The Trial of Apostolos Mangouras

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Issue
Facts of the case
Application of the relevant laws to justify Apostolos Mangouras’s violation
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In this report, I, the prosecutor, will provide a detailed explanation of the prosecution’s justification of the case against Apostolos Mangouras. In particular, it concerns the accused’s actions that obstructed the emergency rescue operations, which led to the spillage of several tons of oil on the coast of Spain, causing massive destruction of the environment. I intend to show that Apostolos Mangouras not only violated a civil law, but also committed crimes under the EU and UK environmental laws.

Issue

Our legal issue is to show that Apostolos Mangouras’s actions amount to the violation of the EU’s Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal laws (ETS 172), the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, the Emergency Services (Obstruction) Act 2006 of the United Kingdom and the UK tort law (Sands & Peel 2012). Therefore, I strongly believe that Apostolos Mangouras deserves a strict penalty for his crime and violation of the existing laws under the UK, EU and UN regulations (Zengerling 2013).

Facts of the case

Evidently, the facts of the case show that Apostolos Mangouras ha a criminal and civil case to answer and face the appropriate penalty for his actions. Our investigations found that on November 13 2002, Captain Apostolos Mangouras was commanding a ship as he passed the coast of Spain from South America heading to Greece. The ship, known as “The Prestige”, was a 26-year old vessel, presumed to be in good condition, and was flying the Bahamas national flag. We found that the vessel was carrying about 70,000 tons of fuel oil, with Apostolos Mangouras as the captain and a number of his crewmembers. The ship had already entered the coast of Galicia, some 28 miles from the Spanish cape of Finisterre, an exclusive economic zone controlled by the Kingdom of Spain (Harris, O’Boyle, Bates & Buckley 2013). Due to heavy storms, the ship was damaged, causing a sudden and severe leakage at the cargo chamber. Under Apostolos Mangouras’s leadership, the crew sent out an SOS notifying the authorities in the Spanish territory of the situation and the dangers involved. After the maritime authorities at Cape Finisterre received the SOS signal, they recognized the need for an immediate action. The team organized and launched a comprehensive operation for rescuing the crewmembers on the ship. In addition, they planned how to seal the leaked vessel in order to prevent further oil spill. Apostolos Mangouras had been already in the process of attempting to dock the vessel at the coastline, approaching the coast but heavily spilling the fuel into the seawater. However, he failed to cooperate with the authorities as the rescue team attempted to stop him and remove the crewmembers from the sinking vessel. When the rescue team attempted to take the vessel in tow, Apostolos Mangouras refused and failed to cooperate. He insisted on docking the ship rather than leaving it to the authorities to find a solution of fixing the leakage and save the marine water and life from further spillage. This caused excessive spillage of the fuel oil, causing a major ecological disaster. Studies indicated that the spilled oil affected the flora and fauna and lasted for several months (Zengerling 2013). In addition, the effect spread widely, reaching the French coast within a few hours numerous waves of oil were washed up, causing severe pollution of the Atlantic coast, especially in Galicia and Cantabria (Fitzmaurice & Merkouris 2012). The beaches and cliffs were blacked, leading to massive deaths of marine animals and plants. In addition, the quality of water was adversely affected.

Application of the relevant laws to justify Apostolos Mangouras’s violation

In the UK, the UK environmental statutes, relevant tort law, the EU environmental conventions as well as the UN regulations on the environment are applicable to justify the crimes committed by Apostolos Mangouras.

First, the facts indicate that in his capacity as the captain of “the prestige”, Apostolos Mangouras was responsible for making the major decisions concerning the ship and the welfare of the crew. The company had given him the responsibilities of leading and commandeering the vessel and his crew members while on the sea. Therefore, he had the responsibility of working with the rescue authorities. In addition, he had the duty of care for the crewmembers as well as the animals, plants and other marine objects in the seawater.

Secondly, it is worth showing how Apostolos Mangouras acted in a manner that violated the above-mentioned laws. Under the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act of 2006, Apostolos Mangouras committed a crime by obstructing the activities of emergency workers who were trying to save the crew and possibly reduce the amount of spillage from the leaking ship (Ministry of Justice 2012). The statute states that obstructing or hindering the activities of emergency workers while on action or planning to take an emergency action amounts to a crime punishable under the law. It defines emergency workers as any individual working to combat dangers such as fire or working in ambulance services, blood or organ transportation, coastguards and other activities.

In addition, it is an offence to obstruct the workers when on the act or planning to act (Ministry of Justice 2012).

Clearly, Apostolos Mangouras obstructed the work of emergency workers by refusing to let the ship be towed and the leakage be sealed on time. Evidence shows that Apostolos Mangouras, as the Master of the vessel, refused for almost three hours to cooperate with the maritime authorities that were preparing to take some emergent actions to save the lives of the crew members and any other lives that were likely to be affected by the oil spillage and the sinking ship. Subsequently, Apostolos Mangouras continued to obstruct the rescue workers in an indirect manner, which caused difficulties by refusing to take the appropriate steps needed to ensure that the vessel was towed. For instance, evidence shows that the captain even refused to start the engine of his vessel (Fitzmaurice 2011).

Therefore, it is clear that Apostolos Mangouras’s actions violated the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act of 2006, thereby committing a crime. It was his duty to ensure that the emergency workers were given the chance to rescue the crewmembers as well as try to prevent further spillage of the fuel oil. It is also clear that the circumstances meet the requirements of the Act. For instance, the rescue workers were members of the lifeboats crews and coastguards, thereby falling under the definition of emergency workers provided in the statute. Secondly, the circumstance was an event that was already causing damage of the seawaters. It was already showing signs of imminent danger because it was sinking with people inside it. It was also clear that the oil spill was a dangerous event, considering the small distant between the ship and the coast as well as the large volume of oil in the ship (Sands & Peel 2012).

Under the Convention on the Protection of the Environment the EU criminalizes any action that leads to a discharge, emission or introduction of a substantial quantity of harmful products on air, water and soil that is likely to cause serious injuries or death to a person or deterioration of the environment, flora and fauna. Although Apostolos Mangouras was not responsible for the spillage, his refusal to cooperate for more than 2 hours shows that he contributed to the spillage of the fuel oil into the water (Ashworth 2010). Although he was aware that the ship was leaking and substantial amounts of oil were spilled, he refused to let the maritime authorities take action and attempted to stop the spillage. It is worth noting that the amount of time that Apostolos Mangouras spent on the sea after refusing to cooperate with the authorities was enough for engineers to rescue the team and find a short-term solution to the spillage, which could have reduced the amount of oil released into the water. Therefore, Apostolos Mangouras committed a crime under the EU statute. Under Article 230 of the Convention on the law of the sea, Apostolos Mangouras should face a jail term as the court may find necessary.

Thirdly, the vessels and crews international law also applies to the case. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, Article 220 gives the coastal states the authority to investigate the matter in case a vessel that has entered the country’s economic zone has shown to be committing a violation of the environmental law through the spillage of materials into the water (Mumma & Smith 2011). In addition, article 73 of the statute gives the affected coastal nations the right to enforce its laws or regional laws and regulations to mitigate the risks involved. Therefore, this statute gives the affected country (Spain) the right to apply any relevant law to penalize the involved individuals or other parties (Karaman 2011). This means that if the spillage had taken place within an economic zone under the control of Britain, the above laws should have been applied to penalize Apostolos Mangouras for his actions that violated the existing law and regulations (Bjorge 2010).

Conclusion

From our analysis, it is clear that Apostolos Mangouras was not responsible for the leak because the problem was caused by storms in the sea. I find it unfortunate that Apostolos Mangouras’s action of refusing to cooperate with the maritime authorities and the rescue teams amounts to violation of the relevant laws and regulations. This means that the adjacent nation has the right to apply its domestic laws as well as the regional (EU) and international laws to prosecute Apostolos Mangouras. In the UK, Apostolos Mangouras has violated the environment that criminalizes obstruction of rescue missions. In addition, he has violated that law of environmental crime, which means that he is subject to imprisonment as the court may find necessary.

References

Ashworth, A 2010, Sentencing and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press, London.

Bjorge, E 2010, The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties, OUP, London.

Fitzmaurice, M & Merkouris, M 2012, The Interpretation and Application of the European Convention of Human Rights: Legal and Practical Implications, Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, London.

Fitzmaurice, M 2011, Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, London.

Harris, D, O’Boyle, M, Bates, E & Buckley, C 2013, Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, OUP, London.

Karaman, IV 2011, Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea, OUP, London.

Ministry of Justice, 2012, Post-legislative assessment of the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006, MOJ, London.

Mumma, A & Smith, S 2011, Poverty Alleviation and Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, London.

Sands, P & Peel, J 2012, Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge University press, Cambridge, UK.

Zengerling, C 2013, Greening International Jurisprudence: Environmental NGOs before International Courts, Tribunals, and Compliance Committees, Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, London.

Click Here To Order Now!