Out of sight, out of mind

Earlier this year, we published (HERE) a list with the main protagonists in the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into the sinking of the trawler Gaul.

Today we can advise that some of those who were involved in the RFI, on the side of the government, have now moved to other positions, way away from their original milieu.

Lord Goldsmith, the ex-Attorney General on whose behalf the Gaul RFI was held, after ‘three months gardening leave’, has joined Debevoise & Plimpton’s, a US firm where his lordship will re-qualify as a solicitor.

Nigel Meeson QC, the ex-Counsel for the Attorney General, is now in the Cayman Islands, employed as solicitor by Conyers Dill & Pearman.

Jo Cuningham who, alongside Mr Meeson, represented the Attorney General during the 2004 Gaul RFI has gone to the British Virgin Islands, employed by the law firm Maples and Calder.

And, finally, Mr Laurance O’Dea, solicitor for the ex-Attorney General, is deserting the Treasury Solicitors Office to take early retirement, leaving us to deal with his somewhat less voluble successors.

As far as our government is concerned, these prominent actors as well as the Gaul RFI are now out sight and out of mind.

We will, however, try to keep them all in our thoughts.

Further clarifications

Following on from our previous post, we can add that the Treasury Solicitor has also informed us that:

“To my knowledge, Mr [D****] has not provided a final report and so it would be premature to assume that the formal investigation will not be re-opened.”

The report in question (TECHNICAL REPORT) is just one of the technical documents that we have provided so far. As everyone can see, this site contains additional evidence and links to several other relevant documents, which the DfT/TSol should have noted.

However, the Treasury Solicitor only referred to our first report (?!), which, he states, “as accessed via the Internet”, does not provide grounds for re-opening the investigation.

Evidence 'as seen'

‘Insufficient evidence’ is a common response these days to claims for due and proper investigation of high-profile misdemeanours, two magic words that have the power to open the doors to impunity.
We heard them in the cash-for-honours fiasco; we heard them used in several other affairs and now we hear them again with reference to the Gaul case.

Recently, the Treasury Solicitor himself made use of this ‘get-out’ formula when he advised the Department for Transport on the possibility of re-examining the shameful outcome of the 2004 Gaul Investigation.
The Treasury Solicitor, who, during the 2004 RFI, prepared and presented the case under directions from Lord Goldsmith, is now charged with assessing our criticisms of that investigation (published online for all to see).

When asked to justify his pronouncement, he simply told us that our evidence ‘as seen’ did not provide grounds for re-opening the investigation. Fullstop.

Evidence ‘as seen’…?! What could the meaning of this be? Why so inexplicit? Did he think that, if understood, his words would loose their mystical power; or was it just his way of reminding us that the government is too far above the law to have a clear vision of their tasks?

Letter to the MCA

The naval architect who was involved in the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into the sinking of the FV Gaul, and is the author of the technical documents that have been published on these pages, has sent a formal email/letter to his employers: Mr Peter Cardy, the new CEO of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), Mrs Ruth Kelly (the new Secretary of State for Transport), Mr Laurance O’Dea (Treasury Solicitor) and two other managers within the MCA.

The text of the communication is reproduced below:

“To: "Peter Cardy" <Peter.Cardy@mcga.gov.uk>
Cc: <ruth.kelly@dft.gsi.gov.uk>; <P.S@mcga.gov.uk>; <T.B@mcga.gov.uk>; <Laurance.ODea@tsol.gsi.gov.uk>

Subject: Trawler Gaul

Dear Mr Cardy,

I would like to present you with a problem, the solution for which appears to lie within the gift of both the MCA and the Department for Transport.

The problem stems from the outcome, in December 2004, of the Re-opened Formal Investigation (RFI) into the loss of the Trawler Gaul, the principal issue here being that the results of this public inquiry do not correspond with the evidence that was made available before it.

Although in the normal course of events, the MCA should not and would not be questioning the conclusions of a legal process that has been conducted by the Attorney General's office, in this case, however, there is clear evidence that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

As you may be aware, this issue is not new, having previously been raised with the MCA, the DfT, the Minister for Transport (via parliamentary questions), the Admiralty Judge who ruled in the RFI and the Treasury Solicitor/Attorney General's office. However, their collective response to date has been either unsatisfactory or to ignore it, probably in the hope that the objections will eventually go away.

I am a Corporate Member of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and a Chartered Engineer. This Institution's byelaws state that:

Every Corporate Member shall at all times so order his/her conduct as to uphold the dignity and reputation of his/her profession and to safeguard the public interest in matters of safety and health and otherwise.

I consider it unacceptable that being in the Government's employment has brought me into conflict with the standards that are demanded from members of my profession. Furthermore, I find it ethically reprehensible that despite the serious failings in the conduct of this formal investigation, which are apparent, the government has not, as yet, thought fit to remedy this.

To conclude, I do not wish to remain an unwilling party to this miscarriage of justice and I would, therefore, be grateful if you could formally raise this matter with the DfT. with a view to bringing about an appropriate resolution to the case."

When contacted on the phone (several times), Ruth Kelly’s office refused to make any comments on this subject.

COPY OF THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS ALSO SENT TO THE PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE.

The experts' protocol

In our post of 17 March, we reported on our attempts to obtain two documents held by the Department for Transport (DfT), which are mentioned in the Gaul RFI EXPERTS' PROTOCOL (paragraphs 3, 8 and 9) and which, frankly, should have been published within the final report (as was the case in the MV Derbyshire RFI).
Having failed to lodge a request for these papers via the parliamentary route, on 19 March, I sent THIS EMAIL to the DfT.

Since then, we have managed to obtain a copy of the first document (i.e. the list of “all” possible scenarios for the loss of the Gaul) from the MAIB. (This list looks quite interesting and we intend to comment on it separately, in due course.)

The second document that we would like to obtain, (i.e. the joint report, which gives details of the RFI experts’ consideration of the various loss scenarios that had been put forward during the investigation), the DfT is still not able to provide.

Chased up on this matter, the head of Shipping Policy 4, not too thrilled to hear from us again, said that the Department was now depleted of staff with intimate knowledge of the Gaul affair, so he had had to refer our request to the Treasury Solicitor. The latter, we were told, is now the only person left at the scene, able to guide the DfT in their search for the document in question.

I hope that the joint report – central piece of the £10m investigation - has not been misplaced or mislaid…

Cherry-picking

After a suitable delay, Laurance O’Dea, the Treasury Solicitor, emailed a reply to our oft-repeated enquiry regarding the missing evidence in the Gaul investigation.

In his response, dated 23.02.2007, Mr O’Dea again sought to dispel our concerns about the soundness of the investigation, this time by assuring us that the retained experts in the RFI “were able to consider the various drawings of the vessel, including the arrangements of the duff and offal chutes before the public hearings”, that “these experts had been instructed to make their own judgments on the evidence that they were able to see” and that they were “independent and reached conclusions on the evidence available to them”.

Fair enough, so far, but what we actually wanted to know, though, was whether the evidence available to those experts included any mention of the design fault that the specialists from MCA and MAIB had discussed and agreed upon some time ago. Was this evidence contained in the bundle that ‘they were able to see’? We still haven’t got an answer to this question.

“The evidence presented to the Inquiry, and accepted by the Wreck Commissioner was that the chutes were not secured and that water was able to find its way onto the factory deck” and “there was very strong evidence from the survey that the chutes were open and not secured at the time of the loss” the missive further explains.

Up to this point, we agree with the Treasury Solicitor. But then he goes on to say that “there was no evidence[1] that the chutes had been forced open by wave or water action so this was not advanced as a loss scenario by the experts”

Pardon? But, we have already demonstrated that there was enough evidence, which, in legal terms, is called ‘scientific evidence’ – i.e. deduced from well-recognized scientific principles –that supported this loss scenario.
The fact that the chutes were found open at the time of the underwater survey means just that. It does not tell us when or how they had become open. And it certainly does not reveal that they had been open for some time before the incident[2]

To assume otherwise is simply jumping to conclusions.

We don’t know how the retained experts made their judgements; we fear, however, that the evidence that was placed before them was selected in a way that rather ‘counted the hits and overlooked the misses’.
....................................................................................................

[1] We would also like to point out that there was no concrete evidence to back the RFI’s conclusion that the non-return flaps had seized in the open position due to corrosion. In our post of January 30, we also showed that, in fact, there was evidence to the contrary.
(Note: the RFI relied heavily on the testimony of a former DOT surveyor who had carried out a survey on an older Gaul sister vessel. He had found that the flaps on that vessel were open and stated that they were rustbound and frozen. Had he been questioned further on this issue, the court would have learned that, whilst the flaps may have been found to be open, it was only an assumption on his part that this had been due to corrosion. The hinges that were assumed to have corroded were not in fact visible to the naked eye and, in order to establish whether corrosion had occurred or not, it would have been necessary to dismantle the flap assemblies).

[2] For further details on these issues you can revisit our previous posts and the factor tree diagram.

Taking refuge in ambiguity

In a recent message, the Treasury Solicitor writes: 

“You have indicated that in your view the chutes were a design fault. This is your view but appears not to have been accepted as such by any of the retained experts.”

Having contacted one of the retained experts, I learned that the design fault they had considered was in fact related to the difficulty of maintenance of the non-return flaps (2) (3), and that they had not identified or even seen, within the documentation that had been made available to them, any reference to a design fault in terms of inadequate strength of the inner covers and possible malfunction of the non-return flaps.

There is definitely a difference in perception here. Could some occlusion of the communication lines between those involved in the 2004 investigation be the explanation for that?

Anyway, that the vessel had a design fault in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes is an engineering fact (see the technical report on our website).

Why this has not also become a legal fact, is something that should be explained – plainly and without procrastination.

_____________________________________________________

(2) Concluding remarks from Mr Meeson (Investigation transcript) suggesting answers to the formal questions:
“………Although the design of the non-return flap was deficient, in that it was liable to seize over time and had no real means whereby it could be maintained, proper use……..”
(3) This was also questioned in the technical report published on our website: http://www.freewebs.com/inconvenientcitizen/fulltechnicalreportpdf.htm.