Marine expert tells inquest pursuit distance was insufficient before fatal collision 

A marine expert analysing a fatal collision in which two Spanish men died at sea has told the Coroner’s Court he believed there had not been sufficient distance between the vessels during a nighttime high-speed chase before the impact, adding police training for such pursuits should have been greater.  

The evidence from the marine expert forms part of an inquest into the deaths at sea of Mohamed Abdeslam Ahmed, 40, and Mustafa Dris Mohamed, 49, from Ceuta.  

The 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. 

The case centres on the events surrounding the fatal incident, its location outside of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW), the use or lack thereof of GPS equipment, police marine training, and the medical aid provided to the injured men. 

On the fourth day of the inquest marine consultant Richard Meikle gave expert evidence based on his experience as a master mariner and captain. 

He answered questions from Deputy Coroner Karl Tonna and lawyers for five hours and is expected to continue to be examined on Friday. 

Mr Meikle was commissioned to compile a report on the incident, which includes examination of the vessels following the collision, its equipment and use, the safety of the chase at sea, and the training provided to the RGP officers. 

The court has previously heard from the coxswain and crewman who maintain that they had kept a safe distance during the pursuit. 

In his expert evidence, Mr Meikle said that a distance of 20 to 30 metres between the vessels during the high-speed chase was not enough space, adding that sudden stops needed to be factored in. 

“I would say that is not the sufficient distance,” he said. 

The coxswain’s evidence was that a heavy splash resulted in loss of visibility in the moments prior to the impact. 

Mr Meikle was asked whether the collision could have been avoided when visibility was lost. 

He told the court that with the vessels so close at that point of the pursuit “any action taken prior wouldn’t have prevented the collision”. 

He added that when the coxswain realised the immediate risk to life, “he should’ve done a mayday relay call”. 

The court has also heard how the pursuit took place outside of BGTW and in Spanish waters. 

Mr Meikle found that neither of the two GPS systems onboard – the chart plotter and Automatic Identification System (AIS), which broadcasts a vessels navigational data – had been turned on prior or during the pursuit.  

This meant the police vessel had no positional data when undertaking the chase at sea, save for radar and visuals. 

In evidence earlier this week, the police coxswain told the court the chart plotter was left switched off as the light from the screen affected night vision. 

In response, Mr Meikle said that the AIS would not have affected night vision and the chart plotter could be dimmed and this would have been satisfactory. 

He added he would have expected for GPS equipment to have been turned on when operating the vessel at sea. 

Mr Meikle also analysed the AIS data gathered from RGP vessels in the months leading up to the incident. 

He found that in over 50 records there were two incidents where police vessels had operated outside of BGTW, which includes the incident this inquest relates to. 

TRAINING 

Mr Meikle was questioned repeatedly about police training and found that there was no specific training for pursuits. 

“The training should’ve been greater,” Mr Meikle said. 

He added that the officers could have been trained on how to conduct pursuits safely. 

Mr Meikle agreed that RGP training would be 10% formal courses, 20% coaching and 70% learning on the job. 

He added that there was training in other modules where skills could be developed for chases at sea. 

“They are using skills above and beyond than what they are trained do so,” he said. 

Mr Meikle also said the RGP vessel should’ve been equipped with night vision binoculars and forward-looking infra-red (FLIR) equipment. 

LOG DEFENDER 

The court has heard how the RGP vessel, Sir John Chapple, was fitted with a serrated log defender, which resembles a saw on the bow of the vessel. 

Mr Meikle said he could not see the need for a serrated bow, adding that a smooth bow would be a “better design” for the purpose of protecting the vessel during crew transfers at sea. 

“The rationale of the log defender is not fully understood and not properly considered by the RGP,” Mr Meikle said. 

The lawyer acting on behalf of the families of the deceased, Christopher Finch, put it to Mr Meikle that the log defender on a police vessel in the Mediterranean is “most unusual”, adding that the device is used in Canada where logs at sea are common. 

Mr Meikle said Gibraltar is not associated with the logging industry, and that the device is meant to push logs and debris. 

Jamas Hodivala, KC, and Barnabas Branston represent the interests of two police officers. 

Christopher Finch is acting on behalf of the families of the deceased. 

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.