{"id":"C2004L00805","name":"Navigation (Marine Casualty) Regulations 1990","slug":"navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"repealed","isInForce":false,"actNumber":"257 of 1990","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":25458,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004L00805-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"Repealed","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Introduction","content":"## 1 Introduction\n\n    1.1 This Code recognizes that under IMO conventions each flag State has a duty to conduct an investigation into any casualty occurring to any of its ships when it judges that such an investigation may assist in determining what changes in the present regulations may be desirable or if such a casualty has produced a major deleterious effect upon the environment. The Code also takes into account that under the provisions of UNCLOS article 94, a flag State shall cause an inquiry to be held, by or before a suitably qualified person or persons into certain casualties or incidents of navigation on the high seas. However, the Code also recognises that where a casualty occurs within the territorial sea or internal waters of a State, that State has a right, under UNCLOS article 2, to investigate the cause of any such casualty which might pose a risk to life or to the environment, involve the coastal State’s search and rescue authorities, or otherwise affect the coastal State.\n    1.2 The aim of this Code is to promote a common approach to the safety investigation of marine casualties and incidents, and also to promote co‑operation between States in identifying the contributing factors leading to marine casualties. The result of this common approach and co-operation will be to aid remedial action and to enhance the safety of seafarers and passengers and the protection of the marine environment. In achieving these aims, this Code recognizes the need for mutual respect for national rules and practices and puts particular emphasis upon co-operation.\n    1.3 By introducing a common approach to marine casualty investigations and the reporting on such casualties, the international maritime community may be better informed about the factors which lead up to and cause, or contribute to, marine casualties. This may be facilitated by:\n    .1 Clearly defining the purpose of marine casualty investigation and the guiding principles for its conduct.\n    .2 Defining a framework for consultation and co‑operation between substantially interested States.\n    .3 Recognizing that the free flow of information will be promoted if individuals who are attempting to assist the investigation may be offered a degree of immunity, both from self‑incrimination and from any ensuing risk to their livelihood.\n    .4 Establishing a common format for reports to facilitate publication and sharing of the lessons to be learned.\n    1.4 It is not the purpose of the Code to preclude any other form of investigation, whether for civil, criminal, administrative, or any other form of action, but to create a marine casualty investigation process the aim of which is to establish the circumstances relevant to the casualty, to establish the causal factors, to publicise the causes of the casualty and to make appropriate safety recommendations. Ideally, marine casualty investigation should be separate from, and independent of, any other form of investigation.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Objective","content":"## 2 Objective\n\n    The objective of any marine casualty investigation is to prevent similar casualties in the future. Investigations identify the circumstances of the casualty under investigation and establish the causes and contributing factors, by gathering and analysing information and drawing conclusions. Ideally, it is not the purpose of such investigations to determine liability, or apportion blame. However, the investigating authority should not refrain from fully reporting the causes because fault or liability may be inferred from the findings.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Application","content":"## 3 Application\n\n    This Code applies, as far as national laws allow, to the investigation of marine casualties or incidents where either one or more interested States have a substantial interest in a marine casualty involving a ship under their jurisdiction.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Definitions","content":"## 4 Definitions\n\n    For the purpose of this Code:\n    4.1 Marine casualty means an event that has resulted in any of the following:\n    .1 the death of, or serious injury to, a person that is caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship; or\n    .2 the loss of a person from a ship that is caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship; or\n    .3 the loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a ship; or\n    .4 material damage to a ship; or\n    .5 the stranding or disabling of a ship, or the involvement of a ship in a collision; or\n    .6 material damage being caused by, or in connection with, the operation of a ship; or\n    .7 damage to the environment brought about by the damage of a ship or ships being caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship or ships.\n    4.2 Very serious casualty means a casualty to a ship which involves the total loss of the ship, loss of life or severe pollution.\n    4.3 Serious casualty means a casualty which does not qualify as a very serious casualty and which involves:\n    .1 a fire, explosion, grounding, contact, heavy weather damage, ice damage, hull cracking or suspected hull defect, etc., resulting in;\n    .2 structural damage rendering the ship unseaworthy, such as penetration of the hull underwater, immobilization of main engines, extensive accommodation damage etc.; or\n    .3 pollution (regardless of quantity); and/or\n    .4 a breakdown necessitating towage or shore assistance.\n    4.4 Marine incident means an occurrence or event being caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship by which the ship or any person is imperilled, or as a result of which serious damage to the ship or structure or the environment might be caused.\n    4.5 Causes means actions, omissions, events, existing or pre-existing conditions or a combination thereof, which led to the casualty or incident.\n    4.6 Marine casualty or incident safety investigation means a process held either in public or in camera conducted for the purpose of casualty prevention which includes the gathering and analysis of information, the drawing of conclusions, including the identification of the circumstances and the determination of causes and contributing factors and, when appropriate, the making of safety recommendations.\n    4.7 Marine casualty investigator means a person or persons qualified and appointed to investigate a casualty, or incident, under procedures laid down in national legislation for the furtherance of marine safety and protection of the marine environment.\n    4.8 Serious injury means an injury which is sustained by a person in a casualty resulting in incapacitation for more than 72 hours commencing within seven days from the date of injury.\n    4.9 Ship means any kind of vessel which is used in navigation by water.\n    4.10 Lead investigating State means the State that takes responsibility for the conduct of the investigation as mutually agreed between the substantially interested States.\n    4.11 Substantially interested State means a State:\n    .1 which is the flag State of a ship that is the subject of an investigation; or\n    .2 in whose internal waters or territorial sea a marine casualty has occurred; or\n    .3 where a marine casualty caused, or threatened, serious harm to the environment of that State, or within those areas over which the State is entitled to exercise jurisdiction as recognised under international law; or\n    .4 where the consequences of a marine casualty caused, or threatened, serious harm to that State or to artificial islands, installations, or structures over which it is entitled to exercise jurisdiction; or\n    .5 where, as a result of a casualty, nationals of that State lost their lives or received serious injuries; or\n    .6 that has at its disposal important information that may be of use to the investigation; or\n    .7 that for some other reason establishes an interest that is considered significant by the lead investigating State.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Conduct of marine casualty investigations","content":"## 5 Conduct of marine casualty investigations\n\n    5.1 Where an investigation is to be conducted, the following should be taken into consideration:\n    .1 Thorough and unbiased marine casualty investigations are the most effective way of establishing the circumstances and causes of a casualty.\n    .2 Only through co-operation between States with a substantial interest can a full analysis be made of a marine casualty.\n    .3 Marine casualty investigations should be given the same priority as criminal or other investigations held to determine responsibility or blame.\n    .4 Marine casualty investigators should have ready access to relevant safety information including survey records held by the flag State, the owners, and classification societies. Access to information should not be barred by reason of competing investigations.\n    .5 Effective use should be made of all recorded data, including voyage data recorders (VDR), if fitted, in the investigation of a marine casualty or marine incident wherever it occurred. The State conducting the investigation should arrange for the read-out of the VDR.\n    .6 Marine casualty investigators should be afforded access to Government surveyors, coastguard officers, vessel traffic service operators, pilots or other marine personnel of the respective States.\n    .7 The investigation should take into account any recommendations or instruments published by IMO or ILO, in particular those relating to the human factor, and any other recommendations or instruments adopted by other relevant international organizations.\n    .8 Reports of investigations are most effective when released to the shipping industry and public.\n    5.2 In accordance with 9, other substantially interested States should be invited to be represented during any such investigation and should be admitted as a party in the proceedings and have equal standing, rights and access to evidence as the State conducting the investigation.\n    5.3 Recognizing that any vessel involved in a casualty may continue in service and that a ship should not be delayed more than is absolutely necessary, the State conducting the investigation should start the investigation as soon as practicable, without delaying the ship unreasonably. Other substantially interested States may, by mutual agreement, join the investigation either immediately or at a later stage.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Responsibility for investigating casualties and incidents","content":"## 6 Responsibility for investigating casualties and incidents\n\n    6.1 Flag States are encouraged to ensure that investigations are carried out into all casualties occurring to its ships. All cases of serious and very serious casualties should be investigated.\n    6.2 Where a marine casualty or incident occurs within the territorial sea of a State, the flag and coastal States recognizing the obligations of that State to its citizens and the legal status of the territorial sea under the provisions of UNCLOS and also recognising the duties placed on a flag State, the flag and coastal States should co‑operate to the maximum extent possible, and mutually agree which State should take the role of lead investigating State.\n    6.3 Where a marine casualty or incident occurs on the high seas, a flag State should carry out an investigation into a casualty to, or on, any of its ships. If that casualty is a collision involving a ship of another flag State, then the States should consult with each other and agree which will be the lead investigating State and determine the best means of co-operation under this Code. In line with 9.1, if another State is a substantially interested State by virtue of the nationality of the ship's crew, passengers or other persons, or the location of the casualty, that State or States should be invited to take part in the investigation.\n    6.4 By fully participating in an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State, the flag State shall be considered as fulfilling its obligations under UNCLOS article 94, section 7.\n    6.5 An investigation should be started as soon as practicable after the casualty occurs. Substantially interested States should, by mutual agreement, be allowed to join an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State at any stage of the investigation.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Responsibilities of the lead investigating State","content":"## 7 Responsibilities of the lead investigating State\n\n    The lead investigating State should be responsible for:\n    .1 developing a common strategy for investigating the casualty in liaison with substantially interested States;\n    .2 providing the investigator in charge and co‑ordinating the investigation;\n    .3 establishing the investigation parameters based on the laws of the investigating State and ensuring that the investigation respects those laws;\n    .4 being the custodian of records of interviews and other evidence gathered by the investigation;\n    .5 preparing the report of the investigation, and obtaining and reflecting the views of the substantially interested States;\n    .6 co-ordinating, when applicable, with other agencies conducting other investigations;\n    .7 providing reasonable logistical support; and for\n    .8 liaison with agencies, organizations and individuals not part of the investigating team.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"8","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Consultation","content":"## 8 Consultation\n\n    8.1 Notwithstanding the obligation placed on the master or owners of a ship to inform its flag State authority of any casualty occurring to the ship, where a casualty or incident occurs in the internal waters or territorial sea of another State, the coastal State should notify, with a minimum of delay, the flag State or States of the circumstances and what, if any, action is proposed by the coastal State.\n    8.2 Following a casualty, the investigating State should inform the other substantially interested States, either through the Consular Office in that State or by contacting the relevant authorities listed in MSC/Circ.781/ MEPC.6/Circ.2. That State and the other substantially interested States should consult, at the earliest opportunity, on the conduct of the investigation and to determine details of co-operation.\n    8.3 Nothing should prejudice the right of any State to conduct its own separate investigation into a marine casualty occurring within its jurisdiction according to its own legislation. Ideally, if more than one State desires to conduct an investigation of its own, the procedures recommended by this Code should be followed, and those States should co-ordinate the timing of such investigations to avoid conflicting demands upon witnesses and access to evidence.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"9","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Co-operation","content":"## 9 Co-operation\n\n    9.1 Where two or more States have agreed to co-operate and have agreed the procedures for a marine casualty investigation, the State conducting the investigation should invite representatives of other substantially interested States to take part in the investigation and, consistent with the purpose of this Code, allow such representatives to:\n    .1 question witnesses;\n    .2 view and examine evidence and take copies of documentation;\n    .3 produce witnesses or other evidence;\n    .4 make submissions in respect of the evidence, comment on and have their views properly reflected in the final report; and\n    .5 be provided with transcripts, statements and the final report relating to the investigation.\n    9.2 States are encouraged to provide for maximum participation in the investigation by all States with a substantial interest in the marine casualty.\n    9.3 The flag State of a ship involved in a marine casualty should help to facilitate the availability of the crew to the investigation and encourage the crew to co-operate with the State conducting the investigation.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"10","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Disclosure of records","content":"## 10 Disclosure of records\n\n    10.1 The State conducting the investigation of a casualty or incident, wherever it has occurred, should not make the following records, obtained during the conduct of the investigation, available for purposes other than casualty investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs any possible adverse domestic and international impact on that or any future investigation, and the State providing the information authorizes its release:\n    .1 all statements taken from persons by the investigating authorities in the course of the investigation;\n    .2 all communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the ship;\n    .3 medical or private information regarding persons involved in the casualty or incident;\n    .4 opinions expressed during the conduct of the investigation.\n    10.2 These records should be included in the final report, or its appendices, only when pertinent to the analysis of the casualty or incident. Parts of the record not pertinent, and not included in the final report, should not be disclosed.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Personnel and material resources","content":"## 11 Personnel and material resources\n\n    Governments should take all necessary steps to ensure that they have available sufficient means and suitably qualified personnel and material resources to enable them to undertake casualty investigations.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"12","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Issue of marine casualty reports and submission to IMO","content":"## 12 Issue of marine casualty reports and submission to IMO\n\n    12.1 The lead investigating State should send a copy of the draft of the final report to all substantially interested States, inviting their significant and substantiated comments on the report as soon as possible. If the lead investigating State receives comments within thirty days, or within some mutually agreed period, it should either amend the draft final report to include the substance of the comments, or append the comments to the final report. If the lead investigating State receives no comments after the mutually agreed period has expired, it should send the final report to the Organization in accordance with applicable requirements and cause the report to be published.\n    12.2 By fully participating in an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State that will be reporting to IMO, the flag State shall be considered as fulfilling its obligations under IMO conventions.\n    12.3 Reports, or relevant parts of reports, into the circumstances and causes of a marine casualty should be completed as quickly as practicable, and be made available to the public and the shipping industry in order to enhance safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment through improved awareness of the factors which combine to cause marine casualties.\n    12.4 Where a substantially interested State disagrees with whole or part of the report referred to in 12.1 above, it may submit its own report to the Organization.\n    12.5 The investigating State, upon determining that urgent safety action is needed, may initiate interim recommendations to the appropriate authority.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"13","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Re-opening of investigations","content":"## 13 Re-opening of investigations\n\n    When new evidence relating to any casualty is presented, it should be fully assessed and referred to other substantially interested States for appropriate input. In the case of new evidence which may materially alter the determination of the circumstances under which the marine casualty occurred, and may materially alter the findings in relation to its cause or any consequential recommendations, States should reconsider their findings.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"14","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Contents of reports","content":"## 14 Contents of reports\n\n    14.1 To facilitate the flow of information from casualty investigations, each report should conform to the basic format outlined in 14.2 below.\n    14.2 Reports should include, wherever possible:\n    .1 a summary outlining the basic facts of the casualty and stating whether any deaths, injuries or pollution occurred as a result;\n    .2 the identity of the flag State, owners, managers, company and classification society;\n    .3 details of the dimensions and engines of any ship involved, together with a description of the crew, work routine and other relevant matters, such as time served on the ship;\n    .4 a narrative detailing the circumstances of the casualty;\n    .5 analysis and comment which should enable the report to reach logical conclusions, or findings, establishing all the factors that contributed to the casualty;\n    .6 a section, or sections, analysing and commenting on the causal elements, including both mechanical and human factors, meeting the requirements of the IMO casualty data base; and\n    .7 where appropriate, recommendations with a view to preventing similar casualties.","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"15","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Contact between Administrations","content":"## 15 Contact between Administrations\n\n    To facilitate implementation of this Code, States should inform the Organization of the responsible authorities within their Governments that may be contacted regarding cooperation in casualty investigations.\n\nSchedule 2 Summons\n\n(regulation 28)","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Commonwealth of Australia","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Commonwealth of Australia","content":"Schedule 1 Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents\n\n(regulation 3)\n\n## 1 Introduction\n\n    1.1 This Code recognizes that under IMO conventions each flag State has a duty to conduct an investigation into any casualty occurring to any of its ships when it judges that such an investigation may assist in determining what changes in the present regulations may be desirable or if such a casualty has produced a major deleterious effect upon the environment. The Code also takes into account that under the provisions of UNCLOS article 94, a flag State shall cause an inquiry to be held, by or before a suitably qualified person or persons into certain casualties or incidents of navigation on the high seas. However, the Code also recognises that where a casualty occurs within the territorial sea or internal waters of a State, that State has a right, under UNCLOS article 2, to investigate the cause of any such casualty which might pose a risk to life or to the environment, involve the coastal State’s search and rescue authorities, or otherwise affect the coastal State.\n    1.2 The aim of this Code is to promote a common approach to the safety investigation of marine casualties and incidents, and also to promote co‑operation between States in identifying the contributing factors leading to marine casualties. The result of this common approach and co-operation will be to aid remedial action and to enhance the safety of seafarers and passengers and the protection of the marine environment. In achieving these aims, this Code recognizes the need for mutual respect for national rules and practices and puts particular emphasis upon co-operation.\n    1.3 By introducing a common approach to marine casualty investigations and the reporting on such casualties, the international maritime community may be better informed about the factors which lead up to and cause, or contribute to, marine casualties. This may be facilitated by:\n    .1 Clearly defining the purpose of marine casualty investigation and the guiding principles for its conduct.\n    .2 Defining a framework for consultation and co‑operation between substantially interested States.\n    .3 Recognizing that the free flow of information will be promoted if individuals who are attempting to assist the investigation may be offered a degree of immunity, both from self‑incrimination and from any ensuing risk to their livelihood.\n    .4 Establishing a common format for reports to facilitate publication and sharing of the lessons to be learned.\n    1.4 It is not the purpose of the Code to preclude any other form of investigation, whether for civil, criminal, administrative, or any other form of action, but to create a marine casualty investigation process the aim of which is to establish the circumstances relevant to the casualty, to establish the causal factors, to publicise the causes of the casualty and to make appropriate safety recommendations. Ideally, marine casualty investigation should be separate from, and independent of, any other form of investigation.\n\n## 2 Objective\n\n    The objective of any marine casualty investigation is to prevent similar casualties in the future. Investigations identify the circumstances of the casualty under investigation and establish the causes and contributing factors, by gathering and analysing information and drawing conclusions. Ideally, it is not the purpose of such investigations to determine liability, or apportion blame. However, the investigating authority should not refrain from fully reporting the causes because fault or liability may be inferred from the findings.\n\n## 3 Application\n\n    This Code applies, as far as national laws allow, to the investigation of marine casualties or incidents where either one or more interested States have a substantial interest in a marine casualty involving a ship under their jurisdiction.\n\n## 4 Definitions\n\n    For the purpose of this Code:\n    4.1 Marine casualty means an event that has resulted in any of the following:\n    .1 the death of, or serious injury to, a person that is caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship; or\n    .2 the loss of a person from a ship that is caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship; or\n    .3 the loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a ship; or\n    .4 material damage to a ship; or\n    .5 the stranding or disabling of a ship, or the involvement of a ship in a collision; or\n    .6 material damage being caused by, or in connection with, the operation of a ship; or\n    .7 damage to the environment brought about by the damage of a ship or ships being caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship or ships.\n    4.2 Very serious casualty means a casualty to a ship which involves the total loss of the ship, loss of life or severe pollution.\n    4.3 Serious casualty means a casualty which does not qualify as a very serious casualty and which involves:\n    .1 a fire, explosion, grounding, contact, heavy weather damage, ice damage, hull cracking or suspected hull defect, etc., resulting in;\n    .2 structural damage rendering the ship unseaworthy, such as penetration of the hull underwater, immobilization of main engines, extensive accommodation damage etc.; or\n    .3 pollution (regardless of quantity); and/or\n    .4 a breakdown necessitating towage or shore assistance.\n    4.4 Marine incident means an occurrence or event being caused by, or in connection with, the operations of a ship by which the ship or any person is imperilled, or as a result of which serious damage to the ship or structure or the environment might be caused.\n    4.5 Causes means actions, omissions, events, existing or pre-existing conditions or a combination thereof, which led to the casualty or incident.\n    4.6 Marine casualty or incident safety investigation means a process held either in public or in camera conducted for the purpose of casualty prevention which includes the gathering and analysis of information, the drawing of conclusions, including the identification of the circumstances and the determination of causes and contributing factors and, when appropriate, the making of safety recommendations.\n    4.7 Marine casualty investigator means a person or persons qualified and appointed to investigate a casualty, or incident, under procedures laid down in national legislation for the furtherance of marine safety and protection of the marine environment.\n    4.8 Serious injury means an injury which is sustained by a person in a casualty resulting in incapacitation for more than 72 hours commencing within seven days from the date of injury.\n    4.9 Ship means any kind of vessel which is used in navigation by water.\n    4.10 Lead investigating State means the State that takes responsibility for the conduct of the investigation as mutually agreed between the substantially interested States.\n    4.11 Substantially interested State means a State:\n    .1 which is the flag State of a ship that is the subject of an investigation; or\n    .2 in whose internal waters or territorial sea a marine casualty has occurred; or\n    .3 where a marine casualty caused, or threatened, serious harm to the environment of that State, or within those areas over which the State is entitled to exercise jurisdiction as recognised under international law; or\n    .4 where the consequences of a marine casualty caused, or threatened, serious harm to that State or to artificial islands, installations, or structures over which it is entitled to exercise jurisdiction; or\n    .5 where, as a result of a casualty, nationals of that State lost their lives or received serious injuries; or\n    .6 that has at its disposal important information that may be of use to the investigation; or\n    .7 that for some other reason establishes an interest that is considered significant by the lead investigating State.\n\n## 5 Conduct of marine casualty investigations\n\n    5.1 Where an investigation is to be conducted, the following should be taken into consideration:\n    .1 Thorough and unbiased marine casualty investigations are the most effective way of establishing the circumstances and causes of a casualty.\n    .2 Only through co-operation between States with a substantial interest can a full analysis be made of a marine casualty.\n    .3 Marine casualty investigations should be given the same priority as criminal or other investigations held to determine responsibility or blame.\n    .4 Marine casualty investigators should have ready access to relevant safety information including survey records held by the flag State, the owners, and classification societies. Access to information should not be barred by reason of competing investigations.\n    .5 Effective use should be made of all recorded data, including voyage data recorders (VDR), if fitted, in the investigation of a marine casualty or marine incident wherever it occurred. The State conducting the investigation should arrange for the read-out of the VDR.\n    .6 Marine casualty investigators should be afforded access to Government surveyors, coastguard officers, vessel traffic service operators, pilots or other marine personnel of the respective States.\n    .7 The investigation should take into account any recommendations or instruments published by IMO or ILO, in particular those relating to the human factor, and any other recommendations or instruments adopted by other relevant international organizations.\n    .8 Reports of investigations are most effective when released to the shipping industry and public.\n    5.2 In accordance with 9, other substantially interested States should be invited to be represented during any such investigation and should be admitted as a party in the proceedings and have equal standing, rights and access to evidence as the State conducting the investigation.\n    5.3 Recognizing that any vessel involved in a casualty may continue in service and that a ship should not be delayed more than is absolutely necessary, the State conducting the investigation should start the investigation as soon as practicable, without delaying the ship unreasonably. Other substantially interested States may, by mutual agreement, join the investigation either immediately or at a later stage.\n\n## 6 Responsibility for investigating casualties and incidents\n\n    6.1 Flag States are encouraged to ensure that investigations are carried out into all casualties occurring to its ships. All cases of serious and very serious casualties should be investigated.\n    6.2 Where a marine casualty or incident occurs within the territorial sea of a State, the flag and coastal States recognizing the obligations of that State to its citizens and the legal status of the territorial sea under the provisions of UNCLOS and also recognising the duties placed on a flag State, the flag and coastal States should co‑operate to the maximum extent possible, and mutually agree which State should take the role of lead investigating State.\n    6.3 Where a marine casualty or incident occurs on the high seas, a flag State should carry out an investigation into a casualty to, or on, any of its ships. If that casualty is a collision involving a ship of another flag State, then the States should consult with each other and agree which will be the lead investigating State and determine the best means of co-operation under this Code. In line with 9.1, if another State is a substantially interested State by virtue of the nationality of the ship's crew, passengers or other persons, or the location of the casualty, that State or States should be invited to take part in the investigation.\n    6.4 By fully participating in an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State, the flag State shall be considered as fulfilling its obligations under UNCLOS article 94, section 7.\n    6.5 An investigation should be started as soon as practicable after the casualty occurs. Substantially interested States should, by mutual agreement, be allowed to join an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State at any stage of the investigation.\n\n## 7 Responsibilities of the lead investigating State\n\n    The lead investigating State should be responsible for:\n    .1 developing a common strategy for investigating the casualty in liaison with substantially interested States;\n    .2 providing the investigator in charge and co‑ordinating the investigation;\n    .3 establishing the investigation parameters based on the laws of the investigating State and ensuring that the investigation respects those laws;\n    .4 being the custodian of records of interviews and other evidence gathered by the investigation;\n    .5 preparing the report of the investigation, and obtaining and reflecting the views of the substantially interested States;\n    .6 co-ordinating, when applicable, with other agencies conducting other investigations;\n    .7 providing reasonable logistical support; and for\n    .8 liaison with agencies, organizations and individuals not part of the investigating team.\n\n## 8 Consultation\n\n    8.1 Notwithstanding the obligation placed on the master or owners of a ship to inform its flag State authority of any casualty occurring to the ship, where a casualty or incident occurs in the internal waters or territorial sea of another State, the coastal State should notify, with a minimum of delay, the flag State or States of the circumstances and what, if any, action is proposed by the coastal State.\n    8.2 Following a casualty, the investigating State should inform the other substantially interested States, either through the Consular Office in that State or by contacting the relevant authorities listed in MSC/Circ.781/ MEPC.6/Circ.2. That State and the other substantially interested States should consult, at the earliest opportunity, on the conduct of the investigation and to determine details of co-operation.\n    8.3 Nothing should prejudice the right of any State to conduct its own separate investigation into a marine casualty occurring within its jurisdiction according to its own legislation. Ideally, if more than one State desires to conduct an investigation of its own, the procedures recommended by this Code should be followed, and those States should co-ordinate the timing of such investigations to avoid conflicting demands upon witnesses and access to evidence.\n\n## 9 Co-operation\n\n    9.1 Where two or more States have agreed to co-operate and have agreed the procedures for a marine casualty investigation, the State conducting the investigation should invite representatives of other substantially interested States to take part in the investigation and, consistent with the purpose of this Code, allow such representatives to:\n    .1 question witnesses;\n    .2 view and examine evidence and take copies of documentation;\n    .3 produce witnesses or other evidence;\n    .4 make submissions in respect of the evidence, comment on and have their views properly reflected in the final report; and\n    .5 be provided with transcripts, statements and the final report relating to the investigation.\n    9.2 States are encouraged to provide for maximum participation in the investigation by all States with a substantial interest in the marine casualty.\n    9.3 The flag State of a ship involved in a marine casualty should help to facilitate the availability of the crew to the investigation and encourage the crew to co-operate with the State conducting the investigation.\n\n## 10 Disclosure of records\n\n    10.1 The State conducting the investigation of a casualty or incident, wherever it has occurred, should not make the following records, obtained during the conduct of the investigation, available for purposes other than casualty investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs any possible adverse domestic and international impact on that or any future investigation, and the State providing the information authorizes its release:\n    .1 all statements taken from persons by the investigating authorities in the course of the investigation;\n    .2 all communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the ship;\n    .3 medical or private information regarding persons involved in the casualty or incident;\n    .4 opinions expressed during the conduct of the investigation.\n    10.2 These records should be included in the final report, or its appendices, only when pertinent to the analysis of the casualty or incident. Parts of the record not pertinent, and not included in the final report, should not be disclosed.\n\n## 11 Personnel and material resources\n\n    Governments should take all necessary steps to ensure that they have available sufficient means and suitably qualified personnel and material resources to enable them to undertake casualty investigations.\n\n## 12 Issue of marine casualty reports and submission to IMO\n\n    12.1 The lead investigating State should send a copy of the draft of the final report to all substantially interested States, inviting their significant and substantiated comments on the report as soon as possible. If the lead investigating State receives comments within thirty days, or within some mutually agreed period, it should either amend the draft final report to include the substance of the comments, or append the comments to the final report. If the lead investigating State receives no comments after the mutually agreed period has expired, it should send the final report to the Organization in accordance with applicable requirements and cause the report to be published.\n    12.2 By fully participating in an investigation conducted by another substantially interested State that will be reporting to IMO, the flag State shall be considered as fulfilling its obligations under IMO conventions.\n    12.3 Reports, or relevant parts of reports, into the circumstances and causes of a marine casualty should be completed as quickly as practicable, and be made available to the public and the shipping industry in order to enhance safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment through improved awareness of the factors which combine to cause marine casualties.\n    12.4 Where a substantially interested State disagrees with whole or part of the report referred to in 12.1 above, it may submit its own report to the Organization.\n    12.5 The investigating State, upon determining that urgent safety action is needed, may initiate interim recommendations to the appropriate authority.\n\n## 13 Re-opening of investigations\n\n    When new evidence relating to any casualty is presented, it should be fully assessed and referred to other substantially interested States for appropriate input. In the case of new evidence which may materially alter the determination of the circumstances under which the marine casualty occurred, and may materially alter the findings in relation to its cause or any consequential recommendations, States should reconsider their findings.\n\n## 14 Contents of reports\n\n    14.1 To facilitate the flow of information from casualty investigations, each report should conform to the basic format outlined in 14.2 below.\n    14.2 Reports should include, wherever possible:\n    .1 a summary outlining the basic facts of the casualty and stating whether any deaths, injuries or pollution occurred as a result;\n    .2 the identity of the flag State, owners, managers, company and classification society;\n    .3 details of the dimensions and engines of any ship involved, together with a description of the crew, work routine and other relevant matters, such as time served on the ship;\n    .4 a narrative detailing the circumstances of the casualty;\n    .5 analysis and comment which should enable the report to reach logical conclusions, or findings, establishing all the factors that contributed to the casualty;\n    .6 a section, or sections, analysing and commenting on the causal elements, including both mechanical and human factors, meeting the requirements of the IMO casualty data base; and\n    .7 where appropriate, recommendations with a view to preventing similar casualties.\n\n## 15 Contact between Administrations\n\n    To facilitate implementation of this Code, States should inform the Organization of the responsible authorities within their Governments that may be contacted regarding cooperation in casualty investigations.\n\nSchedule 2 Summons\n\n(regulation 28)\n\n## Commonwealth of Australia\n\n## Navigation Act 1912\n\nIn the matter of the investigation of (incident)\n\nTo: (Name and address of witness).\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED, under subregulation 28 (1) of the Navigation (Marine Casualty) Regulations, to appear at (place, date and time), and to attend from day to day until you are excused or released from attending:\n\n(a) to \\*give evidence/\\*answer questions/\\*; and\n\n(b) to \\*produce the following/\\*documents/\\*and/\\*other/\\*articles.\n\nDated 19 .\n\n(Signature)\n\nBoard of Marine Inquiry\n\n> Note: \\*(omit if not applicable)","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"Navigation Act 1912","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Navigation Act 1912","content":"## Navigation Act 1912\n\nIn the matter of the investigation of (incident)\n\nTo: (Name and address of witness).\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED, under subregulation 28 (1) of the Navigation (Marine Casualty) Regulations, to appear at (place, date and time), and to attend from day to day until you are excused or released from attending:\n\n(a) to \\*give evidence/\\*answer questions/\\*; and\n\n(b) to \\*produce the following/\\*documents/\\*and/\\*other/\\*articles.\n\nDated 19 .\n\n(Signature)\n\nBoard of Marine Inquiry\n\n> Note: \\*(omit if not applicable)","sortOrder":16}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"model":"kimi-k2.5","source":"moonshot-realtime","completionTokens":2360},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The regulations maintain their original scope of implementing international standards for marine casualty investigation into Australian law. The content remains focused on safety investigation procedures, international cooperation mechanisms, and witness protections without significant expansion beyond this purpose."},"complexity_factors":["11 defined terms with nested sub-definitions (e.g., 'marine casualty' contains 7 distinct categories of events)","Extensive cross-referencing to international treaties (UNCLOS articles 2 and 94, various IMO conventions)","Conditional jurisdictional logic for determining the 'lead investigating State' among multiple 'substantially interested States'","Dual-track system distinguishing safety investigations from parallel criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings","Specific procedural requirements for international consultation, evidence sharing, and report drafting between sovereign states"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does**\nThese regulations set out how Australia investigates accidents and serious incidents involving ships—known as \"marine casualties.\" They incorporate an international maritime code (the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents) into Australian law to create a standard process for finding out why accidents happen and preventing them from recurring.\n\n**Who it affects**\n- Ship owners, operators, and crew on Australian vessels anywhere in the world\n- Foreign ships operating in Australian waters (territorial sea or internal waters)\n- Maritime safety authorities (such as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau)\n- Other countries with an interest in an incident (known as \"substantially interested States\")\n\n**Key provisions**\n- **Types of incidents covered**: Death or serious injury, shipwrecks, collisions, groundings, fires, explosions, pollution, and near-misses (\"marine incidents\") that could have caused serious harm.\n- **International cooperation**: When a casualty occurs, Australia must work with other affected countries (for example, the country where the ship is registered, where the crew are nationals, or where environmental damage occurred). The countries agree which one will be the \"lead investigating State.\"\n- **Safety-first approach**: The primary goal is to identify causes and improve safety, not to assign criminal blame or civil liability. However, the regulations do not prevent separate criminal or civil proceedings from happening.\n- **Protected information**: To encourage honest reporting, statements made to safety investigators, private medical details, and internal opinions are generally protected from being used in court. A court can only order disclosure if the interests of justice clearly outweigh the harm to future safety investigations.\n- **Summons power**: Schedule 2 includes a legal summons template that investigators can use to compel witnesses to attend hearings and produce documents.\n- **Public reports**: Investigation reports must be made public so the shipping industry can learn lessons and improve safety standards."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument reproduces a Code setting out investigation procedures consistent with IMO conventions and UNCLOS and applies 'as far as national laws allow' to marine casualty investigations where one or more States have a substantial interest (3; 1.1; 4.11). It therefore does not change the broad scope of international obligations described in the text but implements procedural expectations (notification, cooperation, reporting, confidentiality) governing how states and private parties should conduct and participate in investigations."},"complexity_factors":["Cross‑border coordination between flag, coastal and other substantially interested States (6.2–6.5; 9.1)","Detailed definitional framework (multiple technical definitions of casualties and incidents) (4.1–4.4)","Procedural obligations for evidence access, custody and confidentiality with conditional exceptions (5.4–5.5; 7.4; 10.1–10.2)","Discretion for the lead investigating State to set parameters under its national law (7.3) interacting with international obligations (1.1; 6.4)","Reporting timelines and comment/appeal mechanics with IMO submission procedures (12.1–12.4)","Operational resource requirement and variable national capacity (11)","Potential for overlapping or separate investigations and the need to coordinate timing to avoid conflicting demands on witnesses (5.2; 8.3)","Rules encouraging but not prescribing witness immunity—creates legal uncertainty for participants (1.3.3; 10.1)","Reopening mechanism triggered by new, material evidence (13) which may reopen settled findings","Inclusion of a statutory summons form (Schedule 2) that imposes direct obligations on private witnesses and document holders"],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does (mechanics)\n\n- Establishes a model Code for how marine casualties and incidents should be investigated (Schedule 1 / Code). The Code sets out definitions, who should investigate, what states may participate, how evidence is handled, reporting requirements, and a standard summons form (Schedule 2) (see: 3; 4; 7; 10; Schedule 2).\n\nWho it affects\n\n- National authorities that conduct marine casualty investigations (\"investigating State\") and other states with a substantial interest (\"substantially interested States\") (4.10–4.11; 6.2–6.5).\n- Shipowners, masters and crew of ships involved in casualties (reporting and co‑operation duties) (8.1; 9.3; Schedule 2).\n- Flag States and coastal States (roles and lead‑investigator selection) (6.1–6.4; 7).\n- The shipping industry, the public and international organisations that receive investigation reports (12.1–12.4).\n\nWhy it matters (official aim and practical implications)\n\n- The stated objective is prevention: investigations are carried out to identify the circumstances, causes and contributing factors of casualties so similar events can be prevented (2). The Code emphasises producing reports and safety recommendations for the industry and the public (1.3; 12.3; 14).\n\nKey practical rules and effects\n\n- Scope and definitions: a \"marine casualty\" covers death or serious injury, loss of a person, loss or abandonment of a ship, material damage, stranding or collision, and damage to the environment connected with ship operations (4.1–4.4). \"Very serious\" and \"serious\" casualties are defined for prioritisation (4.2–4.3).\n\n- Who leads and who decides: when states agree, one State acts as the lead investigating State and takes primary responsibility for strategy, the investigator in charge, evidence custody and report preparation. The lead State sets investigation parameters in accordance with its national law (7.1–7.5; 7.3). Other substantially interested States are to be invited, can participate fully, and may have their views appended if not accepted by the lead State (5.2; 9.1; 12.1–12.4).\n\n- Cooperation and consultation: the Code requires early notification and consultation between coastal and flag States where a casualty occurs in a coastal State's waters, and encourages maximum participation by substantially interested States (8.1–8.3; 9.1–9.3).\n\n- Evidence access and use: investigators should have access to recorded data (including voyage data recorders) and relevant safety information held by flag States, owners and classification societies; the State conducting the investigation should arrange VDR readout where fitted (5.4–5.5). The lead State is custodian of interview records and other evidence (7.4).\n\n- Confidentiality and disclosure limits: records obtained in the investigation (statements, communications, medical/private information, opinions) should not be disclosed for purposes other than casualty investigation unless an authority for administration of justice decides disclosure is justified and the provider authorises release (10.1–10.2). The Code also supports offering a degree of immunity to those who assist so information flows more freely (1.3.3).\n\n- Reporting and timelines: the lead State circulates a draft final report to substantially interested States and should include or append their significant, substantiated comments received within a specified period (typically 30 days) before publishing and submitting the report to the IMO (12.1–12.3). States disagreeing with a report may submit their own report to the Organisation (12.4). The lead State may issue interim safety recommendations if urgent action is needed (12.5).\n\n- Reopening and new evidence: new material evidence that could materially change findings should be assessed and may lead to reconsideration of conclusions (13).\n\nCosts, who pays and incentives\n\n- Primary financial and resource responsibility lies with governments: the Code directs governments to ensure they have suitable personnel and material resources to undertake investigations (11). That implies public expenditure for investigation teams, VDR readout facilities and other logistical support (7.7; 11).\n- Private parties (owners, masters, classification societies) bear compliance costs in providing records, access to crew and cooperating with investigators; they may also face reputational or liability consequences from published findings even though the stated purpose is preventive and not to apportion blame (8.1; 9.3; 2).\n\nCompliance burden and bureaucratic discretion\n\n- Compliance obligations for states include notification, invitation of other substantially interested States, arranging evidence access and producing reports (5.4; 8.1; 9.1; 12.1). For owners and masters the obligation is to notify their flag State and to comply with summonses to give evidence or produce documents (8.1; Schedule 2).\n- The lead investigating State has discretion to set investigation parameters consistent with its laws, to determine custody and disclosure of evidence, and to coordinate how other agencies and states participate (7.3–7.6; 10.1). That discretion can affect the scope of public disclosure and the timing and form of participation by other states.\n\nTrade‑offs and implementation risks\n\n- Coordination trade‑off: the Code promotes cooperation (shared analysis, shared evidence) but requires mutual agreement on lead State and procedures; failure to reach agreement can delay or fragment investigations (6.2–6.5; 9.1).\n- Tension between rapid safety action and ship movement: investigators are told not to delay ships more than absolutely necessary while also being required to start investigations as soon as practicable (5.3). This creates a trade‑off between preserving evidence and limiting commercial interruption.\n- Resource and capability risk: effective implementation depends on States having suitably qualified investigators and material resources; under‑resourced States may be unable to execute the Code's procedures fully (11).\n- Disclosure vs. cooperation: confidentiality protections and the promotion of immunity aim to encourage witness cooperation (1.3.3; 10.1), but requirements to include pertinent records in reports could still expose information that has commercial or legal consequences for private parties (10.2; 14.2). This affects private parties' incentives to cooperate and what they produce.\n\nConcentrated benefits, diffuse costs, and possible substitution effects\n\n- Benefits (safer operations, prevention recommendations) accrue to seafarers, passengers and the marine environment and are concentrated for parties directly affected by a casualty (2; 14).\n- Costs (investigation resourcing, compliance by owners/masters) are borne by government and regulated private parties and are diffuse across taxpayers and the shipping industry. If one State declines to lead or participate, other States may conduct separate investigations, increasing duplication and cost (8.3; 12.4).\n\nBottom line (practical consequences)\n\n- The Code creates a multi‑state framework for investigating marine casualties that emphasises prevention, cooperation, timely reporting and restrained disclosure of investigative records. It assigns operational responsibility to a lead investigating State while preserving roles for other substantially interested States and sets out practical steps for evidence handling, reporting and reopening in the light of new evidence (3; 7; 10; 12; 13). Who pays: primarily governments (11). Who decides: the lead investigating State in liaison with substantially interested States, subject to national law (7.1; 7.3; 3). What changes in behaviour: flag and coastal States are encouraged to investigate and to cooperate; owners/masters are required to report and to provide evidence; investigating authorities must prioritise prevention and make reports public where appropriate (6.1; 8.1; 9.1; 12.3)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990","history":"/api/acts/navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990/history","analysis":"/api/acts/navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/navigation-marine-casualty-regulations-1990/documents"}}