‘It was instant'
Enchanter survivor describes the moment a massive wave hit
The deckhand on board a vessel that sank, killing five men, has given a first-hand account of the chaos that ensued when the Enchanter was engulfed by a monstrous wave.
“It was instant, half a second,” Kobe O’Neill said about the moment the wave hit and flipped the boat, before going on to explain he had just two minutes to try to escape as water poured in through broken windows.
O’Neill was the first person to give evidence in a three-week trial against his boss, skipper Lance Goodhew, in the Whangārei District Court.
Goodhew is facing a single Maritime New Zealand charge of breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and, in doing so, exposing individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine.
Judge Philip Rzepecky started the judge-alone trial yesterday by acknowledging all those who died, and the survivors and their families who had travelled to participate in the trial or listen in remotely.
“This is a serious maritime tragedy and [people] . . . went through a traumatic ordeal . . .”
The court heard O’Neill had worked as a deckhand for Goodhew for four seasons and was in training to become a skipper.
O’Neill said that on Saturday, March 19, 2022, the vessel was anchored at Little Bear Bay in the Three Kings and they were aware the weather would be rough in the morning and ease off in the afternoon.
The group decided to fish the bay in the morning and then head to Princes Island to hook kingfish.
Video footage was played of the men fishing at Princes Island, which showed the swell of the sea.
Family members of Mark Sanders, one of the men who died, became tearful as they watched the video of one of his last joyous moments.
Further footage was played of the journey back and when asked to describe his thoughts on the state of the sea, O’Neill responded: “One and a half to two metres.” He clarified that the height of the waves was difficult to measure as the sea was always changing.
They took their normal route towards North Cape and O’Neill said they would usually anchor there on the final night before the six-hour trip to Mangonui.
He said when the wave hit, it came portside and the vessel rolled instantly. After the windows blew out, they had two minutes to get out of the Enchanter as water poured in.
He struggled to get on the upsidedown hull but as he did he noticed Mike Lovett floating face-down in the water. O’Neill dived in and held Lovett for two hours, trying his hardest to save him.
An emergency beacon floated past, but he said it took 15 minutes to activate the device because it wouldn’t turn on. They then waited in the water for four hours for help to arrive.
Sloppy, gnarly and scruffy weather
Maritime New Zealand’s lead counsel, Sam McMullan, opened his case by saying Goodhew breached his duties under the Health and Safety Act 2015 and in doing so, exposed passengers to the risk of death or injury.
“The Enchanter should never have been where it was. The weather was poor and a significant front was passing, the conditions were described as sloppy, gnarly and scruffy,” McMullan said.
The lawyer said the weather was a key topic of discussion throughout the trip and Goodhew himself had interpreted the weather as “nasty”.
McMullan said when the Enchanter left Mangonui on March 17 there was no dispute Goodhew knew a weather front was coming, with estimated 30-knot winds forecast for March 19.
Despite that knowledge and armed with multiple weather navigational devices, Goodhew took his passengers 80km north and, over the coming days, the weather forecast was upgraded to a gale warning.
McMullan said Goodhew discussed the weather regularly with his passengers and was also receiving six-hourly updates from his on-board weather systems.
The case will hinge on the decisions Goodhew made at the Three Kings Islands and North Cape that allegedly contributed to the catastrophic outcome.
The weather passing over the
Three Kings had reportedly been so bad that multiple vessels in the area had set anchor. But about 1.30pm on March 19, Goodhew decided to leave.
McMullan said although the weather had slightly improved, the sea was still rough and most seafarers understand the risks presented after a front has passed.
“The fact the Enchanter arrived in North Cape a short time after the front had passed through should have given him pause for concern that the area may still be encountering the effects of weather that had passed through,” McMullan said in opening.
When Goodhew was interviewed by Maritime NZ, he described the conditions as dark, with visibility between 20 and 50 metres in front of him, and said he was going sideon into waves.
Although Goodhew said the Enchanter was in about 50m of water, MetOcean disagreed and would give evidence the water depth was likely less than that, the lawyer said.
McMullan said Goodhew was also within three nautical miles of the coastline and it was those combined factors at North Cape that placed Goodhew’s passengers at a reasonable risk of injury or death.
“It’s all of those factors together, he was travelling in the conditions he was, the proximity he was to North Cape in low light, all increased the risk of the situation.
“The marine environment is a complex one and it takes time to go into effect. Based on the information he had and not exercising a degree of care in his decisions, as we see the
consequences have been catastrophic. He breached the act. It is his duty to positively take reasonable care. That is an encapsulation of what the case is about,” McMullan said.
‘Catastrophic’ results
Between 7.40pm and 8pm a wave described by Goodhew as “taller than the roof” struck, ripping the cabin and flybridge from the hull.
Goodhew’s lawyer, Fletcher Pilditch, KC, said his client firstly wanted to acknowledge the deceased and also the survivors and the trauma they have lived through together.
Pilditch said the prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no responsible skipper would have left the Three Kings.
“There’s a risk in cases like this where one mariner would have made one decision and another would have made another. What the prosecution is trying to do is, based on the information, [say] no reasonable mariner would have made that decision. We have the fact two people would make two different decisions, doesn’t make it unreasonable.”
‘Complex and challenging’ decisions
Pilditch said the decisions at North Cape were more complex and he challenged the prosecution’s theory that being within three nautical miles of the coast was more risky.
“The prosecution are setting [their] mark or raising a flag that there is a distinction to be drawn on the three nautical miles outside and within, but they need to show why it’s unsafe or risky to be closer than three [for a skipper] generally known to be a confident master,” Pilditch said.