of the Hualien County Police Bureau to board TOSA via the pilot ship again to carry out an evidence collection operation. At 17:05, April 30, a rescue ship towed the wreckage of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 back to the Port of Su- Ao. At 18:20, April 30, six divers (two from Su-Ao Coastal Patrol Squadron, and four from the Lan-Yan Rescue Association) went underwater to collect evidence. However, fishing nets abound deep down the sea, and thus the divers were unable to go into the cabin of the sunken Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86. Afterward, the Army’s underwater operation squadron lent a helping hand to the evidence collection operation at the prosecutor’s request, only to find that the attempt to go into the cabin of the capsized Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 was made in vain again. Afterward, three hoists and a bulldozer were brought in to help with the evidence collection operation and eventually proved useless to enable the capsized Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 to stand upright. Considering that the crimes committed by 2nd Officer KARIM, such as desertion leading to other people’s death, are felonies, the prosecutor successfully petitioned to the court to give a ruling on putting 2nd Officer KARIM in custody. It was not until 15:44, May 1 were two heavy-duty hoists 8
  9. 9. deployed to hoist the hull and was air pumped into the hull so that the capsized Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 stood upright successfully and emerged from water to be afloat. Later, water was drained out of the cabin. The identification personnel of the Criminal Investigation Bureau and members of a task force of the Coast Guard Administration found the corpse of Hsu Tsung-Wen in the engine room entrance. At that point, all the facts and exhibits related to TOSA had been made clear and verified. On the same day, TOSA was steered by the newly hired crew thereof and escorted by a cruiser of the Coast Guard Administration so as to depart from the territory of Taiwan, Republic of China. 4. In response to the complaints made from Chen Chi-Ming, Sun Shih-Chou, Trisukasih, Magadia Arvin Andaya, Tasiwan, Magadia Fernando Jrandaya, Rasiwan, Asroni, Muktarudin, Adikin, Taufikurrohman, Ho Huang Hsiu-Hsia, Ho Wen- Chieh, and Liu Su-Chen, the 6th Offshore Flotilla of the Coastal Patrol Directorate General (under the Coast Guard Administration, Executive Yuan) handed over this case to this Prosecutors Office. Exhibits and the texts of the laws governing the crimes committed are as follows: 1. The checklist of exhibits and facts to be proved are as follows: No. Exhibits The Facts to be Proved 1 Statements given by 1. The fact that Defendant KARIM was in charge of Defendant KARIM during navigation of TOSA from 23:00 April 16, 2009 to the interrogation of the 03:00 April 17, 2009 police and prosecutor. 2. The fact that, at the aforesaid time and place, Defendant KARIM instructed AB MALLORCA to evade the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 urgently by turning TOSA away therefrom by a large angle with the hard-port rudder. 2 Statements given by 1. The fact that Defendant MALLORCA was Defendant MALLORCA instructed, at the aforesaid time and place, by 9
  10. 10. during the interrogation Defendant KARIM to evade the fishing boat Shin of the police and Tomg Chyuan No. 86 urgently by turning TOSA prosecutor. away therefrom with the hard-port rudder. 2. The fact that, at the moment when the accident happened, Defendant KARIM went to the platform on the right wing of the steering room of TOSA to look out the surroundings. 3 Testimony given by 1. The fact that, at the moment when the accident Defendant AROZA happened, Defendant KARIM should have been during prosecutor’s aware if a spotlight calling for help had been interrogation emitted from the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 and fallen on the steering room of TOSA. 2. The fact that TOSA should have received a Mayday if an electromagnetic distress message was sent from Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 just before the latter capsized, and thereby was obligated to rescue the latter. 4 Testimonies given by The fact that the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. witnesses, i.e., the 11 86 was pushed, pressed, and hit by TOSA and survivors of Shin Tomg eventually capsized at the aforesaid time and place Chyuan No. 86, including Chen Chi-Ming, et al., during the interrogation of the police or prosecutor 5 Testimony given by 1. The fact that the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan witness Huang Jen-Ho, No. 86 was pushed, pressed, and hit by TOSA and the Captain of the fishing eventually capsized at the aforesaid time and boat Shin Tomg Chyuan place No. 78, during 2. The fact that Captain Ho Hsi-Chuan of the fishing prosecutor’s interrogation boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 sent out a Mayday by way of wireless radio at the moment 10
  11. 11. when the accident happened 6 Testimony given by 1. The fact that the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan witness Lee Cheng- No. 86 was pushed, pressed, and hit by TOSA and Chung, the Captain of the eventually capsized at the aforesaid time and fishing boat Shin Tomg place Chyuan No. 82, during 2. The fact that Captain Ho Hsi-Chuan of the fishing prosecutor’s interrogation boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 sent out a Mayday by way of wireless radio at the moment when the accident happened 7 Testimony given by 1. The fact that the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan witness Chen Wen-Li No. 86 was owned by the witness Chen Wen-Li during interrogation of and registered as a Taiwanese fishing boat. the police and prosecutor 2. The fact that, on April 15, 2009, 13 crew members of the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86, including Captain Ho Hsi-Chuan, steered Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 toward the sea for fishing 8 Testimonies given by The fact that, on April 16, 2009, Defendant AROZA witnesses Hsu Kuo-Ching who was aboard TOSA put down a wrong and Chu Cheng-Kuo instruction/order in the night order book during prosecutor’s interrogation 9 A record of conversations The fact that Defendants KARIM and MALLORCA inside the bridge of TOSA were aware that navigation of TOSA had caused the (23:36:32, [April 16, 2009] fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 to capsize. through 00:16:36, [April 17, 2009]) and a translation thereof 10 The VDR record of TOSA 1. The fact that, to evade a China-registered fishing boat (Target B), TOSA quickly passed the port bow of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 while being spaced apart therefrom by a mere 0.095 nautical 11
  12. 12. mile at 23:50:02 (16th April 2009). 2. The fact that, given the difference in weight between TOSA and the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86, a distance of 0.095 nautical mile therebetween was sufficient to cause a strong sucking current whereby the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 was sucked and overturned, and in consequence, the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 vanished from a radar screen of TOSA 11 A report made by the The fact that the hull of the fishing boat Shin Tomg Criminal Investigation Chyuan No. 86 was damaged. Bureau, Ministry of interior on evidence collected from the wreckage of the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 12 A report made by the All the facts about the crime Keelung Harbor Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communications on a maritime case 13 A certificate of The fact that the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. registration of the fishing 86 was a Taiwanese fishing boat. boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 14 Notes taken by the 1. The fact that, at the moment when the accident Prosecutors Office on happened, Defendant KARIM should have been April 19, 2009 and April aware if a spotlight calling for help had been 12
  13. 13. 29, 2009 regarding emitted from the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan inspections of TOSA No. 86 and fallen on the steering room of TOSA 2. The fact that TOSA should have received a Mayday if an electromagnetice distress message was sent from Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 just before the latter capsized. 3. The fact that functions of the APRA radar installed in the steering room of TOSA, that is, giving a warning about an imminent collision and generating an alert sound, were normal. 15 A schematic diagram of The fact that a pilot on duty on TOSA was always blind spots surrounding aware of the locations of blind spots of TOSA the hull of TOSA 16 The Chinese translation of The fact that, immediately before the accident the 1972 Convention on happened, Defendant KARIM who was in charge of the International the steering of TOSA was obligated to evade the Regulations for fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 as soon as Preventing Collisions at possible. Sea 17 Identification Report (No. The fact that chief engineer Hsu Tsung-Wen of the 2009-yi-chien-tzu-ti- fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 fell into water 0981101361) issued by the and drowned when the said accident happened. Institute of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice 18 Important reporting The fact that the fishing boat Shin Tomg Chyuan No. records of Fishing Boats, 86 was hit and overturned by TOSA at the aforesaid kept by the Fishery time and place Communications Radio Station of the Su-Ao District Fishermen’s 13
  14. 14. Association, at 00:00 on April 17, 2009 19 The crew list of TOSA at The fact that Defendant KARIM served as a 2nd the moment when TOSA Officer of TOSA and took part in the voyage at issue started on a voyage on April 14, 2009 20 Letter (No. Kuo-tso-lien- The trail left behind by TOSA due to navigation chan-tzu-ti-0980001063) thereof before and after the accident. dated April 24, 2009, issued by the Ministry of National Defense 2. The Criminal Code, Article 4 expressly provides: If the act or the outcome of a crime committed occurs within the territory of the Republic of China, the place in which the crime is committed shall be deemed the territory of the Republic of China. Victim Hsu Tsung-Wen was killed inside a Taiwanese vessel because of a criminal act committed by these three defendants, and thus the criminal act should be regarded as committed within the territory of the Republic of China pursuant to the Criminal Code, Article 3, second half. Although these three defendants are not citizens of the Republic of China, the Criminal Code of the Republic of China should be applicable to these three defendants pursuant to the above provisions. The crimes committed by 2nd Officer KARIM are: involuntary manslaughter pursuant to the provisions of Criminal Code, Article 276, Paragraph 2; cause an accident and flee (hit and run) pursuant to the Criminal Code, Article 185-4; desertion and causing other people’s death for being default of obligation pursuant to the Criminal Code, Article 294, Paragraphs 1 and 2. The crime committed by AB MALLORCA is: cause an accident and flee (hit and run) pursuant to the Criminal Code, Article 185-4. The crime committed by Captain AROZA is: involuntary manslaughter pursuant to the Criminal Code, Article 276, Paragraph 2. According to testimonies given by witnesses Hsu Kuo-Ching and Chu Cheng-Kuo who are officials of Keelung Harbor Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, during prosecutor 14
  15. 15. interrogation, international maritime customary practice: in addition to operating the helm, a sailor shall serve as a lookout man; if an officer is on duty in the steering room/bridge and has switched to manual steering, the sailor at helm shall be in charge of operating the helm only; a senior sailor shall follow an order subserviently rather than take charge of determining the course of navigation. Even if a senior sailor finds that a command given by an officer on duty is wrong, the senior sailor shall not be entitled to contesting the wrong command given by the officer on duty. In other words, a senior sailor only has to follow a superior officer’s orders and execute the orders. The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, or 1978 STCW for short, provides: a competent seafarer, a helmsman, or a sailor shall operate the helm or look out for danger in the course of navigation of the vessel, or shall stand guard at the end of a staircase of the vessel while the vessel was moored to a harbor, and shall follow the orders given by the Chief Officer, a navigation sailor on duty, or the chief seafarer, clean/maintain the inside and outside of the hull, machines installed on the deck, and the living cabin, and prepare for the goods to be loaded or unloaded. This proves that AB MALLORCA on duty while 2nd Officer KARIM was inside the steering room can only follow any order subserviently, and that AB MALLORCA did not have a say, at the moment when the accident happened, regarding the course in which TOSA navigated, or regarding whether the crew of TOSA should stop TOSA and start to rescue the other vessel’s sailors who had leapt overboard. Hence, any assertion that AB MALLORCA had negligently caused Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86 to be hit and overturned by TOSA was unjustified. Also, 2nd Officer KARIM was the plenipotentiary pilot for TOSA at the moment when the accident happened. After the accident, it was 2nd Officer KARIM ordered that TOSA should return to the scheduled course and leave the scene of the accident. This proves that AB MALLORCA was not the one committing the offence of deserting the drowning sailors of Shin Tomg Chyuan No. 86. However, as the aforesaid part arose from the same facts of crime for which the public prosecution has been instituted against AB MALLORCA, and thus the Prosecutors Office shall not to give a no-prosecution sanction to AB MALLORCA. Finally, at the moment when the accident happened, 15
  16. 16. 2nd Officer KARIM was accountable for the safety of navigation of TOSA. Unexpectedly, 2nd Officer KARIM was negligent and did not abide by general maritime rules governing a duty of care exercised when giving commands related to navigation. Owing to 2nd Officer KARIM’s negligence, fishing boats traveling to and fro across or working in the sea near TOSA were exposed to a high degree of danger. In this case, the accident happened because of 2nd Officer KARIM’s gross negligence. After causing the accident, 2nd Officer KARIM did not consider rescuing immediately the victims who had leapt overboard and were helpless or sending out a rescue signal to call for help immediately; instead, 2nd Officer KARIM deserted the 13 victims and fled the scene of the accident. Showing no mercy to the drowning victims, Defendant KARIM was liable for the death of Captain Ho Hsi-Chuan who was drowned and buried deep down in the sea and chief engineer Hsu Tsung-Wen who was confined to the cabin and drowned, and thus Defendant KARIM was accountable for the predicaments facing the families of Captain Ho Hsi-Chuan and chief engineer Hsu Tsung-Wen. The statements given by Defendant KARIM was inconsistent and evasive, not to mention that Defendant KARIM was adamant in his refusal to admit having committing the crimes, indicating that Defendant KARIM was indecent. However, considering that Defendant KARIM had taken on the position of 2nd Officer for only several months and therefore was an inexperienced 2nd Officer, the Prosecutors Office hereby demands ten years of imprisonment for Defendant KARIM so as to punish Defendant KARIM and protect the safety of the sea navigation. 3. A public prosecution is instituted pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 251, Paragraph 1. It is submitted to Hualien District Court of Taiwan Date: July 16, 2009 16
  17. 17. Prosecutor Hsueh Chih-Yu Prosecutor Lin Shih-Chun The certified copy is a true copy of the original document. Date: July 16, 2009 Clerk of the Court: Chang Su-Hui [Affixed with Official Seal of Prosecutors Office of Hualien District Court of Taiwan] Statutes governing the crimes committed in this case are as follows: Criminal Code, Article 185-4 (Crime of a driver who causes an accident and flees) A person who causes injury or death to another person in an accident while driving a motor-driven vehicle and flees the scene of the accident shall be sentenced to an imprisonment term between 6 months and 5 years. Criminal Code, Article 276, Paragraph 2 (Crime of Negligent manslaughter) A working person who commits the aforesaid crime while working shall be punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of 5 years, detention, or a maximum fine of three thousand dollars added thereto. Criminal Code, Article 294, Paragraphs 1 and 2 (Crime of desertion for being default of obligation) A person who deserts or declines to give assistance, support, or protection required for the living of another person incapable of self-rescue or shall be assisted, supported, or protected under the law or under a contract shall be sentenced to an imprisonment term between 6 months and 5 years. 17
  18. 18. A person who commits the offence of desertion and cause a person’s death shall be sentenced to a minimum imprisonment term of 7 years or a life imprisonment term. A person who causes aggravated injury to a person by committing the crime of desertion to the person shall be sentenced to an imprisonment term of between 3 and 10 years. 18

×