187 source-located claims from all three transcript parts of the first public sitting on 13 October 2026. By Kevin L. Michel. These are editorial evidence records, not final Commission findings.
Source limits: The supplied automated transcripts are not certified verbatim records. Names, words and speaker changes may be uncertain. Statements below are analytical paraphrases; any expanded quotation reproduces the supplied text and is not independently audio-verified. Later sittings are outside this edition's evidence cutoff.
Read the complete organized transcript · Download the structured register
Collision occurred on night of Saturday 18 July 2026 at Anse Cochon; four deaths, three passengers and one crew; one boat destroyed and the other sank.
Evidence limit
Opening does not assign destruction/sinking to named boats; not a final finding.
Commission appointed 1 September; oaths taken 8 September; three prior in-camera meetings.
Evidence limit
Four commissioners include chair Justice Mario Michel, ACP Luke [De Freitas ASR], retired marine superintendent Mr Frederick, maritime consultant [name garbled]; secretary Lenita Joseph and counsel [name garbled].
Evidence limit
Names must be independently verified; original source says Michelle/Defrightus/Kbad Di/Shahed Shallmine Octav.
Mandate includes incident circumstances, maritime legislation reform, SOP/protocol review and recommendations.
Evidence limit
Two registered vessels named as Ocean Angel and Kazola JR with registration numbers read aloud.
Evidence limit
Do not publish ASR registration numbers without original commission/certificates.
Four deceased described as two young men and two young women.
Evidence limit
No victim names supplied here.
Separate criminal charges concern alleged trespass on anchored yacht and grievous harm to its owner.
Evidence limit
Accused unnamed here; allegations not findings.
Officer from Marine Intelligence and Investigations Unit affirmed as investigator.
Evidence limit
Surname uncertain in ASR.
Pages 2 and 4 of Pascal statement missing from police copy; officer attributes to copying and confusion over numbering.
Evidence limit
Not evidence of deliberate suppression.
Complete four-page Pascal statement located in SLASPA director report and authenticated by investigator.
Evidence limit
Corporal 256 Stannis and Acting Corporal 407 Johnson statements outstanding; other previously missing police statements received.
Evidence limit
Names and ranks ASR-sensitive.
Initial Elias Nicholas statement attempt prevented by injuries; no subsequent attempt by hearing morning.
Evidence limit
Requests marine-unit movement diary and government vessel logs; thinks three response vessels used on separate occasions.
Evidence limit
Three-vessel count is a commissioner suggestion, not validated fleet manifest.
Police file expected to be completed in two weeks; logs obtainable in a few days.
Evidence limit
Future estimate, not completion.
Statements from Kazula JR passengers Taylor Rivier and Rome William recorded 29 July; signed copies reportedly ready but uncollected.
Evidence limit
Names ASR-sensitive; separates recorded interview from signed statement delivery.
Scenes-of-crime report expected within two-week period; investigator will return for substantive evidence.
Evidence limit
Officer saw SLASPA preliminary report, not final report; says agencies normally conduct maritime investigation jointly.
Evidence limit
SLASPA surveyors Peter Joseph and Wilbur [Etienne/ATN] visited scene with investigator; requested statements outstanding.
Evidence limit
Fisheries not approached because boats registered under Maritime Affairs; MRCC contact outside his purview.
Evidence limit
Does not prove no MRCC contact by any agency.
Police Marine/RSS/MRCC SOPs, 18–23 July movement diary, ship logs and boarding forms requested from police Commissioner office were due 7 October and not received.
Evidence limit
Investigator says he had resupplied own diary.
Adopts 24 July police statement without correction.
Evidence limit
Full written statement not reproduced in transcript.
Tyrone initially drove moderately; Dylan said Tyrone could not push the boat and took over, driving fast.
Evidence limit
Nicholas disputes speed increase and quotation; no instrumental speed.
Sat second bench forward of stern captain; two beside her, three behind, two ahead.
Evidence limit
Seat arithmetic yields eight on benches plus captain; identities not supplied.
Requested life jacket because unable to swim; captain reassured she was safe with him; no pre-impact life jacket.
Evidence limit
Saw nobody wearing life jacket; could not recall whether stored life jackets were aboard.
Evidence limit
Keep non-wearing distinct from absence of equipment.
No safety briefing; precise departure time not recalled.
Evidence limit
Boat was white and red; she saw no navigation lights as it approached dock.
Evidence limit
Dylan later admits lights off at departure.
Maintains she saw no navigation lights during voyage up to before collision.
Evidence limit
Location/field of view and light operation unresolved.
Prior rain, cloudy/dark, sea not calm; bow rose and blocked view; felt bouncing.
Evidence limit
Weather bulletin and measured sea state not in source.
Last pre-water memory is life-jacket conversation; cannot describe impact; remembers straight course, not zigzagging.
Evidence limit
Do not fabricate impact from memory gap.
Southbound boat passed without stopping; prompted separation estimate 15–20 m; later rescue felt hours but others said minutes.
Evidence limit
No proof passing crew perceived distress; no reliable elapsed rescue time.
Later craft responded to survivor phone light; rescuer recognised as friend from Baron Drive.
Evidence limit
Name and destination incomplete in Part I.
Someone handed her life jacket in water; cannot identify who.
Evidence limit
Does not contradict Nicholas claiming to be provider.
Held floating boat fragment; unsure it was same left-side part she leaned on before collision.
Evidence limit
Tyrone sat on bench ahead after helm change; she observed no lookout communication.
Evidence limit
Not observing lookout activity does not prove no assignment.
Elias Nicholas identified as another Ocean Angel occupant and present to testify.
Evidence limit
Cousin relationship tentatively put by chair; incomplete manifest.
Adopts 8 September statement; initially offers no corrections; mentions injury-related memory problems.
Evidence limit
Grade II licence; 10-plus years steering boats; three of four company boats operational; took helm near place rendered Anse Mamin.
Evidence limit
Place spelling and licence scope need source verification.
Ocean Angel powered by one 200 hp engine.
Evidence limit
No engine make, hull length or construction established.
Nine total aboard: Nicholas captain, Tyrone first mate, seven passengers.
Evidence limit
Transcript often calls all nine passengers; use explicit breakdown.
No safety briefing before departure or prior to helm change.
Evidence limit
Visibility moderate, partly cloudy; Tyrone assigned as lookout after helm change.
Evidence limit
Passenger did not observe lookout behaviour and described poor visibility.
Saw red and green lights ahead; turned starboard, correcting initial port wording; no report from lookout and no communication to him.
Evidence limit
No independent track or moment-of-sighting timing.
Captain describes variable 3000/3500–4500 rpm; agrees with commissioner-supplied speed estimate 25–35 knots.
Evidence limit
Not GPS evidence; RPM/hp not a reliable stand-alone speed calculation.
Approximately 15 minutes from helm change near Anse Mamin to collision.
Evidence limit
NOT an asserted 15 minutes from light sighting to impact; later questioning conflates.
Did not notify lighthouse or other agency/family of departure despite acknowledged duty to report to lighthouse.
Evidence limit
Applicable legal requirement needs verification.
Estimated 200–300 feet offshore; recalls other boat hitting starboard side.
Evidence limit
Offshore distance is NOT vessel separation.
Commissioner says damage suggests Ocean Angel port side and other craft starboard side, a crossing; Nicholas says recollection is starboard but has not seen wreck.
Evidence limit
No underlying forensic exhibit reproduced; not final finding.
Commissioner proposes sharp port turn would avoid impact and selected action caused collision; Nicholas rejects causation conclusion.
Evidence limit
Do not adopt as proven navigational reconstruction.
Nobody wore life jacket; 14 aboard claimed; captain wore none.
Evidence limit
Claims VHF, first aid and inspection safety equipment aboard; admits no briefing on taking helm and no reason for omission.
Evidence limit
Navigation lights off from Soufriere departure to helm change; aware but did not correct earlier; claims switched lights on when taking helm.
Evidence limit
Departure darkness admitted; later operation disputed by passenger.
Gave Bonapart one life jacket within estimated five minutes; initially saw only her and cannot account for other seven at that moment.
Evidence limit
No independent timing; survivor cannot identify provider herself.
Called marine police and Soufriere contacts, left phone with other captain and searched water.
Evidence limit
Requires calls and response logs for confirmation.
Boat cut in half/overturned; bow equipment storage opened and life jackets floated.
Evidence limit
Definitive wreck disposition not established.
Oral floating-lifejacket account differs from statement saying he dived to retrieve one; cites injury and exhausting interview.
Evidence limit
Do not label lie; memory explanation not medically assessed.
Handheld flares aboard but inaccessible in cabin; cannot recall flare training.
Evidence limit
Insists lights on and argues passenger could not see forward-mounted lights from seat.
Evidence limit
Needs geometry and light fixture/electrical evidence; observation vs inference distinction.
Had two shandy-like cocktails with dinner before trip; denies impairment.
Evidence limit
Coffee/water first answer reflected confusion with hearing day. No toxicology; not proof intoxication.
Usually reports lighthouse for Castries cruise trips, rarely for Soufriere trips; never questioned about omission.
Evidence limit
Verify logs and legal reporting scope.
Chair puts maximum capacity 12; Nicholas explains 14 jackets as extras.
Evidence limit
Verify whether certified limit 12 includes crew.
Denies excessive speed, speed change, push-the-boat quotation and requests to slow down.
Evidence limit
Navigation lights mounted at edge of bow, on part that went missing.
Evidence limit
Exact geometry not documented by photo in transcript.
Sighting separation estimated as three utility poles, later 300 feet; offshore distance initially conflated; 15-minute estimate again describes helm-change route.
Evidence limit
Earlier commissioner estimated same poles 60–75 feet. Do not plot exact encounter.
Nicholas estimates 20 minutes Soufriere to impact; commissioner claims implies higher speed without establishing route distance.
Evidence limit
Certificate names Graham Matthew as minimum certified crew; Matthew absent; Nicholas says unfamiliar with no-change condition and acknowledges poor judgment allowing Tyrone helm.
Evidence limit
Need original certificate and lawful substitution rules.
After viewing 23 January 2026 inspection certificate, denies signature is his.
Evidence limit
Not evidence sufficient to conclude forgery; signatory field and authority unknown.
No SLASPA officer spoke with him about accident.
Evidence limit
Does not prove no attempt or indirect use of police statement.
Annual renewal inspection confirmed; other dock checks and general SLASPA presence described, but frequency on own vessel uncertain.
Evidence limit
Four times a week referred to Soufriere presence, expressly not checks of own vessel.
On-water encounters with enforcement rare, approximately once per year.
Evidence limit
Distinguish from annual inspection and dock presence.
Graham Matthew said listed as Ocean Angel crew and Kazoula Boatmaster; commissioner infers two craft should not operate together under these conditions.
Evidence limit
Obtain both certificates; no final legal finding.
Did not conduct usual predeparture equipment check or read weather advisory; unaware of small-craft advisory.
Evidence limit
Does not establish exact advisory existed or its terms.
Says sunny day, some rain at night; could not recall last clear memory before impact when asked.
Evidence limit
Runs festival transfers into early morning, sometimes 2:30; recalls no enforcement stop; sleeps aboard while waiting.
Evidence limit
Does not establish fatigue on incident trip or illegality of nighttime service.
Nicholas discharged subject to recall; recess announced until 3 p.m.
Evidence limit
Part I contains no final findings.
Elias Nicholas identifies himself as a fisherman from Bridge Street; town transcribed as Suare.
Evidence limit
Confirm town as Soufrière externally; do not silently treat ASR place spelling as authoritative.
I'm Elias Nicholas. I'm from Suare. Bridge Street.
Nicholas says he had not given police a statement and that no officer came to obtain one.
Evidence limit
Only his account of contact; police collection records have not been examined.
No officer ever came to check you for a statement? >> No.
Nicholas says he boarded at the Soufrière jetty sometime after 10 p.m. on the Saturday referred to as July 18, 2026.
Evidence limit
Place and year need confirmation from official record; approximate departure time.
I bought it on the um on board on the jetty in Suare. And about what time was that? >> Around after 10.
The chair reconciles Nicholas's list to nine aboard Ocean Angel: Tyrone, Roxan, Debbie, an unnamed woman from Choiseul, Bradley, Marvin, Marley, Dylan and Nicholas.
Evidence limit
First names have ASR variants; woman's origin and every full name require independent confirmation. Earlier answer of eight is corrected by enumeration.
Tyrone 1, Roxan 2, Debbie 3, A Girl from Shiselle 4, Bradley 5, Marvin 6, Molly 7, or Marley 7, sorry, the captain 8, and I nine.
Nicholas describes Dylan Nicholas as his fifth cousin, and says they are not close.
Evidence limit
Relationship is self-reported.
What? What are you to him? >> His fifth cousin.
Tyrone initially operated Ocean Angel; Dylan later took over.
Evidence limit
Dan/Tyran are ASR variants within a passage consistently about Dylan/Tyrone.
So Tyran was captain and the boat traveled some distance. >> Yeah. >> Before Dan took over. >> Yes.
II P2-003, P2-004 / P2-U0070, P2-U0071, P2-U0072, P2-U0073 ↗
Nicholas recalls Dylan saying words to the effect of let me captain, I will show you how to cap.
Evidence limit
Quote is reconstructed through examiner repetition and witness agreement, not a recording of the original conversation; exact wording varies.
He said, "What? Sorry. Let me captain, I will show you how to cap."
Nicholas says Tyrone was taking the boat more easily, while Dylan drove faster.
Evidence limit
No measured speed is provided. ASR Jill refers contextually to Dylan.
Ty was taking it more easy on the boot, but Jill was going more faster.
Nicholas says no navigation lights were observed on Ocean Angel at departure or during the journey.
Evidence limit
Evidence is witness perception, not a technical inspection or final finding that lights were absent or inoperative.
Did you observe whether there were any navigation lights when he left when the boat left the port of Sufare? >> No lights, my lady. Did you observe whether the lights were switched on at any time during the journey? >> No, my lady.
Nicholas says he was in the forward left seat with Tyrone beside him; nobody was ahead of them.
Evidence limit
Specific seat/position needs vessel drawing; initial wording about sitting on the bow was clarified to a forward seat.
Was he sitting next to you? >> Yes, sir. Was there anybody ahead of you? Was there anybody in front of you on time? >> No.
Nicholas says the high bow blocked his view ahead, even while stationary unless he adjusted position.
Evidence limit
Cannot infer operator's forward visibility from a passenger's lower seating position.
That's the design of the boat. The bow is just high.
Nicholas says he did not see an approaching vessel or its lights before the collision.
Evidence limit
Blocked sightline limits the meaning of this non-observation; it cannot establish that the other vessel had no lights.
Did you ever see the lights of a vessel coming towards the vessel you were on? >> No, sir.
Nicholas says Debbie, Roxan and the woman from Choiseul asked Dylan to slow down, saying they could not swim; he says he did not slow or reply.
Evidence limit
Serious allegation against Dylan; corroborate with surviving witnesses and give him an opportunity to respond.
the girls was telling him um Dan, you're going too fast. We cannot swim.
Nicholas reaffirms that three women complained about speed. His earlier negative answer addressed a question expressly excluding the women; the later suggestion that he had denied all complaints came in the chair’s restatement.
Evidence limit
Read P2-016, P2-025 and P2-032 alongside this exchange. The earlier question said “Other than the girls”; treating its negative answer as a denial that anyone complained would change its scope. Agreement here followed a compound leading summary. This is not a secure self-contradiction.
By which I understood you to mean he did not take heed. He did not when they said so, he did not slow down as a result of them saying so. In fact, he didn't say anything. He just continued at his speed. That's what I understood you to be saying when you gave your evidence earlier on. Is that correct? >> That's good.
Nicholas says he received no safety briefing and was not issued a life jacket to wear.
Evidence limit
Does not prove there were no life jackets aboard.
were you given any safety briefing when you got on the boat? >> Nothing like that, sir? Nothing like that? No. >> No. Were you given a life jacket to put on? >> No sir.
II P2-018, P2-019 / P2-U0322, P2-U0323, P2-U0324, P2-U0325 ↗
Nicholas describes calm conditions at the jetty but choppy conditions and bouncing outside.
Evidence limit
No measured wave height, wind, visibility or sea-state log.
It was choppy even at the jetty. >> No, the jetty. No, it was um more calm.
Nicholas explicitly describes the vessel as stable just before impact.
Evidence limit
Earlier stable/unstable wording is internally ambiguous: his answer appears to say more stable, while the examiner repeats more unstable. Audio is needed to distinguish transcription error from an examiner’s restatement or a witness change. Do not resolve this against him without verification.
It was stable. >> It was stable just prior to the empire. >> Stable.
Nicholas reports no warning, siren, VHF communication, or perceived change of direction/speed before impact.
Evidence limit
Non-observation from injured passenger with restricted view; not proof that no control input occurred.
before just before the accident or the impact so to speak, did you notice or did you feel the captain did anything with the vessel? Go left, go right, slow down the speed. >> Nothing that I just had a a loud noise.
After hearing a loud noise, Nicholas found himself in the water and Ocean Angel capsized.
Evidence limit
Cannot infer exact collision geometry from this account.
when I check myself, I check I I I see water. The book cap size already.
Nicholas says he grabbed a floating life jacket near Ocean Angel and got onto the capsized craft.
Evidence limit
Jacket origin is not established. Final sinking or recovery of the vessel is not established.
you grab the the um the life jacket and you're using it to to float. Uh, you held on to it. Yeah. >> Did Sorry. >> Yeah, that's when I um went up on top of the boat and sit down on it capsized.
Nicholas saw several people in the water but could not identify them; he heard one male voice calling for help.
Evidence limit
He does not identify the caller or all people nearby.
I heard someone was shouting, "Help! Help!" Does it sound like a male voice or a female voice? >> A male voice.
Nicholas estimates a rescue boat reached him about 15 minutes later.
Evidence limit
Approximate estimate after injury; not independently timed.
Around 15 minutes after >> about 15 minutes after.
Nicholas says he and Debbie's body were on the rescue boat with its captain and another person, and were taken to Canaries.
Evidence limit
He did not know whether Debbie was placed aboard before or after him; death, identity and recovery circumstances need medical/rescue corroboration.
So it was the captain of the boat. One other person. You and Debbie's body. >> Yeah. That's what I see.
Nicholas specifically rejects a suggestion that he had said Debbie was on top of the capsized vessel.
Evidence limit
Do not illustrate Debbie on the overturned boat or say she was recovered from it on this evidence.
You say also that Debbie was on that capsized book. >> No, I never said that.
Nicholas recalls being landed at Canaries, an ambulance being called, then losing awareness until hospital.
Evidence limit
He cannot recount transport from jetty to hospital.
They dropped us on by the jetty in Canaries and they called for the ambulance.
Nicholas reports a broken left leg, a head wound, and surgery to his leg at a facility transcribed Oku.
Evidence limit
Obtain consent/medical corroboration for detailed medical claims; likely OKEU but not established by this source alone.
had a broken leg, my left leg.
Nicholas identifies himself as a passenger, not a crew member or captain.
Evidence limit
Being a fisherman does not establish that he owed the operational duties of crew on this trip.
I was a passenger. >> Passenger. >> Not a crew member.
Nicholas says he did not see anybody relaying observations ahead to the captain.
Evidence limit
Commissioner inference follows narrower witness evidence; earlier Nicholas said he did not know if anyone was acting as lookout.
Was there anybody? >> Nobody sir. >> So it would be fair to say that there was not a lookout.
Nicholas says Dylan was on the capsized boat attempting a phone call while a male voice called for help.
Evidence limit
Ambiguous initial exchange and pronouns; supports attempted calling, not call recipient, success, timing, or abandonment of rescue duty.
One voice, >> but he was on the boat making some calls. >> That's correct. >> Yes, sir.
Nicholas estimates about 20 minutes from departure to collision, with Dylan taking over after a place transcribed Anshass and operating about 15–16 minutes.
Evidence limit
Likely Anse Chastanet requires geographic confirmation; commissioner derives 5 minutes/one-third route and says boat was flying, neither is a measured navigation finding.
around 15 16 minutes sir >> 15 >> 16 minutes
Nicholas thinks impact was sideways and on the right because he was seated on the left and believes a head-on or left-side impact would have killed him.
Evidence limit
He never saw the approaching vessel. Do not present right-side impact as established.
No, I think I I think it's on the right side. If it was on the left side, I would have be dead.
Nicholas says nobody drank, ate or smoked during the voyage, but could not say what others consumed before he boarded.
Evidence limit
No alcohol consumption observed during voyage is not evidence of sobriety before boarding.
Nobody wasn't drinking anything. No nothing like that >> or eating anything. >> Eating nothing. Not even smoking.
Nicholas says earlier that he did not feel safe; later says he was not really frightened for his life and that the speed was fast but he had no problem.
Evidence limit
Potential tension, not necessarily contradiction: discomfort and fear for life are different questions.
It was going fast for me, but I didn't I had no problem.
Nicholas says he learned at hospital the following day that four people had died.
Evidence limit
Do not use this damaged sentence as independent proof of death toll or identities.
you I had four people die but even the same night I heard that the next day when I wake up.
Staff announce owner Ireanius Pascal and captain Tyson Hippolit as the two remaining witnesses from Kaza Jr.
Evidence limit
Only Tyson testifies before this part ends; Pascal is announced, not heard. Later development: Pascal testifies in Part III (P3-001 onward).
So the next two persons were from the other vessel Kaza Jr.
Tyson confirms giving a police statement July 21, 2026, says it is accurate and stands by it.
Evidence limit
The statement text itself is not attached or fully read aloud.
Did you on the 21st of July 2026 give a statement to the police about what happened on the night of of Saturday 18th July 2026? >> Yes, sir.
Tyson confirms operating Kaza Jr from Soufrière to Gros Islet around 3 p.m., then on its return with nine aboard.
Evidence limit
Nine is a total count, not a complete manifest in this part. Do not fill names from speculation.
There were nine of you on the boat headed back to Sufra. >> Yep. >> And that boat was Kazola Jr.
After a licence is shown to him, Tyson accepts that his operator licence expired July 18, 2015.
Evidence limit
Underlying licence/exhibit not supplied; strong hearing evidence of expiry, not independent inspection by us.
your license to operate a boat expired on the 18th of July 2015. We've shown you the documents. You accept that? >> Yeah.
Tyson ultimately agrees that he operated boats without a current licence.
Evidence limit
Broad exchange does not definitively settle all vessel categories or the legal fishing-licence distinction.
Well, yes. So, yes, you agree that you've been driving boats without a license. Yes.
Tyson says he had driven Kaza Jr about three or four times; he initially presents his other operation as mainly his fishing boat.
Evidence limit
No independently verified operating history or count.
Well, I only drove this boat maybe three three to four times.
Tyson accepts consuming at least four Piton beers and denies additional alcoholic drinks.
Evidence limit
Brand Piton is inferred from repeated ASR variants. Time window, bottle size and BAC are not established; consumption is not a finding of intoxication or causation.
Very well. So, but you are agreeing that you had at least four pure bears. >> Mhm.
Chair reads owner's statement that he bought at least four Piton beers each for Lester, Nile and Tyson and that they had their own money and bought drinks as well.
Evidence limit
Owner does not give oral evidence in Part II. Spellings, reference to additional purchases and actual consumption remain contested; Tyson denies extra drinks. Part III update: Pascal gives his own purchase account at P3-011–P3-012.
I would have purchased at least four pet bears each for Leester, Nile, and Tyson. They had they had their own monies and would have purchased their own drinks as well.
Tyson says four beers had no effect on him.
Evidence limit
A subjective claim, not medical/toxicological proof of unimpaired performance.
So upon consuming four bears, you does it do anything to you? >> No, man. >> Nothing? >> No.
Fragmented English/Creole passage mentions a 150-horsepower engine, about 3,000–4,000 rpm and a rough 20–24-knot speed.
Evidence limit
Speaker turn boundaries and question/answer allocation are unclear; verify audio/exhibits before using numeric speed or engine model publicly.
150 horsepower 3,000 35 4,000 what you get maybe roughly let me say 20 24 knots about roughly
Tyson insists Kaza Jr's navigation lights were on and says he saw only shore lights before impact.
Evidence limit
Cannot establish regulatory compliance, light sectors, brightness or independent visibility.
Navigation light on 100% sure. >> 100% sure.
Tyson estimates being at least three utility-pole distances from shore.
Evidence limit
Do not convert to metres or plot an exact collision coordinate; pole spacing is unspecified.
So you say free utility poles at least. It could have been more but >> could have been more
Tyson says he put the boat in neutral immediately after impact.
Evidence limit
Subsequent testimony says he entered water seconds later; initial stay phrasing need not mean he remained indefinitely.
As soon as f neutral one time that's it here. I sleep the same place. Put the boat in neutral and just stay the same place behind my wheel.
Tyson says he did not make an emergency call because people needed rescue, and claims he entered the water and saved two lives.
Evidence limit
No identities of the two rescued, full rescue sequence or corroboration in Part II.
the minute I put the boat in neutral I'll say seconds after I fell in water and saved two lives
Tyson says he had a lookout and that the lookout saw nothing before impact.
Evidence limit
Lookout identity, position and account are not provided in Part II.
did you have a lookout on your vessel >> on which one >> on your vessel the vessel that you were captain in did you have a lookout Yeah. >> Did the lookout see anything? >> No.
II P2-044 / P2-U0711, P2-U0712, P2-U0713, P2-U0714, P2-U0715 ↗
Tyson accepts not notifying Vigie lighthouse and says many fishermen/water-taxi captains do not follow that practice.
Evidence limit
His personal non-reporting is an admission; industry-wide prevalence is his generalized claim, not a measured statistic. Applicable legal reporting requirement requires separate verification.
No we don't we don't that one we we we don't follow that one. Definitely a lot of us don't follow that one calling VG light whatever we don't
A commissioner puts it to Tyson that he had been approached to renew his licence; Tyson does not remember such contact.
Evidence limit
No approach letter, notice or officer testimony produced in Part II; do not state reminder was proven.
you were approached between 2015 and 20 and July 20 sorry July 18th 2026 to renew your license and you did not
Tyson says he does not remember SLASPA maritime personnel or police marine unit approaching him about the expired licence.
Evidence limit
This is not proof no approach occurred or that agencies never enforced the requirement.
You don't remember ever being approached in 11 years about your expired license? >> Nope.
Commissioner says annual renewal cost was only $5 and extrapolates $55 over 11 years.
Evidence limit
No statute, fee schedule, currency, licence class or period-specific rate substantiated in Part II; verify before repeating as fact.
based on the provisions of the law for you it's only $5 per year.
Chair says commission is gathering facts rather than prosecuting witnesses, and witnesses may be recalled.
Evidence limit
This oral explanation does not establish legal immunity, evidentiary exclusion or all statutory powers; no final liability finding in Part II.
We are not trying to ask you questions so that charges can be brought against you. This is not the role of this commission.
Part II ends with a 10-minute recess before the announced final witness.
Evidence limit
Third transcript needed; do not imply the day's evidence or inquiry was complete.
After this, we only have one more witness for the day, but we have to take a short recess for no more than about 10 minutes
Pascal gives sworn oral evidence, identifies as a Soufriere tour operator, and discloses hearing difficulty on his left side.
Evidence limit
First name ASR varies. This replaces earlier Parts I–II status that owner had not yet testified.
Your attention on that of commissioners. Mr. Pascal has indicated that he has a slight um hearing loss in >> Yeah, I have a little hearing problem to the left. So, >> so we would need to speak up just to ensure that he can hear clearly. Are you hearing me loudly and clearly? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Can you state your name, your address, and your occupation? >> Um, my name Ireneius Pascal from Bridge Street Sofur, and I'm a tour operator by profession. Did you on the 19th of July 2026 give a statement to the police as to what transpired on the 18th of July 2026? >> Yes, I did. >> Were you shown a copy of this statement this morning? Yes, I do. Well, um it was supposed to be four pages, but I received two pages of it, but I do have a copy >> um with all four. >> Yeah, I have a copy. >> Very well. >> Yes. And you you have read the statement and you're satisfied that it is true and correct? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And you wish it to be used uh by this commission?
Adopts police statement dated 19 July 2026 as true without alteration; received only two of four pages that morning but says he has all four.
Evidence limit
Do not claim he adopted only two pages or that the complete statement was read aloud.
Did you on the 19th of July 2026 give a statement to the police as to what transpired on the 18th of July 2026? >> Yes, I did. >> Were you shown a copy of this statement this morning? Yes, I do. Well, um it was supposed to be four pages, but I received two pages of it, but I do have a copy >> um with all four. >> Yeah, I have a copy. >> Very well. >> Yes. And you you have read the statement and you're satisfied that it is true and correct? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And you wish it to be used uh by this commission? >> Repeat yourself. And you wish it to be used by this commission as evidence? >> Yes. >> Having read the statement, is there anything you need to add to need you need to alter? >> No. >> You're you're satisfied with the statement as >> as read by you? >> Yes, I do.
Identifies himself as owner of Cazorla Jr and says he has no captain licence.
Evidence limit
Ownership asserted under oath; vessel ASR Kazola. Ownership without captain licence is not itself a demonstrated offence.
I'm the owner of Kazola Jr. >> Mhm. Are you Do you also have a captain's license? >> Make your pardon. >> Do you also have a captain's license? >> No, I don't have.
III P3-003 / P3-U0041, P3-U0042, P3-U0043, P3-U0044, P3-U0045 ↗
Regular captain unavailable after taking his own boat to the planned carnival event; Tyson, part of the social plans, operated instead.
Evidence limit
No-choice phrasing is his justification, not proof no safe alternative existed.
>> Owner. I'm the owner of Kazola Jr. >> Mhm. Are you Do you also have a captain's license? >> Make your pardon. >> Do you also have a captain's license? >> No, I don't have. >> And what kind of touristic boating events is your boat involved in? >> Um well, we specialize in both. um how would I say um fishing troops like London seats. >> London seats. >> Yeah, I specialize in London. I mean, >> and do you have a full-time captain? >> Yes, I do. >> Um and on the the date the 18th of July 2026, >> he wasn't available. >> He was not available. No. >> So, what arrangements did you make in his place? >> Well, I found out that it was because it was a planned event. The whole thing that happened, it was planned because, you know, Connival have a calendar of events coming, you know. So, we plan ahead and decided to go, but you know, he was supposed to be the captain, but the day of the event, he took his boat, which is a um a day, and he went out to the event on his own. So you know I had left with no choice. Um Tyson was you know among the plans as well. So he just decided to you know captain the boat on that night. >> So the captain you used on the day of the 18th of July 2026 is a captain you usually use or this was the first time? No, he's basically I've used him a few times, you know, but the day of the the event, he's not my um how would I say it? He's not my um my worker. He don't work for me. I just use him time to time. The the night of the the event, I use him. >> When you say a few times in over a season of 10 months, how often do you use his services? >> Rarely, I use him cuz he's not my captain. He's not my captain. I really use him. Like, you know, I don't really use him. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> So, on the day in question, >> were you on the vessel? >> Yes, I was. >> And as the owner, as the owner, are you aware of the process in having guests on your vessel >> or the protocol? Repeat yourself. >> The protocol. Are you aware of the protocols of having guests on your vessel during tours? >> Yes, I do. >> So, can you confirm whether safety briefings were done? >> None. None of none of safety briefings was given. Is there a reason why?
Says Tyson is not his employee or regular captain but he has used him a few times.
Evidence limit
Frequency not quantified reliably; this is not first-ever use.
So the captain you used on the day of the 18th of July 2026 is a captain you usually use or this was the first time? No, he's basically I've used him a few times, you know, but the day of the the event, he's not my um how would I say it? He's not my um my worker. He don't work for me. I just use him time to time. The the night of the the event, I use him. >> When you say a few times in over a season of 10 months, how often do you use his services? >> Rarely, I use him cuz he's not my captain. He's not my captain. I really use him. Like, you know, I don't really use him.
Was aboard and admits no safety briefing on this voyage.
Evidence limit
Use a direct admission about this trip; broader practice allegations require separate attribution.
were you on the vessel? >> Yes, I was. >> And as the owner, as the owner, are you aware of the process in having guests on your vessel >> or the protocol? Repeat yourself. >> The protocol. Are you aware of the protocols of having guests on your vessel during tours? >> Yes, I do. >> So, can you confirm whether safety briefings were done? >> None. None of none of safety briefings was given. Is there a reason why? >> Well, I believe that's just a a weeping like we don't really, you know, take serious, you know, us. So that's why I think that's the purpose of that to, you know, reinforce those stuff and for us to do the things the right way cuz I could be honest with you. If I'm being honest with you, the majority, we don't do that. We don't brief you know especially when it's not commercial use like you know using for guests and it's locals we just do things you know so that's >> so when you have organized tours >> Mhm. >> for tourists do you do safety briefings? >> Yes. So I do cuz I'm the saleserson at the beach and I conduct everything. So basically when I go out of guests I'll tell them that live vest is mandatory especially when you're doing snorkeling. So I'd brief them accordingly and tell them what cuz also on my boat there's a big sign at the front where it's stated um live vest is mandatory as well. >> Okay. So you do safety briefings for tourists, but for localized events, >> Yeah. >> you do not have safety briefings. >> We didn't we didn't do that at all that day.
Describes giving tourist safety briefings and having a life-vest-mandatory sign; says local trips often do not receive these practices.
Evidence limit
His generalized description is not an industry audit. Later resists examiner framing but maintains omission.
>> Well, I believe that's just a a weeping like we don't really, you know, take serious, you know, us. So that's why I think that's the purpose of that to, you know, reinforce those stuff and for us to do the things the right way cuz I could be honest with you. If I'm being honest with you, the majority, we don't do that. We don't brief you know especially when it's not commercial use like you know using for guests and it's locals we just do things you know so that's >> so when you have organized tours >> Mhm. >> for tourists do you do safety briefings? >> Yes. So I do cuz I'm the saleserson at the beach and I conduct everything. So basically when I go out of guests I'll tell them that live vest is mandatory especially when you're doing snorkeling. So I'd brief them accordingly and tell them what cuz also on my boat there's a big sign at the front where it's stated um live vest is mandatory as well. >> Okay. So you do safety briefings for tourists, but for localized events, >> Yeah. >> you do not have safety briefings. >> We didn't we didn't do that at all that day. >> Okay. And as the owner of the vessel, do you have a designated lookout person on your vessel? Well, yes, cuz I do have my captain and crew which work for me as well. I have a captain and crew. Well, I keep I I have a few guys who works for me as well, you know, but I have a valid captain license holder who's captain in my boat and um a crew member. Now, I'm seeing you all have some new laws in terms of having license for crew. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you just said. I said there's a new protocol with having a license for crew and with that being said that you know my my guys who works for me I have two captain works for me but I don't have none of them doesn't have a a crew license. >> You have two captains working for you? >> Yeah two captains >> but none of them have >> a crew license because they have a they have a a license to captain the boat. >> Okay. So, who was the designated lookout person on the vessel >> on the night
Says he uses captains with captain licences but none has a separate crew licence; describes crew licensing as a new protocol.
Evidence limit
No law or commencement date established by this assertion; do not describe as verified new legislation.
>> We didn't we didn't do that at all that day. >> Okay. And as the owner of the vessel, do you have a designated lookout person on your vessel? Well, yes, cuz I do have my captain and crew which work for me as well. I have a captain and crew. Well, I keep I I have a few guys who works for me as well, you know, but I have a valid captain license holder who's captain in my boat and um a crew member. Now, I'm seeing you all have some new laws in terms of having license for crew. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you just said. I said there's a new protocol with having a license for crew and with that being said that you know my my guys who works for me I have two captain works for me but I don't have none of them doesn't have a a crew license. >> You have two captains working for you? >> Yeah two captains >> but none of them have >> a crew license because they have a they have a a license to captain the boat. >> Okay. So, who was the designated lookout person on the vessel >> on the night
No designated lookout on outbound trip; a man called Mado/Mavado acted as lookout on the southbound return.
Evidence limit
Later linked to Janelle/Jonel Butcher; do not report no lookout for the collision leg.
We did not um to be honest with you, I had no lookout because it was, you know, as I said, it was a day we just go and just go have fun. We never know it would happen like that. So, I didn't have a um lookout person when we were leaving. But on the way back, we had one which was one of the guys that you know follow us on the way back. >> And who was that? >> Mado. >> Yeah. His name is Jel. Jel something. Yeah. >> So Mado was the local >> person on the way back to Sufra. >> On the way head coming down from the north heading >> leaving the north to go to our destination Sufra. Mada was the person looking out on that night.
III P3-007 / P3-U0089, P3-U0090, P3-U0091, P3-U0092, P3-U0093, P3-U0094, P3-U0095, P3-U0096 ↗
Says VHF radio worked but was not used and lighthouse was not informed; clarifies lights/navigation aids worked and were used from departure.
Evidence limit
The initial not-at-use phrase is corrected in the next answer. No independent electrical test here.
And the night in question, were all the systems on your vessel working? >> Um, to be honest with you, I do have my VHF radio, which wasn't been used that night. Captain didn't use it. Nobody use it. Um, I do have my live vest. I have my um fire extinguishers and my lights front and back. So the night it just wasn't at use. We didn't tell anyone like the light off to inform the light off that we were coming. None of that happened. >> So the night in question, your navigational aids on the vessel were working but not used >> properly worked and it was at use from the time we left. >> Okay. And the VHF was working. >> It was working. We didn't use >> we didn't use it. But as I said, it's not a me thing. I'm not just trying and you know, it's not a me thing. It's something I think majority of us honestly have a habit of doing like we don't really inform the light. >> Okay. >> Which we supposed to we don't do it. It's just a we thing. And I think that's the reason why you all are here to enforce on the law on doing that. So >> So you confirmed there was no safety briefings.
Says jackets were not generally issued, but Roman William requested one roughly ten minutes before the collision.
Evidence limit
Later says girlfriend Taylor requested it; his suggestion Roman might otherwise have died is counterfactual, not evidence Roman died.
Are you aware whether or not life jackets were issued on that night? >> And I'm being honest with you. As I said, no live vest were issued at the time, but one individual asked for a live vest minutes before the collision. And I don't even know what led him to ask for that live at that time because I'm going to be honest, he would be one of the persons being un alive. He asked for the live vest 10 minutes before the collision. And that's Mr. Roman. Mr. Roman William.
No flares were aboard that night.
Evidence limit
Different from Ocean Angel claim of inaccessible flares; keep boats separate.
among the safety equipment. Is do you have a any a flare gun and flares? >> Um being honest um the night we didn't have any flares on board.
Says he checks forecasts for tourist tours but did not do so for this local outing.
Evidence limit
Relate to official regional advisory without claiming its forecast was measured at impact.
In terms of standard oper operating procedures, do you normally review the marine or the weather forecast before you venture out on your vessel? >> Repeat yourself. >> As part of your SOPs, your standard operating procedures. >> Mhm. Do you normally get a copy of the marine or weather report before your vessel ventures out? >> Well, um, again for my guest, I always check weather forecast because sometimes it could affect it could affect my tours as well. So, I just look out for that. But I didn't look out when we have locals. I don't I don't really do that. >> So, do you consider locals your guests? Well, we it wasn't as I said if um if I'm operating commotionally commercially I'll say yes they're my guest but you know in that event but we heading out to a party I wouldn't say they are guest
III P3-009, P3-010 / P3-U0115, P3-U0116, P3-U0117, P3-U0118, P3-U0119, P3-U0120 ↗
Describes dark clouds and choppy seas; says he asked Tyson to slow because he was going more than moderate speed and waves posed danger.
Evidence limit
No numerical speed or measured sea state; owner observation, not collision-causation finding.
>> So, do you consider locals your guests? Well, we it wasn't as I said if um if I'm operating commotionally commercially I'll say yes they're my guest but you know in that event but we heading out to a party I wouldn't say they are guest >> so what was the weather like that night that day and night >> well day in the day it was good um well the sea was kind of choppy >> Mhm. In the day, the weather was okay in the day, but the night it was kind of dark, you know, some dark clouds, you know. Um, also she was choppy. And at one point, I'm being honest cuz it's only the trophy. All right. when we were leaving um Rodney or Gile um captain was you know going a little more than moderate all right and I had to stop him and I have people that could attest to that I had to tell him that you know take it easy because it's kind of choppy and you can't ride those wave with speed cuz you know it could we have nine of us on board it could cause you know even without coll co colliding with anybody body it could just sink sometime take a wave so I had to call on on him and tell him you know he has to take it easy >> and who was the captain at the time >> it was Tyson Tyson captain go and come back >> and that's Tyson Hippolith >> Tyson Hippolith yeah >> during the course of that evening did you consume any alcoholic beverages >> yes I did yes I and I could clearly remember what I was consuming that night. >> And did you consume any alcohol with your captain? >> No. Well, I was the one who I purchased as I said clearly in my statement that I purchase um like three four bears for each of them cuz you know when I go out I always you know take care I I I'm the one who spending you know so you know everything was on me. So, I bought like three or four rounds of drinks which was bez. And I had like a glass like glass of um I think it was Bonte and Cranberry that night. Yeah, Bonte and Cranberry I had that night. I only had maybe three four glass. I not a heavy drinker. I drink occasionally. But it's normal if you go out with your captains while on a tour that you buy drinks for them. >> They go pardon.
Says he bought three or four rounds of beers for companions and himself had about three or four Bounty-and-cranberry drinks, brand transcription uncertain.
Evidence limit
No drink size, strength or timing; no impairment established. Do not confuse his drinks with Tyson's beers.
>> and who was the captain at the time >> it was Tyson Tyson captain go and come back >> and that's Tyson Hippolith >> Tyson Hippolith yeah >> during the course of that evening did you consume any alcoholic beverages >> yes I did yes I and I could clearly remember what I was consuming that night. >> And did you consume any alcohol with your captain? >> No. Well, I was the one who I purchased as I said clearly in my statement that I purchase um like three four bears for each of them cuz you know when I go out I always you know take care I I I'm the one who spending you know so you know everything was on me. So, I bought like three or four rounds of drinks which was bez. And I had like a glass like glass of um I think it was Bonte and Cranberry that night. Yeah, Bonte and Cranberry I had that night. I only had maybe three four glass. I not a heavy drinker. I drink occasionally. But it's normal if you go out with your captains while on a tour that you buy drinks for them. >> They go pardon. >> I said, is it normal >> when you go out on tours with your captain that you buy alcoholic beverages for them? >> No, not all the time. There's a place and time for all that. As I said, that night it was a event. We went to a event and we went and, you know, have a good time. But in still having a good time, I was vigilant because as I said, I I was the one buying the drinks. So, you know, I we didn't consume too many cuz I know what it could do when you're drinking and driving. >> So, I just have two more questions. Um, >> no problem. >> Is it normal for you to extend these services during the festive season, for example, carnival, jazz, etc. Do you normally do these tours at night? >> Yes, I do. >> And how late do you stay on the water? >> Well, to be honest, as I say, I'm the owner, so I basically don't really navigate at night. I usually send my captain and crew to do the work and I just stay back. So, I don't really navigate at night. So what's the normal time they would stay out extending these services into the night or early morning?
Business provides festival night services sometimes until 2–3 a.m.; owner usually sends captain and crew rather than accompanying them.
Evidence limit
General practice, not an exact return time for this voyage.
>> I said, is it normal >> when you go out on tours with your captain that you buy alcoholic beverages for them? >> No, not all the time. There's a place and time for all that. As I said, that night it was a event. We went to a event and we went and, you know, have a good time. But in still having a good time, I was vigilant because as I said, I I was the one buying the drinks. So, you know, I we didn't consume too many cuz I know what it could do when you're drinking and driving. >> So, I just have two more questions. Um, >> no problem. >> Is it normal for you to extend these services during the festive season, for example, carnival, jazz, etc. Do you normally do these tours at night? >> Yes, I do. >> And how late do you stay on the water? >> Well, to be honest, as I say, I'm the owner, so I basically don't really navigate at night. I usually send my captain and crew to do the work and I just stay back. So, I don't really navigate at night. So what's the normal time they would stay out extending these services into the night or early morning? >> Well, it depend on what time the events done. >> Yeah. So 2 3 4 in the morning. >> 2 in the morning. Sometime most events is 2:00 in the morning, you know, 3:00 in the morning, you know, it depend. And what's the frequency of you being stopped underwater by SLASPA or the marine police when engaging in these services? >> Um, I've never encountered any anyone never encountered any stops from the marine police when doing those. >> So they've never stopped you on the water and asked for license. No, I think I've stopped maybe once cuz you know I do things as I should. So I don't think you know I've been stopped of more than once or twice. >> Sure. >> Just a minute. Not more than once or twice in two weeks or in 2 years or or 20 years? >> Take a pattern. >> When you say you've been stopped not more than once or twice, >> is that once or twice in a week? once or twice in a year once or twice every five years. >> If my business has been in operation like the boat business has been in operation for like four or five years, I'll definitely see maybe not four or five years maybe twice I've been stopped or once. I don't get myself in problem with the police. I do what I have to do in short on time, service on time. I do what I have to do on time. And anybody who knows me could attest to, you know, me taking care of my business.
Initially says never stopped, then estimates once or twice during four or five years of boating business.
Evidence limit
Corrected rough recollection; not documented inspection frequency or evidence zero enforcement.
>> Well, it depend on what time the events done. >> Yeah. So 2 3 4 in the morning. >> 2 in the morning. Sometime most events is 2:00 in the morning, you know, 3:00 in the morning, you know, it depend. And what's the frequency of you being stopped underwater by SLASPA or the marine police when engaging in these services? >> Um, I've never encountered any anyone never encountered any stops from the marine police when doing those. >> So they've never stopped you on the water and asked for license. No, I think I've stopped maybe once cuz you know I do things as I should. So I don't think you know I've been stopped of more than once or twice. >> Sure. >> Just a minute. Not more than once or twice in two weeks or in 2 years or or 20 years? >> Take a pattern. >> When you say you've been stopped not more than once or twice, >> is that once or twice in a week? once or twice in a year once or twice every five years. >> If my business has been in operation like the boat business has been in operation for like four or five years, I'll definitely see maybe not four or five years maybe twice I've been stopped or once. I don't get myself in problem with the police. I do what I have to do in short on time, service on time. I do what I have to do on time. And anybody who knows me could attest to, you know, me taking care of my business.
From his seat saw dark clouds, shore lights and choppy water, with limited visibility.
Evidence limit
His position and hearing impairment constrain perception; does not measure captain's or lookout's sightline.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And the final question from me, can you just summarize briefly the series of events right before the incident? Um >> what you remember in terms of visual in terms of visibility? >> Oh, the night of the event. >> Yeah. The of the incident. >> The day of the incident. >> Yeah. >> Like you mean like um visibility wise? >> Yes. >> Well, as I said, it was dark to be honest with you. And where I was seated, you know, I could have just seen dark clouds and like um how you call that lights from the shoreline and choppy like see was choppy but visibility wise like it was kind of dark. So it was dark but it was you could have still see a bit a little bit visible as well but >> the weather was dark. >> Yeah. Low visibility. >> Yeah. >> A bit of shoreline. And then what happened in terms of the impact? Just describe your Well, the impact to be honest. As I said, I've I can have a little hearing problem. So, I only heard a sound. I don't know how loud it was cuz you know when you have a little air problem you might not hear it as normal as the next person but I just heard a noise and then you know I was shift to other seat and that was it.
Assumed Tyson licensed from his known boating history; made no licence check.
Evidence limit
Says he did not know licence had expired. Do not transform this into admission of knowingly employing an expired-license operator.
But were you aware of the fact that you were employing somebody to to captain a boat who whose license expired 11 years ago? >> But I'm being honest with you. I know this guy for a while and I know he's been driving boats. So I'm making assumption that he has a license. You understand? And as I said the night it wasn't him was supposed to drive my boat. So you're saying you know he drives boats. Does Can I take that? You mean you know he drives passenger boats for >> No, his boat. He has his boat and I know him for I know Tyson from Donkeers cuz we stay in the same area. >> So I know him driving. >> He a fishing boat or a passenger boat? >> Oh, >> he has a fishing boat or a passenger boat? >> He has a fishing boat presently. I don't know how long he has it for but before the passion before his boat I know him to captain like um Exodus I don't know if you know about those company um Exodus that's for Tom and them >> that's back then like years maybe have decades >> that's before 2015 when he was >> well I don't I to be honest with you I don't know I as I said I just know him to captain those boats which I know is licensed boats that operate in the tourist industry so I'm assuming He do has a license. >> So I'm trying to understand you you know him to be regularly captaining these um passenger boats. You know him to be regularly captaining these boats. Why you thought he must have a license? >> Repeat yourself. >> You know is it that you're saying that he know you know he regularly captaining these passenger boats and therefore you thought he had a license? >> Yes. And how regularly would you say he captains boats? >> Well, as I said, that's don't care. That's like decades ago. But presently, as he owns his boat, I could attest that I haven't seen him drive a boat apart from his boat. That's what I could say. I haven't seen if he does it. Maybe at the moment, I didn't see. But I'm telling you, apart from his boat, cuz he drive his boat, he has his fishing boat where he go to sea. And I could see that, you know, apart from his boat, I haven't seen him drive any other boat to be honest with you. >> Yet you put him in charge of carrying nine passengers on your boat. >> Yeah. >> Cuz as I said, I know him to be driving boats. >> Yeah. what you said since he had his fishing boat, you hardly see driving boat. >> The guy's a guy's, as I said, the guy is well known for driving boats. I've known him for decades. As I said, he's drive boats bigger than what I gave him. So, he's more than capable than bringing those passengers cuz he's he drive boats bigger than my boat. Double engine, center console. >> Yeah. But for 11 years he was doing so without the legal authorization to do so. And you have engaged him without him having the legal authorization to be engaged in what you engaged him to do. Well, I wasn't a That's what I'm saying. I wasn't aware cuz he's not my captain. He's not my personal captain. I don't use him. I don't use him. As I tell you, the night it just happened that the other guy took his boat and went to the event. So I left with no choice and then we use him. He went. He's not my captain. >> And it never occurred to you to find out whether he's licensed to be on the water driving a boat like that. Never occurred to you to to do any checks or to inquire whether he's licensed to do what you were asking him to do. >> I've never made any check on whether he can do it. But from my knowledge, what I've seen, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that I know he can. So, as I said, that's what happened the night. And yeah,
Recalls Tyson operating Exodus vessels long ago, but recently personally observed him mainly on his own fishing boat.
Evidence limit
Unverified historical experience and commercial company connection; not proof of continuous eleven-year passenger operation.
>> No, his boat. He has his boat and I know him for I know Tyson from Donkeers cuz we stay in the same area. >> So I know him driving. >> He a fishing boat or a passenger boat? >> Oh, >> he has a fishing boat or a passenger boat? >> He has a fishing boat presently. I don't know how long he has it for but before the passion before his boat I know him to captain like um Exodus I don't know if you know about those company um Exodus that's for Tom and them >> that's back then like years maybe have decades >> that's before 2015 when he was >> well I don't I to be honest with you I don't know I as I said I just know him to captain those boats which I know is licensed boats that operate in the tourist industry so I'm assuming He do has a license. >> So I'm trying to understand you you know him to be regularly captaining these um passenger boats. You know him to be regularly captaining these boats. Why you thought he must have a license? >> Repeat yourself. >> You know is it that you're saying that he know you know he regularly captaining these passenger boats and therefore you thought he had a license? >> Yes. And how regularly would you say he captains boats? >> Well, as I said, that's don't care. That's like decades ago. But presently, as he owns his boat, I could attest that I haven't seen him drive a boat apart from his boat. That's what I could say. I haven't seen if he does it. Maybe at the moment, I didn't see. But I'm telling you, apart from his boat, cuz he drive his boat, he has his fishing boat where he go to sea. And I could see that, you know, apart from his boat, I haven't seen him drive any other boat to be honest with you. >> Yet you put him in charge of carrying nine passengers on your boat. >> Yeah. >> Cuz as I said, I know him to be driving boats. >> Yeah. what you said since he had his fishing boat, you hardly see driving boat. >> The guy's a guy's, as I said, the guy is well known for driving boats. I've known him for decades. As I said, he's drive boats bigger than what I gave him. So, he's more than capable than bringing those passengers cuz he's he drive boats bigger than my boat. Double engine, center console.
Says Tyson immediately complied with his slowdown request near Windjammer.
Evidence limit
This differs from ignored-warning allegations aboard Ocean Angel. Do not mix them.
Mr. Pascal, you said at some point you would have asked Tyson to take it easy because you felt with the sea conditions he was operating a bit too fast. >> Yes, I did. >> Did he comply? >> Yes, he did immediately. Can you tell us by way of identifying a point a point along the shoreline a point along the coast where that would have happened? >> Um I'll say around Winjama area live wind jama. So it wasn't not it wasn't too far away from when we just left around Winjama area and about in terms of time about how long before the accident would you say that was? um be honest being honest from the time I told him not that we started driving he started driving at a more moderate speed so I think we took like maybe I'll say maybe close to an hour to reach before the the um the accident maybe 50 approximate 50 to an hour 50 minutes to an hour
III P3-018, P3-019 / P3-U0196, P3-U0197, P3-U0198, P3-U0199, P3-U0200 ↗
Estimates fifty minutes to one hour from asking Tyson to slow near Windjammer until collision.
Evidence limit
Not initially whole-voyage duration; later time estimates vary.
and about in terms of time about how long before the accident would you say that was? um be honest being honest from the time I told him not that we started driving he started driving at a more moderate speed so I think we took like maybe I'll say maybe close to an hour to reach before the the um the accident maybe 50 approximate 50 to an hour 50 minutes to an hour
Lookout sat high forward near the bow from departure; owner thought view clear; reports no warning of another vessel.
Evidence limit
Later qualifies certainty as assumption; no direct lookout evidence in Part III.
You indicated that one Mado would have been your lookout. >> Yes, I could attest to that. >> Where does the lookout usually place him or herself? Well, on that vessel, >> that specific individual, for some reason, I don't know, he loves sitting. There's I how would I explain it to the front of the boat, there's a seat before the bow, and there's a piece of stick, a line like this long. I think it's to to um adjust the boat or um make the boat like stronger, I think. So, they place a piece of fiberglass is seated right on top of that. So that's close to the top where he could see anything that come >> and I'm asking again during the journey >> and just prior to the accident was that where he was seated where you just described >> that's where he was seated from the time we left the port um Gul whatever the destination may And in your estimation, was could there have been anything impeding his view to the front? >> Repeat yourself. >> In your estimation, >> Mhm. >> is there any do you believe there could have been anything preventing him from seeing ahead? >> Um, no. where where he was seated. He could have seen anything. From your recollection, did Mado sound any warning to the captain of an oncoming vessel? >> No. Mr. Chair,
Hearing identifies Mado/Mavado as Janelle Butcher; Pascal accepts but says he did not know the government name.
Evidence limit
Full name appears Jonel/Jel/Janelle variants. Formal alias link reliable in context; spelling needs witness list.
just for the record because I realize we are using aliases. Just for the record, I want to establish that Mado is one and the same as Janelle Butcher. >> His name >> Mado. You said his name is Mado. >> I want to establish that Mado and Janelle Butcher >> is one of the same person. >> He's the Janelle Butcher. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But you know Yeah. >> Yeah. So since you were using aliases, I just need for the record to establish that, please. >> Yeah, I don't know his government's name because you know what?
Says Taylor supplied funds for herself and her boyfriend; answers he still would not have done safety protocols if all locals had paid.
Evidence limit
Amount, fare agreement and trip legal classification unresolved. Claim that it was entirely unpaid is no longer supportable.
Earlier you said that um the trip on the night in question was not commercial. >> Mhm. >> It was not a paid trip. Well, um, a two two or three. No, it was how would I say Taylor and her boyfriend, but Taylor was the person who gave me some funds for bringing them up. Because what what what the distinction I want to make, you said um you would sometimes or most times adhere to safety protocols such as briefings and the like. >> Mhm. >> When you have guests >> Mhm. >> on on trips. >> Mhm. >> I take it that that's for money. >> Mhm. >> When you have people on board for money. >> It's not for money. It's just I >> Listen listen closely. >> The night in question. >> Yeah. You said that one of your main reasons for not adhering to safety protocols was because it was a trip for fun. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. Not not no. You have it all wrong. Not because of that. >> Not totally wrong about that. I didn't meant that that way. At no point in time I said such. >> Okay. You said if we were operating commercially, I would do protocols. >> Mhm. >> That night we were going out to party. So I did not use the protocols. >> Yeah. But I didn't meant it that way where you know I just don't do protocols for locals and I only do it for >> No, I am I'm still going to ask you. >> Mhm. >> If all the locals on your boat on that night >> had paid you >> Mhm. >> had paid you for taking them to Gilelay and back >> you collected fees from them. >> Mhm. >> Would you have done the protocol? >> No. That's what I'm saying. Why? >> Cuz you know, as I tell you, it's just just something we just don't do within ourselves. That's what I'm trying to say. I said it earlier on. Just like indicating the lighthouse, that's something. It's a a weing. We don't do it. It's there. We the laws are there, but we don't do it. Like it's just within us. We don't do it. The majority, I could say that we don't adhere to the um the lighthouse. We don't inform the lighthouse. We don't we don't we don't inform them. We don't do safety briefings. We don't put live vest on passengers.
Had not personally asked lookout what he saw; says captain asked and lookout said he saw nothing.
Evidence limit
This is reported discussion, not lookout's sworn evidence. Later says he overheard discussions himself.
Would you be able to explain at all why? Have you had any discussion with him on that? Would you be able to explain at all why he saw nothing? >> I cannot answer that. >> You cannot answer that. Have you had any discussion with him on it? >> Oh, Janelle. >> Yes. >> No. >> But I will ask you, you have a lookout who gave no warning to the captain. Your vessel is involved in a boating collision. >> Mhm. where four persons have lost their lives unfortunately. >> Mhm. >> And as the lookout, you have not made it your business to find out from him what happened on that night, what he saw, what he did not see. >> Well, the captain the captain think the captain asked him, you know, was he able to see anything? He said he never saw anything. But not you. You didn't have that conversation with him. >> No, I haven't. No.
Sat immediately ahead of console, could not see beyond bow, and impact propelled him one seat forward.
Evidence limit
He heard a sound but cannot judge its loudness due to hearing difficulty. No contact-side eyewitness description.
From where you were seated on the vessel, how far ahead of you could you have seen? >> Repeat yourself. >> From where you were seated >> on the vessel, how far ahead of you could you have seen? Um, well, the bow of the boat and the lights on the shoreline, not at the front of me because I couldn't see where I'm seated. I can I can see anything at the front of me. >> So you could not see beyond the bow? >> No, I couldn't see nothing beyond the bow. In your experience as a boat owner, as one who has been out there on the sea on similar trips, um, is it a common thing or should I say, do you know of any other instances where a lookout would be in your estimation perfectly placed? to possibly see what was happening ahead yet did not. Do you know of any other such incidents? Is it something common >> what this incident happened? >> No. No. That a lookout can be perfectly positioned on the vessel yet not able to pick up danger ahead. Is that something for for some reason in in in maritime travel that can happen? That is possible. >> Well, in the day in the daytime, well, in the night time, if person doesn't have a light that nowhere a lookout could see something that's coming, it doesn't have a light. >> But would that also not depend on visibility? Well, as I said, it was the visibility was a little a little poor as well, but it was enough to see. Was enough to see because as I said, I was seeing on the shoreline just that it was just dark that day. The visibility was enough to see. It was clear enough to see. But I'm asking have have you ever performed the role of a lookout? >> Um yes I before I become a boat owner have >> um at night around that same time. >> Daytime. >> Only daytime. >> Daytime. Yeah. Yeah. Can you describe the impact in terms of force? Well, as I said, in terms of force, I cannot answer that based on my hearing problem. So, as I said earlier on, I just heard a I heard a sound. I don't know how loud it was. >> Okay. So, let me let me ask you the question another way. >> So, the two vessels have collided. >> Mhm. >> How how heavy was you? I'm sure you would have jolted. You would have jerked. >> Yeah. I >> How how how heavy was that from your standpoint? >> And what rate you looking at like >> I don't know. You tell me. I I >> no but I I can just say because from where I was seated I was seated right um in front of the captain the seat in front of the console that's where I was seated after the impact I flew over onto the second seat. So just a seat apart from where I was seated. So you could just imagine the impact what that would send me over. >> Is that a seat forward or a sit back? >> No, a seat forward. >> A seat forward. We have the second seat.
Says Tyson did not increase speed after slowing; boat later stopped so a requested life jacket could be obtained.
Evidence limit
A material qualification to earlier faster-than-moderate account; no numeric speed supplied.
So after you asked your captain to slow down a near wind jammer, you said he complied. >> Yeah. Yeah, he did. He did. Did he at any point after that compliance after he slowed down? >> Mhm. >> Did he at any point increase his speed again? >> No, he didn't. Even um at the time when I tell him slow down, he did he he did slow down. And there was a next there was a next um how would I say that? There's a next time we had to stop to take the live vest for one of the guys that asked for the live vest.
III P3-027 / P3-U0305, P3-U0306, P3-U0307, P3-U0308, P3-U0309 ↗
Clarifies Taylor River, Roman's girlfriend, asked for his jacket, about ten–twenty minutes after the slowdown.
Evidence limit
Conflicts or is difficult to reconcile with initial ten minutes before impact given fifty–sixty-minute post-slowdown interval. Times are approximate.
No, no, no, no. When I when I tell the captain slow down because of the swells of the sea, he didn't ask for it. You know, he asked for it maybe I'll say 10 20 minutes after. >> Yeah, that's what I'm asking. So, he would have asked for the life vest after you asked the captain to slow down >> after. Not immediately, but after. Yeah, after. >> It wasn't even the one who asked me for the live vest. It was his girlfriend that asked me for the live saw him which was Taylor. >> What's the girlfriend's name? >> Taylor River. >> Taylor. >> Taylor. Yeah.
III P3-028 / P3-U0310, P3-U0311, P3-U0312, P3-U0313, P3-U0314, P3-U0315, P3-U0316, P3-U0317 ↗
Chair challenges licence checking, alcohol purchase, absent briefing and jackets; Pascal reiterates Tyson not regular captain and acknowledges hearing concerns.
Evidence limit
Chair's statement that safety briefings avoid what happened is a general assertion, not a causal finding that briefing would prevent collision.
>> But what I'm saying is that I'm not aware that he doesn't have a license for period of time. You did nothing to ascertain to to ensure that before you put the lives of nine persons in the hands of this man that he was in fact qualified to captain a boat. Well, at at that time, as I said, it's you know, event we going to and it's not, you know, people we we um how would I say guess about you speak about this as if well, I mean, since it's a fat you're going to, >> it's it's not as if people's lives are involved in that. Four people died, you know, as a result of that collision. >> It's nothing to be taken lightly, you know, that yeah, we're just going to affect. So, that's okay. It's not okay. Security briefings and safety protocols. Safety briefings and protocols are to be carried out precisely to avoid what happened happening. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about tourists or persons you're doing chores from or your best friends and neighbors and family members. I understood >> what matters is that the lives of nine persons are on the line and you have you have engaged a person to captain the boat to carry those nine persons to and from um Suare and and Gile without ascertaining whether that person was legally qualified to do so. >> Yes. But as I said earlier on, I understood clearly what you were saying. But the time, as I said, Tyson is not my captain. He's not my captain. >> Yes, he was your captain on that night when you engaged him to entrust nine lives in his hands. He was your captain. You caused him to become your captain 11 years after he ceased to be legally entitled to do so. Also, you were purchasing alcoholic beverages no less than four for that person in whose hands you were going to entrust the nine lives. You also did not cause any security, any safety briefings or protocols to be followed. You also did not cause the nine people on board to to wear life live life jackets or even to make them aware that they should do so. Apart from one man who whose girlfriend said he couldn't swim and asked for a life vest for him. These are very very serious matters and I'm a little concerned that you seem to treat them as if we were just going to a fence. So that's okay. Four people died.
III P3-029, P3-030 / P3-U0322, P3-U0323, P3-U0324, P3-U0325, P3-U0326, P3-U0327 ↗
Retracts assertion lookout could see anything, replacing it with assumption about lit objects; cannot answer whether lookout could detect an unlit vessel.
Evidence limit
This is a material clarification. Do not quote the earlier absolute while suppressing qualification.
Well, from where he was sitting, that question would have to be something you ask him because where he was seated, he alone could see what he could see. >> Yeah. with you. I'm going on your statement. >> Mhm. >> That from where Mavado was sitting, >> he could see anything. >> Yeah. Because where he was, >> this is what you said. >> Mhm. >> Cuz where he was seated, um, well, let's let me refuse. I would assume he can see whatever's coming in front of him. I'll retract my statement. >> Okay. >> I would assume you'll be able to see what's coming ahead of him. And if the boat had navigation lights >> Mhm. >> you would say that there's no way he would not have seen it. >> No way. >> And if it did not have navigation lights and you had navigation lights >> and he was at that well pushed where he was, do you >> on the other boat? >> Do you believe that he may still have been able to see that other boat coming even without its navigation light? >> You mean like if he was on the other boat? >> No. No. He seated in a position on your boat. Mhm. >> where he can see anything. >> Mhm. >> I'm asking you whether even if that oncoming boat did not have navigation lights on, >> could he would he have discerned an oncoming uh object coming towards your boat? >> That from some distance away? >> That I cannot answer for you because as I said, he's the one that seen he could tell you what he could have possibly seen. But I know on that night it was a bit visible. So that question in regards to Mo I cannot answer it. Cannot answer it if he could have seen. I just know for sure where he was seated if there was any oncoming thing with lights he would have seen. >> So you've altered it really to say that that from where he was seated he could see any oncoming object with lights. >> With lights. But in terms of whether he might have seen that oncoming uh vessel without lights, you're saying that part >> I cannot answer. >> I cannot answer that because >> that's adequate.
Says he named Graham Matthew as Boatmaster and regular captain Daryl Paul as crew after SLASPA requested a higher licence grade for captain.
Evidence limit
Names/grades unstable; no full licensing exhibit in supplied text. Graham is not a new separate person when ASR later says Charles.
Mr. Pascal, who is the registered B boat master for your vessel? Um, so with that being said, Daryl is my captain, registered captain, but I think the time I was supposed to reg um, how would I say it? Go to slasper, they was asking me for um, I think a grid two uh, grid two or grid grid three or grid two captain. And then at that point I end up um because I wanted to insure the boat. So I end up calling um Graham Mafra. Graham Mafra I could recall that I end up he has a higher grid than Dariel. So I end up putting him as the captain and I had um Darl as the crew. >> Right. So, you said on the night of the incident? >> Mhm. >> Your regular captain could not go because he went with his own boat. >> Yeah, he went with his own boat. >> Who is your regular captain? >> Well, it's Darla. Daryl what? Daryl Paul. So you're saying in the statement just prior that you could not have registered and inshot the boat >> with Daryl because of his level boat license. Yes, that's >> so you used Graham Matthew. >> Yes. >> However, you continue to use Darl Paul who because of his the level of his license certification >> would not have been accepted as the boat captain. >> Mhm. >> You agree? >> Repeat yourself. >> I am saying you could not have registered Darl Paul >> as the boat captain. >> Yeah. because of the level of his certification. >> Yes, the captain. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> That that Slasper and the insurance would not accept Daryl Paul. >> No, no, not the insurance. The insurance accept him. It's just um Slasper. >> So, Slasper would not >> Slasper tell me um my captain need a um license certificate like a grade two or grade whatever. Okay, good. So, Darl Paul did not have that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you used Graham Matthew >> Mhm. >> to get the boat registered. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> But yet continued with Darl Paul >> who is not certified. >> He's certified. >> Yeah. But let's go again. >> He's certified and he could he could operate in the waters. >> Okay. So, why? >> They just asked me that. I don't know for what reason. They just tell me um my captain needs like a grid too, but he could operate in the waters. He could operate in the waters. So that is something we we that is something we need some clarity on, Mr. um >> Yes, you could you could clarify with them. He could operate in a waters. He's >> Yeah, but but he's still not registered as your boat captain. >> Repeat yourself. >> He's not registered as your boat captain. >> He's still he's not registered >> as your boat captain. Graham Matthew is the boat master, isn't he? >> Yes, he is. >> Graham Matthew, you have Darl Paul registered as crew. >> Yes, at the time.
Names Daryl Paul as regular captain who took his own boat to the event and was unavailable.
Evidence limit
Daryl is distinct from Tyrone Paul aboard Ocean Angel; do not merge surnames into identity.
>> Right. So, you said on the night of the incident? >> Mhm. >> Your regular captain could not go because he went with his own boat. >> Yeah, he went with his own boat. >> Who is your regular captain? >> Well, it's Darla. Daryl what? Daryl Paul. So you're saying in the statement just prior that you could not have registered and inshot the boat >> with Daryl because of his level boat license. Yes, that's >> so you used Graham Matthew. >> Yes. >> However, you continue to use Darl Paul who because of his the level of his license certification >> would not have been accepted as the boat captain. >> Mhm. >> You agree? >> Repeat yourself. >> I am saying you could not have registered Darl Paul >> as the boat captain. >> Yeah. because of the level of his certification. >> Yes, the captain. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> That that Slasper and the insurance would not accept Daryl Paul. >> No, no, not the insurance. The insurance accept him. It's just um Slasper. >> So, Slasper would not >> Slasper tell me um my captain need a um license certificate like a grade two or grade whatever. Okay, good. So, Darl Paul did not have that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you used Graham Matthew >> Mhm. >> to get the boat registered. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> But yet continued with Darl Paul >> who is not certified. >> He's certified. >> Yeah. But let's go again. >> He's certified and he could he could operate in the waters. >> Okay. So, why? >> They just asked me that. I don't know for what reason. They just tell me um my captain needs like a grid too, but he could operate in the waters. He could operate in the waters. So that is something we we that is something we need some clarity on, Mr. um >> Yes, you could you could clarify with them. He could operate in a waters. He's >> Yeah, but but he's still not registered as your boat captain. >> Repeat yourself. >> He's not registered as your boat captain. >> He's still he's not registered >> as your boat captain. Graham Matthew is the boat master, isn't he? >> Yes, he is. >> Graham Matthew, you have Darl Paul registered as crew. >> Yes, at the time. >> Therefore, >> Mhm. >> he cannot be your regular captain.
Clarifies that SLASPA, not his insurer, objected to Daryl's grade; says insurer accepted him.
Evidence limit
SLASPA and insurer have not responded in Part III; original correspondence and policy schedule needed.
That that Slasper and the insurance would not accept Daryl Paul. >> No, no, not the insurance. The insurance accept him. It's just um Slasper. >> So, Slasper would not >> Slasper tell me um my captain need a um license certificate like a grade two or grade whatever. Okay, good. So, Darl Paul did not have that.
Continued to use Daryl as regular captain although named as crew; insists Daryl had a licence and could operate on the water.
Evidence limit
Holding some licence is distinct from authority for this vessel/voyage. Do not describe him as never licensed.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you used Graham Matthew >> Mhm. >> to get the boat registered. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> But yet continued with Darl Paul >> who is not certified. >> He's certified. >> Yeah. But let's go again. >> He's certified and he could he could operate in the waters. >> Okay. So, why? >> They just asked me that. I don't know for what reason. They just tell me um my captain needs like a grid too, but he could operate in the waters. He could operate in the waters. So that is something we we that is something we need some clarity on, Mr. um >> Yes, you could you could clarify with them. He could operate in a waters. He's >> Yeah, but but he's still not registered as your boat captain. >> Repeat yourself. >> He's not registered as your boat captain. >> He's still he's not registered >> as your boat captain. Graham Matthew is the boat master, isn't he? >> Yes, he is. >> Graham Matthew, you have Darl Paul registered as crew. >> Yes, at the time. >> Therefore, >> Mhm. >> he cannot be your regular captain. >> And he is, >> but he's not registered as your boat captain. >> Yes, but he's not registered. But he's legit. He could still run in the water. I am still asking if he was legit why would Slasp refuse him. >> You asked that question to you would take that into um Slash bags them why that you all have to make that research. I don't know. I don't know for what reason they told me such >> yeah he has yeah he would >> that's not a question I could answer why. >> So yeah but Darl Mafi Darl Paul >> Paul has a boat license. Yeah, he's like, >> but not at a level that's last accepted. >> He he has a level three, I think. >> I don't know what level they accept you to drive at cuz I've never gone to a boat captain license, but I know for sure you do have a license. >> Okay, so it says Graham Matthew certified boat license grade 3 expiry date 289 2026. So it means therefore that what certified crew won. So it means therefore that whatever whatever level of certification that Darl Paul has is is lower or of lesser certification than Graham Matthew >> but he can still operate. That's what I'm saying. My interest here is why would Slasper not have registered him as your boat master? >> But that question I cannot answer that question. You have to ask Slasper. They do the laws. I don't know. >> So I am still saying owing to the fact that Daryl Paul is not registered as your boat master. >> He cannot be your regular captain >> or should not be your regular captain or cannot be. I think I used the right term in the first instance. He cannot be your regular boat captain. >> Yep. >> Are you agreeing with me? >> That's the law and I agree. >> But I know once you have a a a captain like >> So So you are saying that Darl Paul has his own boat. >> Bigger P. >> Darl Paul has his own boat. >> Yeah, you do have a boat right now. >> He owns a boat. >> Yeah, he has. >> And he captains his boat. >> Well, yeah, he has a boat. You have seen him captain his own boat. >> Well, a dingy has how you call it those small mini boats. Those dingies. That's what
Questioner reads Graham Matthew certified Boatmaster grade 3, expiry 28 September 2026; Pascal thinks Daryl has grade 3 while recalling request for grade 2.
Evidence limit
Grade details internally unstable. The readout is not an inspected exhibit; do not infer a settled grade hierarchy.
>> And he is, >> but he's not registered as your boat captain. >> Yes, but he's not registered. But he's legit. He could still run in the water. I am still asking if he was legit why would Slasp refuse him. >> You asked that question to you would take that into um Slash bags them why that you all have to make that research. I don't know. I don't know for what reason they told me such >> yeah he has yeah he would >> that's not a question I could answer why. >> So yeah but Darl Mafi Darl Paul >> Paul has a boat license. Yeah, he's like, >> but not at a level that's last accepted. >> He he has a level three, I think. >> I don't know what level they accept you to drive at cuz I've never gone to a boat captain license, but I know for sure you do have a license. >> Okay, so it says Graham Matthew certified boat license grade 3 expiry date 289 2026. So it means therefore that what certified crew won. So it means therefore that whatever whatever level of certification that Darl Paul has is is lower or of lesser certification than Graham Matthew >> but he can still operate. That's what I'm saying. My interest here is why would Slasper not have registered him as your boat master? >> But that question I cannot answer that question. You have to ask Slasper. They do the laws. I don't know. >> So I am still saying owing to the fact that Daryl Paul is not registered as your boat master. >> He cannot be your regular captain >> or should not be your regular captain or cannot be. I think I used the right term in the first instance. He cannot be your regular boat captain. >> Yep. >> Are you agreeing with me? >> That's the law and I agree. >> But I know once you have a a a captain like >> So So you are saying that Darl Paul has his own boat. >> Bigger P. >> Darl Paul has his own boat. >> Yeah, you do have a boat right now. >> He owns a boat. >> Yeah, he has. >> And he captains his boat. >> Well, yeah, he has a boat. You have seen him captain his own boat. >> Well, a dingy has how you call it those small mini boats. Those dingies. That's what
Says Daryl supplied licence, was listed for two–three years without SLASPA issue, appears on insurance, and the same boat was not upgraded.
Evidence limit
Requires dated applications, conditions, endorsements and regulator response; possible change of requirements not established.
Cuz he works for me is present. He had to present it to me for me to send to Slasper. I've registered my boat as Darl Paul as my captain with no issue with Slasper. I just just recently they just tell me that um Darl will need a higher grade or whatever they said. But I've always Daryl have been my captain for two three years with no issue. He's been the one on my insurance as the captain and you could check the files. >> And we and we talking about the same vessel. >> Yes. >> An upgrade to your vessel that would have caused you to ask him for an upgrading license. >> No, cuz Junior I haven't upgraded my boat. That's the only boat I've I've bought and that's the only boat I have right now. So how would it be upgraded? Daryl Paul have been my captain for two three years now. From the time I started operating, Daryl has been the one as the captain.
III P3-038 / P3-U0454, P3-U0455, P3-U0456, P3-U0457, P3-U0458 ↗
Despite describing SLASPA declining Daryl as named master, accepted continued use of him because he believed his licence allowed it.
Evidence limit
No final finding of legal breach or regulator negligence; distinguish personal understanding from authority.
>> did not register him as your captain as a captain because he he was not to the requisite grade. >> Well, >> isn't that what you said? Yes, that's what that's what they said. >> Yeah, that's what you told us. We haven't we haven't heard from Slasbar. We're hearing from you >> and you are saying that Slasbar would not register him as your boat captain because he did not have the required level of certification. >> Well, that's well I that's what I assume. Yes, that's what they said. >> And yet despite Slasper not registering him as captain because he did not have the required level of certification, you engaged him as your captain. >> Yes. because he do have a license to operate and he has the license to operate in the waters as well. That's what I'm saying. >> Yes. But Slasper declined to register him as a boat captain. >> Mhm. >> Because he did not have the required level of certification. >> Mhm. >> That is what you have said. I have not I've not said so. But despite that you felt comfortable engaging him as a captain despite what Slasper which is the authority on those matters. >> Let me let me add to that. >> Just just hold on. Despite what Slasper has said which is the authority on those matters. It's okay. I mean he's been driving your boat so it's okay. He can continue to do that notwithstanding that Slasper has declined to register him. >> Yes. >> I mean Mr. Pascal what I you have to take this thing very seriously you know. >> Yes but I am but what I'm >> like your livelihood might depend on it people lives might depend on it not livelihood lives >> and I I do happen to find you a little casual >> given the enormity of the situation that we're dealing with further question. So again, let me let me just warn you that Graham Matthews boat license has expired on the 28th of September this year. >> Mhm. I'm not aware of it. Yeah, I'm just telling you now >> cuz he's >> the the the the other discrepancy I notice here, the expiration date of your >> certificate of inspection is November 22nd, 2026, >> which is next month. But yet the boat license of the captain expires before that.
Graham licence said expired 28 September 2026; vessel inspection certificate said expires 22 November 2026; chair notes driver/craft document expiries need not coincide.
Evidence limit
Graham date falls AFTER 18 July collision; this passage does not prove he lacked a valid licence then. Non-matching dates alone are not defect.
>> Let me let me add to that. >> Just just hold on. Despite what Slasper has said which is the authority on those matters. It's okay. I mean he's been driving your boat so it's okay. He can continue to do that notwithstanding that Slasper has declined to register him. >> Yes. >> I mean Mr. Pascal what I you have to take this thing very seriously you know. >> Yes but I am but what I'm >> like your livelihood might depend on it people lives might depend on it not livelihood lives >> and I I do happen to find you a little casual >> given the enormity of the situation that we're dealing with further question. So again, let me let me just warn you that Graham Matthews boat license has expired on the 28th of September this year. >> Mhm. I'm not aware of it. Yeah, I'm just telling you now >> cuz he's >> the the the the other discrepancy I notice here, the expiration date of your >> certificate of inspection is November 22nd, 2026, >> which is next month. But yet the boat license of the captain expires before that. >> Mhm. The boat captain's license expired last month, September, but the his boat is licensed or certified until November 22nd, which is next month. >> But that's why I'm saying Graham, we just >> we use I just use Graham. Graham is not my captain. He never drives for me. >> So, Mr. In your estimation, can can that happen that the boat is allowed to be certified until but the captain >> it can happen? But it's like my it's it's like my car it's like my car being insured or they don't run commensurate. They don't usually they can't run commensurate. The >> driver's license expire can expire before the insurance. Yeah. But but you need to check on Mr. Louis on Mr. Graham Matthew. >> Make a pan. >> You need to check on Mr. Graham Matthew because his his license expired last month. >> You need to check on him. >> You the captain in your boat. >> But no, he Graham Charles. I used Graham Charles. I've never used Graham Charles to drive my boat. You just use his name to get your license. >> Yes.
Explicitly says Graham never drove his boat and he used Graham's name to obtain certification/licence.
Evidence limit
Significant admission, but intent to defraud, Graham knowledge/consent, authenticity and legal conclusion unestablished. Graham Charles wording probably name drift, requires recording.
But that's why I'm saying Graham, we just >> we use I just use Graham. Graham is not my captain. He never drives for me. >> So, Mr. In your estimation, can can that happen that the boat is allowed to be certified until but the captain >> it can happen? But it's like my it's it's like my car it's like my car being insured or they don't run commensurate. They don't usually they can't run commensurate. The >> driver's license expire can expire before the insurance. Yeah. But but you need to check on Mr. Louis on Mr. Graham Matthew. >> Make a pan. >> You need to check on Mr. Graham Matthew because his his license expired last month. >> You need to check on him. >> You the captain in your boat. >> But no, he Graham Charles. I used Graham Charles. I've never used Graham Charles to drive my boat. You just use his name to get your license. >> Yes. >> But you never use it. >> You never drive that boat. >> You never use him to actually do what you in the put on the the phone. just use his name. I, you know, I just use his name. I He never drive my boat.
Document described as stamped 22 May 2026, showing Pascal as lawful owner and Graham Matthew as master; examiner refers to Pascal signature.
Evidence limit
Original not supplied; no Pascal signature denial here. This differs from Dylan's separate 23 January signature challenge.
>> Mhm. >> is not the one operating the vessel. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> I cannot hear you sir. Yes. Right. >> You are also aware that the person who is operating the vessel is not qualified to do so because the sole authority to give that responsibility is Flasper and he was denied. >> You are aware. >> I'm not aware of >> the person operating currently. You are aware that he's not the person because you use the other person to get through. >> Is that correct? >> Repeat. Repeat that statement. >> The person you have Just one second. Let me refer to the documents. Kazola Jr. know that Mr. Hippolit the registered captain. Thank you. according to the the paper from the St. Lucia and support authority the direct the division of maritime affairs right you Irenus Pascal have registered as the master of the vessel the person in charge of that vessel whose lives are dependent upon >> as Grum's Matthew Mhm. >> That's correct. >> Mhm. But you clearly stated that Mr. Matthew is >> important verbally. >> We need to hear. >> Oh, okay. Understood. >> Yeah, I understood. >> Right. So you have on the division of maritime affairs from the St. Lucia and support authority which is commonly called Slasper >> that you are the lawful owner of Kazola Jr. is that correct? Yes, I am. >> You have on that same document stamped the 22nd of May, 2026, that the operator, the master, the person with the responsibility for the nine lives you had >> Mhm. >> on the vessel that night in question >> Mhm. >> was supposed to be Mr. Graham Graham Matthew. >> Mhm. >> Is that correct? >> Well, if that's what stated. Yes. No, that is what you have because your signature is also on that document, remember? >> Yes. >> And you had another individual operating the vessel >> which is not what you have the person you have as the master of the vessel. >> Understood? But you would also be aware that in so doing you would have according to the laws engaging the master the captain of a vessel that by doing so on the 18th of July 2026 that you would have endangered the life of all the sea users and resulting in the death of four individual. I'm listening. It was a question. I thought it you was continuous me. I didn't take it as a question. Thank you. So, I'm still going back to navigational terms with you and I believe Commissioner Defrites was trying to understand what you were not bringing out. Your vessel is equipped with a 115 horsepower 115 or 150.
Examiner suggests using another operator endangered other sea users and resulted in four deaths.
Evidence limit
Pascal says he was listening and had not understood a question; this is NOT a causation admission or finding.
But you would also be aware that in so doing you would have according to the laws engaging the master the captain of a vessel that by doing so on the 18th of July 2026 that you would have endangered the life of all the sea users and resulting in the death of four individual. I'm listening. It was a question. I thought it you was continuous me. I didn't take it as a question.
Owner expressly confirms 150-horsepower engine when asked 115 or 150.
Evidence limit
Upgrades Part II garbled specification to clear owner testimony; still not documentary engine make/model verification.
Your vessel is equipped with a 115 horsepower 115 or 150. >> 150 >> 150. >> Yes.
III P3-044, P3-045 / P3-U0536, P3-U0537, P3-U0538, P3-U0539 ↗
Corrects fifty-minutes-to-hour estimate as starting at slowdown near Windjammer; separately estimates departure about 10:45 and impact around 11:55, about an hour-plus including stop.
Evidence limit
Approximate recollection; collision time later attributed to what others said. Not measured chronology.
You clearly indicated to commissioner defes that you took about 50. Just one second. 50 to an hour. >> 50 to 1 hour from when I tell the guy to stop. That's after not from the destination to the collision. >> So we for the records we want to indicate that >> from win jama to the collision. >> Yeah. You didn't ask that question. You only asked after I told the guy to um um um take it easy. That's where that's the question you asked. You never asked me from the destination to the collision how long I took. >> We we are getting there. We getting there. What was that? I thought >> So for the purpose of this sitting, we would label um Rodney Bay as point A. >> Mhm. >> We would register the point of the collision as point B. >> Mhm. >> For clear guidance. So from point A to point B, how long did your vessel take to travel that distance? >> Um your own estimate. >> We left we left around a little like after 10 collision happened around 11:55. So I think we take like hour plus total to get to the collision cuz as I said we were going at a moderate speed. We we didn't have much speed. So from point A to point B, I'll say roughly an hour plus cuz we left Robo Grizzly >> for like after 10. After 10:00 >> closer to 11 or closer to >> Yeah, around like 10:45 there about 10:45 >> and the collision happened like 11:55. >> So that would be an hour >> like an hour plus approximately an hour plus >> including the stop. >> Yeah, including the stop and everything.
Pascal did not see a named offshore rock or its beacon; examiner describes a light flashing twice every five seconds near Windjammer.
Evidence limit
Rock name Furo/Barl O garbled; beacon presence/characteristic not independently established. Passenger had restricted forward view.
>> for like after 10. After 10:00 >> closer to 11 or closer to >> Yeah, around like 10:45 there about 10:45 >> and the collision happened like 11:55. >> So that would be an hour >> like an hour plus approximately an hour plus >> including the stop. >> Yeah, including the stop and everything. So visibility was poor as you indicated. Yeah. >> But did you see it? >> Mhm. >> Did you see Furo rock? Barl O. You familiar with that area? >> Repeat yourself. >> There's a rock called Furo Rock or Barl Obif. It's the rock in the water between >> Well, where I was seated, you know, I'm a short individual. Where I was seated, I was seated right in front of the console. So I couldn't have seen much. you know, my focus I was just watching in front of my boat, you know, and sometimes I'd watch on the shoreline where I could have seen lights. >> Okay. So, you did not see that rock? >> I didn't. >> But would you you are familiar with that area? >> I'm aware of that. I know what you're talking the big rock outside of Brazil. >> Outside of Win Jama that area just >> Yes, we pass >> between we pass to the shoreline like close to the shoreline. But this light, you did not see the rock, but the rock is fitted with a flashing light. >> I didn't see the I didn't see that rocket. And Slasper ensure that that light I think you have two flashes every 5 seconds to indicate the presence of the rock. It's what you call a navigational aid, but you did not see it. >> Well, I didn't. >> So, my other question to you, you did not see the rock, but you had Mr. your lookout. >> Mhm. >> Sitting almost on the bow. >> Mhm. >> Did he receive any major injury? >> Did he receive any >> any major injury as a result of the accident? Actually, >> um from what I saw, yeah, he had received some blows to his his knee. He had a um how you call that? Uh how you calling that? A crutch. He had a crutch. But those guys don't take those things serious. He he I saw he was in I saw he had some some some >> some injuries. So from what commissioner defes was asking you we were trying and we are still trying to establish how could someone sit at that point if you look at the magnitude. Have you seen your vessel since the accident? Have you seen your boat since the accident?
Saw lookout with knee injury/crutch; has seen wreck photos on a phone but not physically visited recovered boat.
Evidence limit
Does not establish complete injury diagnosis or photographic chain of custody.
Did he receive any major injury? >> Did he receive any >> any major injury as a result of the accident? Actually, >> um from what I saw, yeah, he had received some blows to his his knee. He had a um how you call that? Uh how you calling that? A crutch. He had a crutch. But those guys don't take those things serious. He he I saw he was in I saw he had some some some >> some injuries. So from what commissioner defes was asking you we were trying and we are still trying to establish how could someone sit at that point if you look at the magnitude. Have you seen your vessel since the accident? Have you seen your boat since the accident? >> Repeat yourself. >> Have you seen your boat since the accident? >> Yes I've seen Well, I've seen pictures. The boat itself. Have you seen it? >> Yeah, I've seen pictures. >> The boat. Have you seen the boat itself? The boat. The physical boat. >> Like which boat? My boat or your boat? >> Your boat. >> My boat. I've seen it on photo on on phone. >> But you've not seen the boat itself? >> No, I haven't gone to see the boat ever since.
Examiner describes starboard-bow destruction and suggests severe/fatal injury should follow; Pascal says lookout was on left, damage on right, and was thrown out.
Evidence limit
Biomechanical death/injury inference is unproved. Pascal discussion may rely on photos; no full damage survey.
>> Repeat yourself. >> Have you seen your boat since the accident? >> Yes I've seen Well, I've seen pictures. The boat itself. Have you seen it? >> Yeah, I've seen pictures. >> The boat. Have you seen the boat itself? The boat. The physical boat. >> Like which boat? My boat or your boat? >> Your boat. >> My boat. I've seen it on photo on on phone. >> But you've not seen the boat itself? >> No, I haven't gone to see the boat ever since. But if you look at the magnitude of the destruction or the the damage to the boat, the entire portion of the bow towards the starboard side, which is the Raj side, is damaged, which means your lookout would have received severe damage or possibly died during the collision. >> Well, on what side it was? He was on the left hand side. The impact was more like on the on the right hand side. He was on that side of the boat. They say that's the boat. He was on that side. All impact was there. He was one of the guys who flew outside of the boat. He was flew outside of the boat from the impact.
Says he heard group discussions in which lookout said he saw nothing, though he did not personally question him.
Evidence limit
Nuances earlier no-conversation answer; not proof zero knowledge of lookout account.
>> But it it still does not give us the idea how he could have been seated in a specific area. >> Mhm. >> And would not have seen anything. And to compound the matter, you have not found it fit to ask him as the boat owner because that would have been your responsibility. >> Mhm. >> So would you say that you have failed in your responsibility? You would agree with me that you have >> I feel >> just wait. You would have agree with me that you have failed with your responsibility to ask the lookout what did he see? Did he see anything or what happened? Well, as I said, I haven't asked him, but from what the cap the captain has been questioning him and he's been saying that he didn't see anything. That's what he's been saying. But for me to go and ask him any question, I haven't asked him any question. But the captain did. >> So I am speaking in the context of you as the owner of the vessel. >> Mhm. >> Because remember here four individual lost their lives. Mhm. >> And to me, from the 18th of July to now, it would be rather strange that you have not as your lookout anything concerning what he may have seen or not. July, August, September, October. Well, as I said, I heard cuz we always among each other and you know, sometimes the topic come ups and you know, so I've known you know what was being said. But for me see I asked him I have not but I've already heard like what transpired like if if he saw anything if he didn't see anything and you know what he's been saying he didn't see anything coming.
Pascal says he gave no RPM or numerical speed; challenges assertion that his speed and elapsed time do not match, and qualifies approximate departure estimate.
Evidence limit
No route distance or actual speed established in exchange. Do not adopt examiner mathematical contradiction as demonstrated.
>> So we remain on navigational terms because the lookout failed. >> Mhm. >> The lights apparently did not assist. So I am going on basic navigational procedures with you. >> Mhm. If your vessel were traveling at how many RPMs did you say? >> I'm not sure. I'm not the captain to be honest. I didn't say how many RPM it was traveling. I've never said I've never said that. >> Okay. >> I've never never said boots traveling at whatever RPM. I haven't said that. I'm not the captain. >> So, you have no idea. Have you ever driven that vessel? >> Well, I've driven it. I've driven it, but I don't know how much RPM he was driving at that night. >> Because based on based on what based on what you're trying to describe here is that if you use the basic navigational calculations >> Mhm. >> the speed, the time, the distance is not matching. It's not >> like what speed and what that not matching. I haven't said anything about speed. I said the guy was driving at a moderate speed. Well, yes, we were driving at a moderate speed and that's the time we took. That's the time it happened. So maybe I might like the time phrase we left maybe might be wrong because I say approximately, you know, I wasn't cuz at the time that happened there sometimes you wouldn't check your time to see what time you left. It's just assuming like what time we left. So on my ends, you know, you cannot blame me because I at the moment when we left, I didn't check time. I just said, you know, we left around >> approximately 10:45. >> Yeah, around that time. So it could be. But would it would it always take you an hour, hour and 15 minutes from Gilelay to Sufre? >> Well, it depend on how you move. If it's a direct ride sometimes from suare to run there depend on the water some it will take you maybe an hour 30 minutes hour 25 it depend how you moving what engine not behind you you understand it depend it depend how fast you going what stops you making so it depend So, and I'm still I I'm still telling you that the the time the distance times multiply time speed is distance. >> Distance. If you're an owner of a boat, this it's simple calculation. >> Mhm. If you travel from point A to point B at such a speed, it will take you that amount of time. >> Yeah. Well, as I said, where we left from point A, it was about that time. Approximately that time when we get to the place when the incident happened, most people say it was around 11:55. But I'm saying what I could assume how long we take from point A to point B, I'd say within the range of 50 to an hour. Around that.
Says most people place incident around 11:55, while his own duration estimate remains roughly fifty minutes to an hour.
Evidence limit
Distinguish others' time from his observation; later estimate differs from earlier hour-plus.
Well, as I said, where we left from point A, it was about that time. Approximately that time when we get to the place when the incident happened, most people say it was around 11:55. But I'm saying what I could assume how long we take from point A to point B, I'd say within the range of 50 to an hour. Around that.
Says Tyson went to assist when calls for help were heard.
Evidence limit
Supports broad sequence of Tyson leaving controls; does not corroborate number or identity of people rescued.
So what did you do immediately upon impact? >> Um >> as the owner of the vessel. >> Well um what happened? Tyson. Tyson end up going assist after we heard some help.
Says he went to controls and Mavado/Jonel to engine because steering was disconnected though engine still running, attempting slowly to reach shore with passengers aboard.
Evidence limit
Damage described AFTER impact; not evidence pre-collision mechanical failure. Need both participants, survey and controls examination.
I went behind the I went behind the stair. I went behind the stair and try and bring the boat closer to shore cuz there was still passengers on board. So my intention was to try and bring the boat closer. So I went behind the stair. um Jonel which is Movado went behind the um the engine because at the time the steering it wasn't turning like everything had already disconnected but the engine was still on so Jel Movado went on control but I wasn't putting too much speed because you know the power of the 150 so you know I went at a little speed to try and reach closer to shore you know but we did not reach too far the boat end Same.
Expressly says boat sank; grabbed life jacket and swam to nearest catamaran/yacht.
Evidence limit
Upgrades Cazorla sinking from early press attribution to owner eyewitness testimony. Still not final wreck survey or precise sinking coordinate.
so when the boat sunk, I grab a live vest and then I swim to the nearest boat which was a a catamaran or yacht. >> Okay. >> Or you may call it. >> Okay. Understood. >> Went to there. So that's it.
III P3-052, P3-053 / P3-U0638, P3-U0639, P3-U0640, P3-U0641, P3-U0642 ↗
At other boat borrowed/accessed a phone and first called his aunt; says panic left this the number he remembered.
Evidence limit
No call log, emergency dispatch time or onward action established; do not attribute delay/deaths to this alone.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So when I reached there, that's why I started making some calls. There was a guy with a phone. >> I called my auntie. First person I called was my auntie and tell her that happened. So yes, I did make calls. >> But as a boat owner, you would be you would be um you should be familiar with the first person you call is 999 911, the emergency services. So even if you call 999 or 911 and you explain to them what happened, they would pass you on to the marine unit, the ancillary suare police and so on. The emergency services is the first person you call because you have nine persons whose life is in danger, not your auntie. >> Yeah, but at the time at the time panic mode and and and that's the only number I could remember. I didn't remember no police >> 911 and 91. I'm just telling you you telling me that there at the moment but in the event the the moment that happening there sometimes panic you know you you traumatize you you think is is your closest person you'll think to call so I call my auntie that's who I thought of that's the number I remembered at the time I called my auntie Because what what is key
III P3-053 / P3-U0644, P3-U0645, P3-U0646, P3-U0647, P3-U0648 ↗
Examiner says emergency services through 999/911 should be first call.
Evidence limit
Verify actual local emergency routing before publishing numbers as safety instructions; questioning is not telecom evidence.
But as a boat owner, you would be you would be um you should be familiar with the first person you call is 999 911, the emergency services. So even if you call 999 or 911 and you explain to them what happened, they would pass you on to the marine unit, the ancillary suare police and so on. The emergency services is the first person you call because you have nine persons whose life is in danger, not your auntie.
Questioners call answers casual and chair refers to a vibe; Pascal rejects indifference, saying he is being honest about practice.
Evidence limit
Demeanour is not proof of dishonesty, intent or responsibility. Hearing loss, interruptions and question framing matter.
>> very casual the the mood and all of that it seems to be I am not sure if I am mistaken in my interpretation of your composure but it seems to be a very casual one that like casual about the situation. >> Yes. >> Uh no, I wouldn't say such. >> I think um there may be other questions but um Mr. Chair probably at another One more. Yeah, thank you for your evidence. Um, I do know do hope that you've taken note of a number of things which which came from us. I'm hoping that you did take note of a number of things that were put to you or questions asked of you because there are it you may have given the impression I'm sure unintentionally but you may have given the impression that you you were a little casual about this and there yeah I'm not casual about it >> and there is nothing casual in this situation I'm saying I I doubt if you intended to convey that but I'm telling you what came across to us there is that you were a little casual. You know, we do that with story. >> That's what you took it as. But no, >> I I'm speaking I'm speaking and I'm telling you how you came across to the commission as being a little casual about the procedures that yes, you're supposed to do that, but we do that with with guests, but we don't do that uh with with with locals. Um yes. Well, that's the what you that's what you say, that's what the papers say. This is much more serious than that. As I indicated, not just we have we have the lives of four people who were lost as a result of the collision and we have a number of incidents that have taken place, maritime incidents and accidents. All of this opportunity is being taken to explore all of that and to see what it is that has been done wrong and right and how we can correct it. And you are a boat operator and you should more than any of us here be taking this situation very very seriously. >> The impact it can have on your livelihood and on the lives of others. And as I said, this is what you were giving off to us. Doesn't mean that as you sat there, that is what you intended. But in terms of the way in which you were answering questions, I'm just telling you, you were giving off, you know, let's use colloquial terms. You were giving off a vibe. That wasn't good. That wasn't cool. >> Yeah. >> No, but that's the honest truth. I You wanted me to lie about the whole situation. I just we clearly not understanding each other. >> Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I'm casual like I answering the things like you know I don't it's not like I don't care and I'm casual about it. I'm just being realistic about you know how everything happened and what happened. It's not like I I casual about that's what you take it but that's not what it is with me. >> Yeah. And I'm just telling you that that you were coming off in that way. That as much as I want to think that you did not intend to come off that way, that you were coming off that way. I say this for your your benefit, for your guidance, you're in a a business that that things are happening that can cause modes of operation, operational practices, procedures, regulations, legislation to be altered based on what happened. and what should have happened and what didn't happen and you you should take very seriously this incident not just for it and of itself but for the whole future of the business that you you involved in. So I want to I want to take the opportunity to tell you those things. you are a boat owner, a boat operator and what as I said what has happened not just what has happened in this incident is extremely serious but there are other things that have happened or not happened uh which this commission will address and is addressing so just be mindful of that as I said and and be very much aware that we're into some serious serious what is it pun intended okay is there anything you wanted to say to to the commission before you end your your evidence?
Pascal offers nothing further, is released subject to recall, and hearing adjourns until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Evidence limit
On stated 13 October hearing date this announces 14 October; does not prove next sitting actually occurred.
>> Uh, not really. >> Very well. >> Not really. >> Very well. You it is possible that you may be recalled at some stage. If that is being done, you will be appropriately informed and appropriately summoned in the event that anything arises that causes the commission to require further evidence from you. >> Very well. >> Yeah. So the business of this commission is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10:00. >> Thank you, Mr. Pascal.
III P3-057 / P3-U0661, P3-U0662, P3-U0663, P3-U0664, P3-U0665, P3-U0666, P3-U0667 ↗