AG v Carr (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal) : Saunders) [2025] JRC 325 (4 December 2025)

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. At just after 5.30 in the morning on 8 December 2022, in open water between Guernsey and Jersey a large roll on and off ferry, the Commodore Goodwill, collided with a Jersey fishing boat, L'Ecume II. The fishing boat was tiny compared to the Commodore Goodwill which had a gross weight of 11,200 tons, and L'Ecume II was destroyed in the collision and sank instantly. Tragically, the three occupants of the fishing boat, the skipper Michael Michiele and the two crew Larry Simyunn and Jervis Baligal, were all drowned. Michael Michiele was aged 62 at the time of his death, he was well known locally for his skills as a fisherman. Larry Simyunn was 33, and Jervis Baligat 31. Both of them came from the Philippines. All three had a good part of their lives ahead of them and have left families grieving their loss.

2. At the time of the collision Mr Carr, the second officer, was at the helm of the Commodore Goodwill and he had the responsibility for safely navigating the ferry between Guernsey and Jersey. Mr Carr was not experienced compared with some other senior officers on the ferry but had been carrying out the duties of second officer, which included navigating the boat, for 2 years by the time of the collision. He had all the necessary qualifications and training to safely navigate the boat. He was assessed by others as being good at the job. At the time of the collision it was dark but otherwise visibility was good, and both boats were fitted with radar. It was said to be exceptionally good weather for December and the sea was calm.

3. Both boats were in good condition and had all the necessary equipment to enable them to avoid a collision. The Commodore Goodwill, unsurprisingly, had a good deal more radar and other navigational aids than L'Ecume 11.

4. So why did this collision happen? The evidence was that the Commodore Goodwill was late leaving Guernsey. That was not the fault of Mr Carr, but when he took over the helm from the Captain after leaving Guernsey, he was told to get to Jersey as soon as possible. He was not being told by the Captain to risk the safety of the ship and he knew that he should not. The Court is satisfied that he was in a hurry and that affected some of his actions.

5. Everyone who works on a ship or a boat knows how serious a collision can be so there are regulations to try and make sure that they are avoided. In addition to rules which affect all seafarers, there was a rule introduced by the captain of the Commodore Goodwill and others that where possible the ferry should not come within one nautical mile of any other vessel. This was not always possible when close to a harbour or when in congested sea lanes, but it was possible on this occasion as L'Ecume II was the only vehicle close by. Mr Carr should have acted in compliance with that rule.

6. Mr Carr first saw the lights of L'Ecume II when it was a number of nautical miles away, and at which time they were sailing towards one another. At the time of his first sighting, Mr Carr had ample opportunity to alter course so as to avoid L'Ecume II by a nautical mile. That is what he should have done and he did not. He could have done that before any risk of collision had arisen. As Mr Carr accepted in his evidence at trial, had he done that this tragedy would have been avoided.

7. After seeing L'Ecume II Mr Carr continued sailing towards it at a top speed of 18 knots, which had been set by the Captain so as to arrive at Jersey as quickly as possible. Once Mr Carr took over the helm it was up to him to travel at a safe speed. He did not reduce speed before the collision.

8. What Mr Carr did, when still over 4 nautical miles away from L'Ecume II, was to alter course slightly. In evidence during the trial Mr Carr said that he did this because Commodore Goodwill had drifted off course and he was correcting this. That is not what he said in his account in the various interviews that he had soon after the collision. In the interviews, he said that he had made the course alteration to open up a gap between his boat and L'Ecume II so that they would pass safely port to port.

9. The prosecution say that the accurate answer was what Mr Carr said in his interview not what he said in Court. The Court accepts the prosecution's argument and is sure that what Mr Carr said in the interviews was what he was really trying to achieve by this manoeuvre . He was hoping that this change of direction would be sufficient for the vessels to pass side by side without colliding. While the Court accepts that Mr Carr was very affected by the collision and its consequences at the time of the interview, the Court cannot understand, having heard the evidence and his explanation, how he would have come to have said what he did if it had not been true.

10. So, at an early stage, in our judgment, Mr Carr should have taken avoiding action to ensure that he passed nowhere near to L'Ecume II.

11. He did not do that, and the vessels continued on their course. Ten minutes before the collision, the collision warning light came up on Mr Carr's radar. That was a warning that if both boats continued on their course there was a risk of collision. Once the risk of collision had been identified, the international rules of the sea, known as COLREGS, applied to both boats and determined which boat had to give way to the other. The prosecution argued at trial that L'Ecume II was showing fishing lights which meant in practice that the Commodore Goodwill was the give way vessel and should have moved out of the way of L'Ecume II, and at one stage in interview the Defendant did say that the Commodore Goodwill was the give way vessel. The defence argued that there was no direct evidence that L'Ecume II was showing fishing lights and what evidence there was suggests that it was not. I do not consider that the jury could have been sure on the evidence that L'Ecume II was showing fishing lights because of the verdicts they reached, and accordingly the Court will sentence on the basis that after the risk of collision had been identified, the Commodore Goodwill had right of way and the obligation on it - as the stand on vessel - was to maintain its course and speed until it became clear that in order to avoid a collision it should take avoiding action.

12. L'Ecume II did not alter course even when a collision was becoming more and more likely. Why that was we will never know. The skipper, Michael Michiele, was in the engine compartment carrying out some work. In those circumstances it would be expected that one or other or both of the crew would be on the deck keeping a lookout. They clearly were not, but why we do not know and because we do not know, the Court will not speculate.

13. But whatever fault there may have been on the part of the L'Ecume II crew, when it became apparent that the L'Ecume II was not altering course, it was for Mr Carr to avoid the collision. He did alter course but it was too little too late. He sounded his whistle but not until the Commodore Goodwill was almost on top of L'Ecume II. He should have altered course earlier and, had he put the boat on manual steering rather than remaining on auto pilot, he would have achieved a much more rapid turn and may well have avoided the collision. He should have sounded the whistle at a time which gave L'Ecume II an opportunity to respond to it.

14. So why didn't Mr Carr take avoiding action? It was his job to avoid a collision as navigator. He did not deliberately crash into L'Ecume II but he became distracted from his main task which was to avoid a collision by doing other jobs which he had to do before the ferry reached Jersey. In that crucial 10 minutes between the collision warning being shown and the collision happening he made a number of phone calls. He rang and spoke to the Jersey coast guard. He rang the engine room to give them advance notice of arrival in Jersey. They rang him back and he answered the call. He spoke to the Captain to give him warning of the approach to Jersey so that he could take over the helm. All of those things he should not have done at that time. He could have done them later. Because he did those other tasks it meant he did not concentrate on his main responsibility which at that time was to avoid colliding with L'Ecume II. Had he been solely concentrating on avoiding the collision, it could have been avoided by making an earlier turn, reducing speed, and going over to manual steering so that a sharper turn would have been possible.

15. As a result of what he had done, Mr Carr was convicted of one offence of conduct endangering ships by the jury. The maximum for that offence, and it is important that I emphasise this, that the Court can impose is 2 years' imprisonment. The Court needs to decide the appropriate sentence within the sentencing powers given to it by the legislature.

16. The sentence we pass needs to take into account the harm that Lewis Carr has caused. Three men have lost their lives; their families are feeling, and will continue to feel, the pain of their loss which has been devastating. That said, the sentence we pass is not intended to nor could it reflect that loss. No sentence can undo the tragic events that have happened, nor can any sentence we can impose make it easier for the families to come to terms with their loss. But the fact that three people have lost their lives is something that should be taken into account in this sentence, even though it needs to be borne in mind at all times that the maximum sentence for this offence in Jersey, which is the same as England and Wales, is 2 years.

17. We also need to consider the culpability of Mr Carr for what happened. He did not deliberately cause the collision. He was feeling under pressure as the ferry was running late. He made the wrong decision in not keeping one nautical mile away from L'Ecume II. He failed to make appropriate use of the considerable amount of radar and collision avoidance equipment that he had. He failed to properly make use of the lookout who was available to assist him, but perhaps most importantly, he failed to devote all his attention to avoiding a collision. He divided his attention so that he reacted too late to what was happening in front of him.

18. Personally, there is a great deal which can be said in Mr Carr's favour . He has no criminal convictions recorded against him and he has lived a hardworking and constructive life. We have read a large number of testimonials from his family, from his friends at home and from school. We have heard from people who have known him for a long time and can talk with authority of the sort of person he is. People with whom he has worked speak highly of his qualities as a man and as a worker. They speak of him as someone who works hard and is good at his job. It is clear that Mr Carr's behaviour on this occasion was out of character. Mr Carr has written to the Court expressing his remorse for what he has done; he has satisfied the probation officer who has prepared a very helpful and entirely realistic report for the Court that he feels genuine remorse for the three deaths and the effect that those deaths have had on their families. We have also read a report from a clinical psychologist reporting on the effect that the collision has had on the Defendant. She reports that the Defendant is suffering some of the symptoms of PTSD. She is an experienced psychologist and she regards the symptoms as genuine and has recommended some treatment to assist him.

19. We have read reports of other cases of a similar nature. They do not, and they do not seek to, set down any principles for sentencers to consider. It is for the Jurats to decide on the appropriate sentence on the facts of this particular case balancing all the various factors that I have set out.

20. The court will apply the following principles: (i) First, the Court takes the view that where there are multiple deaths, sentences close to the maximum sentence are justified. (ii) There is personal mitigation and that should be taken into account to some extent. (iii) In addition, there has been delay before this matter has come to trial which has had an effect, not only on the families, but also on the Defendant, and that should be taken account of.

21. These events will have consequences for Mr Carr in his future life and his employment.

22. Would you stand up please Mr Carr.

23. Taking all those matters into account, the Court has decided that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of 20 months' imprisonment.

24. Thank you. I am grateful to the Advocates for their contribution and assistance. Authorities Shipping (Jersey) Law 2002 Merchant Shipping Act 1995 R v F Howe and Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37 R v Richley [2015] EWCA Crim 1256 Page Last Updated: 09 Jan 2026 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII