Hi, My name is Raj Kumar Goel I was detained in Taiwan from 7th February, 1996 to 22nd June 1999. After my release I came to India on 26th June, 1999. It is a great feeling to get back my freedom.
I left Delhi on 3rd February,1996 and reached Hongkong the same day. I boarded M.V. "Kasuga 1" on 3rd night/4th February at 1.30 AM. After boarding ship outgoing Captain started handing over. Univan head office being in Hongkong, Superintendents come on board on arrival.
M.V. "Kasuga 1" is a container ship owned by NYK Shipping Co. and managed by Univan Ship Management Ltd. The ship's particulars are: Length: 285 metres, full load displacement: 61255 MT and draft: 11.03 metres, full speed: 22.5 knots at 115 RPM and was a twin screw ship.
We sailed out of Hongkong on 4th February at 8 PM for Los Angles. Vessel's containers on deck caused a blind sector of 3 to 4 cables from the bridge
On 5th February while passing north of Taiwan, at about 2030-2040 hours, I received a call from 3/O, he asked me to come on Bridge. I went up, 3/O told me that he had seen a boat, with no navigational lights, fine on the port bow and he altered course to starboard (about 10 degrees), later the boat got hidden behind the containers and he gave a hard starboard on wheel. We had a course of 57 degrees and when I came up on Bridge the heading was about 95 degrees. After 3/O told me the situation I immediately ran to star board side, saw nothing that side (forward, abeam or quarter). Then I checked port side forward and abeam but saw nothing, on the port quarter I saw a boat with a faint light, I asked 3/O if that is boat he had seen earlier seen, he said yes. I asked him to bring the ship back to course and we continued our voyage. I again checked both sides but found no sign of collision.
After 15-20 minutes the port propeller RPM reduced from 115 to 85 and starboard reduced from 115 to 107. I informed the Chief Engineer, he started checking engines and at 2300 Hrs he told me that port propeller seems to be fouled. I contacted my company Univan Ship Management Ltd, they asked Chief Engineer to check certain things in Engine room and continue moving on our course and see in the morning what can be done. After further checking engine room and giving astern movement the ship's speed reduced further so we again called company Superintendent Mr. Perreira and decided to divert the ship to Keelung.
On 6th February afternoon we were in Keelung. Before arrival Keelung I reported to the Keelung Authorities about my problem and also contacted with my agent in Keelung. I followed the normal procedure but still Prosecutors say that I wanted to clear propeller fouling at outer anchorage, it is really foolish for Prosecutors to think like this. After we arrived at inner anchorage, divers were called and they removed the fouling (fishing net). On 7th noon before we were ready for sailing Keelung Harbour Authorities came on board and asked to see our Logbook and other records. I fully co-operated with the authorities and showed them all the records, no record was obliterated or changed. I contacted UK P&I club local representative and he also came on board. Keelung Harbour Police took us for questioning and detained us.
Keelung Harbour Bureau Maritime department blamed me for not having a quartermaster on bridge along with 3/O and that I should have suspected collision once engine speed reduced. STCW convention to have quartermaster on Bridge came into force somewhere in July 97 so, legally, this does not establishes a criminal negligence. After the incident the name of quartermaster was entered in the logbook on instructions from our company, Univan Ship Management Ltd. Even after knowing that AB Tandel was not on Bridge at the time of alleged collision still he was kept in prison for 2 and half months and in Taiwan for 21 months. When we were in prison our lawyer applied for bail many times but the Prosecutor rejected. It was only when I went on fast for 3 days in the Prison that the District Court agreed to release Tandel on bail.
The underwater part of bows of "Kasuga 1" had a round mark (sort of groove) which cannot be made by direct impact/collision. Classification Society NKK surveyor and other Surveyor's reported that the mark was made by a wire chafing with bows. The fishing boat was big and it would have caused a massive hole in ship had there been a direct hit. There were some paint marks (thought to be from boat) on the bows. Our P&I Club felt that the fishing boat collided with some other ship and later on the boat's net wire got caught in the bows of our ship and that is how the net got fouled in Propeller. I was not on Bridge when either of these (collision or wire getting caught) took place so it is very difficult for me comment.
One person who survived said they were not fishing at the time of collision, his story made the fishing boat "Stand On" vessel and "Kasuga 1" give way vessel. According to 3/O it is the other way. If the boat had been on our starboard side before alleged collision then the fishing net should have got fouled in our starboard propeller as the net was kept on the after part of Fishing boat.
I came to know about the mark on bows when I was in prison, where for 2 weeks I could not meet anyone. Keelung Harbour Maritime Department investigation said it is a collision so Courts had to follow them. The mark on bows is clearly made by wire but they did not accept that, what could I do in such circumstances. All these above facts were, intentionally, overlooked just to punish someone for the collision and those someone happened to be us. The facts got hidden and/or distorted because of casualties.
We and our lawyers never considered International Law and so never checked whether it applies to our case. When, Taiwanese ship M.V. "Maersk Dubai" crewmembers were detained in Canada for throwing 3 stowaways in sea and Taiwan protested with Canada on the basis of International Law, did our lawyers realise that our incident also took place in International waters. Taiwan threatened to sever relations with Canada if Taiwanese are not allowed to go to Taiwan on the basis of International Law. The 6 Taiwanese crewmembers returned to Taiwan in March, 1997 but Taiwan Courts/Prosecutors have refused to release us.
In July 1996 we were released on bail because of Taiwanese ship problem otherwise we would have been still inside prison. I have never relied on International Law to get released from here. I have again and again tried to tell Courts that I am innocent but no one listens. Judges and Public prosecutors and have no knowledge of ship. Till today they have been writing (indictments and verdicts) that 3/O fixed course with GPS, altered ship via the GPS, we heard some noise from the bottom of ship, boat was dragged for 15 minutes and survivor jumped after 15 minutes from collision time (they also say that the position of collision and where survivor was found is same), it was bright for us to see far off but it was dark for passing ship/boats to rescue survivors.
Supreme Court has twice sent the case back to High Court. After 2nd High Court verdict to defend us against Prosecutor's appeal our lawyer gave defense statement to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Judges did not even see that. You can imagine the biased attitude of court. What Courts and Prosecutors have been saying is mostly wrong, they want some scapegoat for the incident and they have got us. Since the 2 Supreme Court verdicts are contradictory, how can we hope to get justice. On paper Taiwan is a democratic country but actually the Judges/Prosecutors still carry same thinking/views that was prevalent during Marshall Law in Taiwan.
Webmaster's Note:
Most people just accept the fact that a Master becomming a scapegoat is just part of the responsibilities that come with the rank! I think that is a very lame excuse! No shore person of this level (incidentally they earn much more than a Master so don't give that crap about the salary compensating!) is put in prison for someone else's mistakes! Any seafarer knows that he / she can do nothing to prevent a ship like the Erika from cracking up, and the Master is definitely not to blame if the 3rd officer end up banging a fishing boat which has the audacity to sail at night without its lights!
If you think there is nothing you can do, That's upto you . However if you feel something MUST be done, just copy the text below, click SEND below and paste the message with your name, designation and nationality. One, ten, twenty mails can be ignored. Two hundred mails cannot! Five hundred bombarding them can make ears pluck up! ( For your information, more than 900 peole saw this webpage between its birth on 5th Jan 2002 to today - Feb 12th 2002!) Sure - at the end nothing may happen....but at least you will have the satisfaction of Having tried !!! Otherwise, don't lament when YOU land up in a foreign prison (every Master knows how close this possibility always hovers!)!!
Please Copy the following and paste in after clicking on SEND
Sir / Madam,
I strongly disagree with the present contention that a Master is responsible for ALL mistakes committed by other personnel of his ship or ashore or on other ships, over which he has little or no control - regarding navigation, pollution or similar matters. I strongly condemn putting a Master in Jail for such labelled "offences" - in a foreign country. Human rights and Justice is something which must not be denied to the Master of the ship. The IMO must make stricter rules than Article 97 of Unclos to ensure that a Master is tried only in his own country of domicile. Please help us and the seafaring community before it is too late!!!
Guestbook
