Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Isle of Wight Tanker "Hijacked" 25/10/20

I understand that there are now reports that she made not one but two port stops en route from Lagos.

Allegedly Ste Nazaire in France.

I think it is highly probable the non-paying pax got onboard there.
I forget where I read it but the ship apparently stopped at the Canaries and St Nazaire. Unlikely that they boarded at St Nazaire as the French authorities were reported to have refused to let them off there.

What the truth is, is anyone's guess.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
..should leave you with fingers like you've just eaten a pack of prawn coctail crisps :)

That reminds me how are the QARNNS doing these days?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer

merchantman

War Hero
I understand from trawling the net that the ship stopped at Las Palmas and St Nazaire to try and offload the stowaways but neither the Spanish nor the French would take them. An interesting outline of the legal aspects on LinkedIn this morning from Stephen Askins. Stephen is a well known maritime lawyer and also a former Royal Marine.

 
I understand from trawling the net that the ship stopped at Las Palmas and St Nazaire to try and offload the stowaways but neither the Spanish nor the French would take them. An interesting outline of the legal aspects on LinkedIn this morning from Stephen Askins. Stephen is a well known maritime lawyer and also a former Royal Marine.

Under the SUA France had an obligation to take them and didn't or they can just be 'asked' and then have a choice? The article doesn't clarify.
 

merchantman

War Hero
Under the SUA France had an obligation to take them and didn't or they can just be 'asked' and then have a choice? The article doesn't clarify.

It is my understanding, and I do not profess to be an expert on this convention this morning is the first time I have read it, that the convention does not apply unless or until the stowaways become violent. In Spain and France they were simply stowaways and potential illegal immigrants.
 

Oyibo

LE
It is my understanding, and I do not profess to be an expert on this convention this morning is the first time I have read it, that the convention does not apply unless or until the stowaways become violent. In Spain and France they were simply stowaways and potential illegal immigrants.

It's a curious case - If they claimed to be asylum seekers before they got to Spanish or French waters, UNCLOS is a bit wooly on whether the two countries would be required to take them:

Without prejudice to any responsibilities of the flag State, stowaway asylum seekers should, whenever possible, be allowed to disembark at the first port of call and given the opportunity of having their refugee status determined by the authorities, provided that this does not necessarily imply durable solution in the country of the port of disembarkation.

So if 'asylum seekers' did not want to disembark in France or Spain it appears that they could not be forced to.

And then there's the statements from the owner's lawyers' about whether the ship had been hijacked which make me suspect that the owners were trying to save money.

Pure speculation on my part, but who knows.
 

merchantman

War Hero
The UN Refugee Agency sets out it's blurb on Stowaways here, section 4 from page 36.


Not sure whether the ship was scheduled to call at Las Palmas or St Nazaire en route to Southampton but suspect not:

D. Deviation from the planned route

4.8 Standard. Public authorities shall urge all shipowners operating ships entitled to fly their flag to instruct their masters not to deviate from the planned voyage to seek the disembarkation of stowaways discovered on board the ship after it has left the territorial waters of the country where the stowaways embarked, unless:

- permission to disembark the stowaway has been granted by the public authorities of the State to whose port the ship deviates; or

- repatriation has been arranged elsewhere with sufficient documentation and permission for disembarkation; or

- there are extenuating security, health or compassionate reasons.
 
So if 'asylum seekers' did not want to disembark in France or Spain it appears that they could not be forced to.
This smacks of a lengthy and expensive court case as my interpretation is different, requiring that the stowaway not be refused landing (whether this be the stowaway's desire or not). The logic behind my interpretation is that disembarking the stowaway removes the potential to endanger the ship at sea while deciding on asylum status.
 

Dr Death

War Hero
Glad he's on the mend, but he'd better be careful with that bruise - might start asking for asylum.
Thanks.

He does not make a great patient and is ready to march off on another walk.
My Mum insisted on going with him & now complains he is walking slower but longer.
Not bad for an 86 & 85 year olds & my Dad still has the same waist he had on day 1 of joining the army!
 
Apparently the 7 Nigerian suspects have been given bail by Hampshire Police (from the daily Daily Telegraph, full story behind a pay wall). No doubt that is the last we will see of them.
 
Apparently the 7 Nigerian suspects have been given bail by Hampshire Police (from the daily Daily Telegraph, full story behind a pay wall). No doubt that is the last we will see of them.


It’s in Sky news too. Bailed by Police but held under Border force rules? Not sure what that means though.
If they’ve been let out to roam the streets then yep, no one will see them again.
And it will also show that the U.K. is soft to these type of immigrants.
I see it’s more “young males”. Not families etc.

I would like to see for example the US response to stowaways hijacking a US vessel, in US waters and being arrested compared to the U.K.
 

NuggetBks

Swinger
“The UK should not be regarded as a place where you can automatically come and break the law by seeking to arrive illegally. If you come illegally, you are an illegal migrant, and I’m afraid the law will treat you as such.” ~ Boris Johnson, 23 August 2019.

Endoscope said:
:rofl:you so naive

The seven have been detained by police since the night they have now been bailed but are now detained by border force. Just as I said.
 
Well, that's the last we will see of them then.


And this is the nub of the issue - Boris can huff and puff as much as he likes about getting tough with people smugglers...the smugglers are targeting the UK because of our ridiculous immigration, asylum and benefits system. If these systems didn't exist to be exploited then people would be less inclined to be smuggled here.
 

NuggetBks

Swinger
Can no one read?

While the investigation continues, the men will remain detained under Border Force powers.

Correct! Everyone is on their high horse and thinking they are in the community. I said that they’d be placed in a detention centre and some on here near split their sides laughing at the idea. Fact is they were arrested, now released under investigation and now detained by border force! Not walking the streets like some said!
 
Can no one read?

While the investigation continues, the men will remain detained under Border Force powers.

Fine. Can you tell us what this means then?

Bailed, but detained enough to report to plod station every 24hrs?
Detained in a secure location (detention centre)?

Detention for immigrants who illegally entered the country usually (according to media) means roaming the streets and reporting in once a day to someone as there’s nowhere else to put them (see Dover as example?).
Common sense says as these required a considerable amount of resource and finance to get them off a vessel, they should be put back to place of origin.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Top