RULING 1 OF 2015 OF THE MARITIME DISCIPLINARY COURT OF THE NETHERLANDS IN CASE No. 2015.V3-LEAH As petitioned by: the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment in The Hague, authorised representative: M. Schipper, senior inspector Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT)/Shipping in Rotterdam, versus the person concerned Captain V. F., who did not appear. 1. The course of the proceedings On 20 February 2015, the Maritime Disciplinary Court received a petition for a disciplinary hearing of the case against the person concerned as the captain of the Dutch seagoing vessel Leah from M. Schipper, Senior inspector ILT/Shipping in Rotterdam. The petition included six appendices. The Disciplinary Court has notified the person concerned of the petition in a letter (sent by registered and ordinary mail) written in English, enclosing a translation of the petition with appendices in the English language, and has informed the person concerned of the right of appeal. No statement of defence or any other response has been received from the person concerned. The presiding judge stipulated that the oral hearing of the case would be held at 10.30 hours on 19 June 2015 at the offices of the Disciplinary Court in Amsterdam.
The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate and the person concerned were summoned - in the English language, both by ordinary and registered mail - to appear at the hearing of the Disciplinary Court. The court hearing was held on 19 June 2015. M. Schipper, Shipping senior inspector ILT/Shipping, appeared at the hearing for the petitioner. The person concerned did not appear. Leave was granted to proceed in default of appearance by the person concerned. 2. The petition The following forms the basis for the petition. During the night of Sunday 3 August/Monday 4 August 2014 the seagoing vessel sailing under the Dutch flag, Leah, en route from Iceland to Rotterdam, arrived to the south of the Maas Centre Buoy and took a pilot on board for the final part of the voyage. The officer of the watch was the chief mate, and he asked for two tugs on arrival. This was not in keeping with the pilot's advice. He then said that the captain was drunk. After some time the captain arrived on the bridge, apparently drunk, and began interfering with the navigation of the vessel. The pilot judged his actions as being contrary to the principles of good seamanship. The captain was told several times by the pilot and the mate his approach was not safe enough to continue the voyage. Since this did not lead to a change in the captain's behaviour, the ship turned about, the pilot disembarked and the ship sought an anchorage. During the night the shipping company put another captain on board, who then took the ship in. An investigation was instituted by the Seaport Service in Rotterdam after the ship had moored. The person concerned was the captain of the Leah at the time of the events. I charge him with being manifestly drunk during the voyage and therefore not being capable of taking command and bearing the accompanying
responsibility. This is aggravated by the fact that this took place when his presence and authority were expected on the bridge. 3. The position of the person concerned No response to the petition and the accusation made against the person concerned has been received. 4. The assessment of the petition A. The following information is based on the vessel information attached to the petition. The ms Leah has a gross tonnage of 4015 tons, a length of 99.90 m and a breadth of 17m. It is owned by Beheersmaatschappij ms Frisian Sovereign BV and has Sneek, Friesland, as its home port. B. According to the information in the crew list dated 4 August 2014 attached to the petition, the Dutch ms Leah departed from Straumsvik, Iceland and arrived in Rotterdam on 4 August 2014. The captain is named as V. F., the chief mate O. L. and second mate A S.. C. An official report of the Seaport police in Rotterdam, drawn up on 13 August 2014 by H.J. Visser and M. van Dinter, both senior police constables, with appendices, contains in summarised and concise form the following information. (1) As the statement of the chief mate: On 30 July 2014 we departed from Iceland bound for Rotterdam. On 1 August 2014 I was told by the second mate that the Captain was less able to do his job because he had been drinking. From that time onwards the captain was constantly and seriously under the influence of alcohol and the second mate and I navigated the ship to Rotterdam. The captain very occasionally
turned up on the bridge, did a round and did not say anything. He smelled strongly of alcohol. On 3 August 2014 in the run-up to the port of Rotterdam, a pilot came on board at Maas Centre in order to take the ship into the port of Rotterdam with us. When the pilot was getting ready to commence the trip the captain came onto the bridge and told the pilot that he was in command of the ship and that the pilot should mind his own business. He started to operate the propulsion system himself. The pilot responded to this by giving the captain the choice of going to his cabin and leaving him, the pilot, to take the ship in or turn about and go to an anchorage. Since the captain did not give a clear answer to this, the pilot decided to turn the ship about and sail to an anchorage. Once the pilot had disembarked the second mate and I took the ship to an anchorage and went to anchor there. We then informed the agency and the authorities of the situation. We put into the port of Rotterdam with a new captain on board and another pilot. (2) As the statement of the second mate: During the night of 1/2 August 2014 we had to take over the watch from the captain. When I went to the bridge I saw that he was on his own there. I noticed that the captain smelt of alcohol. At the end of my watch I was relieved by the chief mate and I told him that the captain was drunk. For the rest of the voyage to Rotterdam the captain barely appeared sober on the bridge and the chief mate and I navigated the ship towards Rotterdam. A pilot came on board off the coast of Rotterdam. The captain suddenly arrived on the bridge, completely drunk, and began to shout at the pilot that he had command of the ship. He then started operating the ship's propulsion system but was not capable of doing anything useful. The pilot said that he would only take the ship in if the captain went to his cabin. The captain remained on the bridge, whereupon the pilot decided to take the ship back to an anchorage. The chief mate and I then took the ship to an anchorage. During the night of 3/4 August 2014 a new captain came on board and piloted the ship into the port of Rotterdam.
(3) The reporting officer's findings: At approximately 09:45 hours on 4 August 2014 we went on board the vessel Leah, sailing under the Dutch flag, which was moored in Waalhaven in Rotterdam. On board the vessel we spoke to a man who identified himself as the captain of the seagoing vessel Leah. He refused to cooperate with a breathalyser test. It became clear to us that the captain was not capable of conducting any intelligible conversation because he was apparently drunk. We could smell alcohol on the man's breath and noticed that he had bloodshot eyes. D. A statement, attached to the official report of the Seaport police, of registered pilot F. O. and an IAD Pilot Statement attached to the petition, viewed in combination providing, in summarised and concise form, the following information. The pilot arrived on board the Leah at 23.10 hours on 3 August 2014 to the south of the Maas Centre Buoy. On the bridge, the chief mate said that the captain was drunk in his cabin. After sailing for a few minutes the captain arrived on the bridge in a very drunken state. After some time the captain began to interfere with the voyage and started pulling on the ship's telegraph without any reason to do so. The pilot judged the captain's actions as being contrary to good seamanship. The pilot confronted the captain twice, telling him that it was not safe to continue the voyage in this manner and that if he did not go to his cabin they would turn about and the pilot would disembark. The pilot did not receive a positive response to this and the captain did not change his behaviour. The pilot then decided not to continue the voyage for safety reasons and to turn about and go back to the pilot vessel. The pilot spoke to the ship's owner or agent by telephone and explained the situation to him. The pilot disembarked at 00.25 hours on 4 August 2014. 5. The ruling of the Disciplinary Court Based on the documents and statements referred to above the following case has been made in this regard.
The Dutch seagoing vessel Leah arrived at the roads of Rotterdam during the night of 3/4 August 2014. The person concerned was the captain of the Leah. To the south of Maas Centre Buoy the pilot came on board to take the vessel into the port of Rotterdam. On the bridge he found the chief mate and the second mate. The chief mate told the pilot that the captain was drunk. After the vessel had set off towards the port, the person concerned arrived on the bridge. He was drunk. He said that he was in command and that the pilot should not interfere with navigating the vessel. He started operating the ship's propulsion system without any reason to do so and was incapable of doing anything useful. The pilot considered the actions of the person concerned to be contrary to the principles of good seamanship. The pilot told the person concerned on several occasions that it was not safe to continue sailing in this manner and that the person concerned should go to his cabin. When this was not met by the desired result and the behaviour of the person concerned did not change, the pilot decided to turn the ship about because it was not safe to continue sailing in this situation. The pilot then disembarked and the ship's officers took the vessel to anchor. Through the intervention of the shipping company (agent) a new captain came on board and piloted the ship into the port of Rotterdam. When the police arrived on board the person concerned was strongly under the influence of alcohol. This shows that during the night of 3/4 August 2014 the person concerned was strongly under the influence of alcohol and was therefore incapable of performing his tasks and responsibilities as ship's captain. The state of the person concerned and the fact that he tried to interfere with the navigation and to prevent the pilot from doing his job led to an unsafe situation for the ship, its crew and other shipping. Since the person concerned was not open to reason, the pilot took the commendable decision of turning about and going to an anchorage. According to the statements of the chief mate and the second mate the person concerned had been seriously under the influence of alcohol and unable to perform his duties as captain in the previous couple of days - in
fact during the larger part of the voyage from Iceland. It can be presumed that the person himself made and kept himself in this state of drunkenness. The behaviour of the person concerned constitutes a violation of the regulation of Section 4.4 of the Dutch Seafarers Act in conjunction with Section 55a of that Act: acting or failing to act on board as captain contrary to the duty of care expected of a good seaman in relation to the persons on board, the ship and shipping. In addition to the above, the disciplinary court has taken account in its ruling of the fact that the incident with the pilot took place during the night and in the run-up to the port of Rotterdam, a busy shipping area. In view of his position the person concerned could be expected to be present on the bridge and in command of the vessel when approaching and putting into this port. 6. The disciplinary measure The Disciplinary Court judges that the person concerned has seriously failed in his duty as captain and has entirely disregarded his responsibilities. In view of the exceptional seriousness of the evident behaviours a suspension of the navigation licence for the maximum duration mentioned below is appropriate. 7. The decision The Disciplinary Court: declares the objections against the person concerned as stated under point 5 to be well-founded; suspends the navigation licence of the person concerned for a period of two years.
Duly delivered by A.N. van Zelm van Eldik, LL.M., deputy presiding judge, E.R. Ballieux and drs. ing. S.M. den Heijer, members, in the presence of E.H.G. Kleingeld, LL.M., as secretary and pronounced by A.N. van Zelm van Eldik in public session on 1 July 2015. E.G.H. Kleingeld secretary A.N. van Zelm van Eldik deputy presiding judge An appeal against this ruling can be lodged within six weeks of the date of forwarding with the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ( College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ), Prins Clauslaan 60, 2595 AJ The Hague, P.O. Box 20021, 2500 EA The Hague, the Netherlands.