I must confess that having had a look at the reporting I'm not really clear on what was going on. for a start, the top 2 reports (BBC and Daily Mail) are presumably cribbing one off the other as both have got the length of a middle watch wrong (1200-0400 rather than the quoted 0100-0400) and also have the name of at least one of the other officers mentioned wrong.
In the circumstances reported, I can see why she might have told the *captain* about the CPA with the fishing boat (because waking them up to tell them that sort of thing would be in the Standing Orders and completely what they're there for), but not the Navs. Unless the Navs was on the bridge, but even then given that they wouldn't have the ship (because the OOW has it) then it would be more of a comment/observation than a report. Unless the Navs had the watch, which they quite obviously didn't, otherwise it would have been the Navs in the dock.
Basically I'm guessing that it wasn't the Navs she told, because (and bearing in mind I wasn't there and I've been outside for 14 years so I might be missing something) I can't see why she would have told the Navs. There's a direct line to the CO from the bridge for reporting this sort of thing, you don't faff about shaking other members of the ship's company.
Either there's more to this than has made the press, or the press have got it wrong.