Lawyers scrutinise evidence from marine expert and crewman in deaths at sea inquest

Lawyers scrutinised evidence from a marine expert and police crewman a week into an inquest examining a fatal collision where two Spanish men died during a police chase at sea.

For almost six hours lawyers pressed two witnesses on Friday in the inquest into the deaths at sea of Mohamed Abdeslam Ahmed, 40, and Mustafa Dris Mohamed, 49, from Ceuta.

The two men sustained catastrophic injuries on March 8, 2020 when their rigid-hulled inflatable boat was involved in a collision with a Royal Gibraltar Police vessel.

Over the past five days the court has heard about the location of the collision, which the coxswain of the police vessel has accepted occurred outside of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters, as well as the lack of GPS equipment used during the chase.

On Friday, marine consultant Richard Meikle, who was commissioned to compile a report on the incident, continued giving evidence.

Mr Meikle’s evidence was that he believed the coxswain had not kept a safe distance during the pursuit and that training should have been greater.

He was pressed by lawyers on his qualifications, who asked whether he had training in naval architecture, any police experience or knowledge of police tactics.

Mr Meikle confirmed he had no experience in these fields but that he was master mariner of cruise ships, adding that there would be high-speed craft onboard cruise ships which he would have used.

The court was shown a video of a separate pursuit in BGTW by an RGP instructor and Mr Meikle was asked if this chase would have been considered safe.

At first, Mr Meikle said he would not want to comment “one way or another” and when pressed he responded that there were some aspects that were safe and others that were unsafe which could be improved upon.

Jamas Hodivala, KC, the lawyer representing the coxswain, then asked Mr Meikle if he had interviewed the three police crew onboard the vessel, Sir John Chapple.

The day prior, Mr Meikle had given evidence that he had and confirmed this, adding he had taken notes of the conversation but did not know where the notebook was.

Mr Hodivala put it to him that he had never talked to the three officers, and had in fact relied on statements supplied by the men in his report.

Mr Meikle said he had “misremembered”, prompting Mr Hodivala to ask whether he “makes stuff up” as he goes along.

Questions from lawyers also attempted to ascertain the direction of the collision and areas of impact, putting it to Mr Meikle that the angle of the impact could be wrong in his report.

Mr Meikle said that considering that the vessel could have sustained some damage on its console prior to collision would then mean the angle of impact detailed in this report would be “less firm” in his mind.

Mr Hodivala again put to Mr Meikle that he was again “making this up” as he went along, which the witness rejected.

When pressed why in Mr Meikle’s view the distance between the vessels was “unsafe” during the pursuit, he said it was a “reasonable conclusion” since the vessels had collided.

His evidence was that the RGP officers had not been specifically trained in pursuits and when questioned on what training course should have been offered, he responded he did not know about available courses.

Mr Meikle said there was no evidence that the coxswain intended to collide with the RHIB and that in his view it was an accident, agreeing that it was impossible to say with complete certainty what had happened that night.

CREWMAN

The police crewman who was second in command onboard the Sir John Chappel returned to the witness box on Friday afternoon.

Christopher Finch, who represents the family of the deceased, repeatedly challenged the veracity of the crewman’s evidence.

Mr Finch put it to the crewman that he had considerable experience at sea and questioned his knowledge of the vessel’s GPS systems, which had not been switched on prior and during the pursuit.

The crewman responded that he did not know how to switch on the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which broadcasts a vessels navigational data.

When pressed why he didn’t switch on the navigational equipment, including a chart plotter, the crewman said this was the remit of the coxswain.

The crewman rejected Mr Finch’s assertion that the Sir John Chapple’s crew “did not want people to know where they were”.

He said he was focused on the radar equipment and was not aware the vessel was operating outside of BGTW.

Mr Finch put it to the crewman that it was a “coincidence” that no one knew how to work the chart plotter and that they thought they were in BGTW, describing this as a “bare-faced lie”.

“You’re not interested in the truth, you’re interested in covering your own back,” Mr Finch put to the witness.

The crewman responded: “That is not correct.”

The crewman’s lawyer, Barnabas Branston, reminded the court the inquest is purely inquisitorial and does not apportion blame.

In response to his lawyer’s questions, the crewman said he had believed the vessel was in BGTW during the chase, which is why he did not check the navigational equipment, adding that he lost perception of time and location during the pursuit.

Neil Costa represents the RGP and was assisted by Louise Anne Turnock.

The inquest is a fact-finding exercise that is not tasked with apportioning criminal or civil liability.

The jurors, however, may make recommendations after hearing the evidence if they decide this is appropriate.

The inquest continues.