Charges were filed in May 2022, and the court case started in January 2023, in
a lower court. The defendant is the
conning officer—also referred to as
officer of the watch (
vaktleder)—at the time of the accident. "One of us [on the bridge]" commented that it might be a [
platform or] an installation for
fish farming. The starboard lookout had returned to the bridge at 03.59 (two minutes before the collision); that lookout had not been replaced on the bridge, while the lookout was on a break (a "food-break"). Furthermore, the defendant was asked about four of the bridge team members having impaired vision (
nedsatt syn) - two of those persons did not fulfill the criteria for such duties, because of their (impaired) vision: The defendant had known nothing about that matter (at the time of the accident). At 03.45, the tanker broadcast on
VHF radio, that it (the tanker, now) was departing Stureterminalen; the witness testified that he (the witness) was responsible for not having caught the message (on the specific channel that he was duty-bound to listen to, (while on duty) when the warship was in a specific area; he testified that if he (the witness) had done his duty by catching the radio transmission, then the (verbal)
situation report that he passed on to the defendant, would have left no doubt that the tanker was in motion. On 28 January 2023, media told about the content of a report, that has not been released to the public (but has been referred to, during the trial); That 42 page report tells about the
Norwegian Navy's view of what happened on the tanker's bridge: • They did not use radar in the correct manner - neither before nor after departure from Stureterminalen; the use was not in accordance with the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. • The actions of the lookouts, were not in accordance with instructions on board the tanker, or in accordance with the rules of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Later that month, the warship's
commanding officer testified. He was not on the bridge at the time of the accident; however, the bridge team had authority to operate the ship, during the periods when the captain is not on the bridge. Witnesses also came on the stand in February, including the officer-of-the-watch of the warship's "
operations room". Another witness, the trainee for the assistant officer-of-the-watch (bridge team member) testified that he was learning from her, the assistant officer-of-the-watch (bridge team member), while she was sitting in the chair in front of her radar display. and the captain of a tugboat (
Tenax) that was towing the tanker. The [traffic leader, or]
trafikklederen at
Sjøtrafikksentralens stasjon at
Fedje, testified that he did not use the word "warning", while he (the traffic leader) had contact with the warship's bridge. Another witness, the chief of training for the Navy, testified; he was responsible for the training and follow-up of those working with Another witness had for 20 years, been responsible for running qualification checks on navigators in the Navy; the retired officer, Cato Rasmussen, has never heard of any other officer-of-the-watch getting qualified after only eight months of service; furthermore, on the [...day] of the accident, two of the navigators who belonged to the frigate, were on a one-year assignment in Bergen - at an [in-depth] navigation course. That created a need for developing new officers-of-the-watch - in a shorter time, than had been normal, earlier, according to Rasmussen.
Verdict The defendant was found guilty of negligence and sentenced to a 60-day suspended sentence by
Hordaland District Court; one of the judges voted against the guilty verdict.
Trial in appellate court In October 2023, the trial started in
appellate court; it was scheduled to last four weeks, until 18. November; The lawyers for the defense team have called some new witnesses: a former chief of safety in the navy, and the person who was responsible for the training of the Officer of the watch (the defendant), and two researchers [... that are experts] in regard to naval accidents and
near-accidents in the navy. In 2023, the appellate court sentenced the defendant to 60 days. ==Citations==