sec.62Defences to discharge offence

### sec.62 Defences to discharge offence Each of the following is a defence to a prosecution for a discharge offence— the discharge happened because of operator error by someone not under the master’s direction and the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; the discharge happened because of a fault in transfer apparatus not operated at the master’s direction and— if the person charged with committing the offence is the ship’s owner or master— before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or if the person charged with committing the offence is another member of the ship’s crew whose act caused the discharge—the person did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault; the discharge happened because of a fault in transfer apparatus brought onto the ship and operated at the master’s direction if— the master took all reasonable steps to ensure that the apparatus was in good working order immediately before the transfer operation started; and the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; a defence available under another part of this Act for a discharge of the relevant pollutant. For subsection (1) (b) (i) (A) , the master must prove that the master took all reasonable steps to find out from all members of the ship’s crew any information concerning any fault in the transfer apparatus known to them. In this section— fault , in transfer apparatus, does not include any existing defect in the transfer apparatus resulting from an event, lack of maintenance or anything else that happened while the transfer apparatus was under the direction of the master of the ship. s 62 amd 2006 No. 21 s 11 (sec.62-ssec.1) Each of the following is a defence to a prosecution for a discharge offence— the discharge happened because of operator error by someone not under the master’s direction and the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; the discharge happened because of a fault in transfer apparatus not operated at the master’s direction and— if the person charged with committing the offence is the ship’s owner or master— before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or if the person charged with committing the offence is another member of the ship’s crew whose act caused the discharge—the person did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault; the discharge happened because of a fault in transfer apparatus brought onto the ship and operated at the master’s direction if— the master took all reasonable steps to ensure that the apparatus was in good working order immediately before the transfer operation started; and the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; a defence available under another part of this Act for a discharge of the relevant pollutant. (sec.62-ssec.2) For subsection (1) (b) (i) (A) , the master must prove that the master took all reasonable steps to find out from all members of the ship’s crew any information concerning any fault in the transfer apparatus known to them. (sec.62-ssec.3) In this section— fault , in transfer apparatus, does not include any existing defect in the transfer apparatus resulting from an event, lack of maintenance or anything else that happened while the transfer apparatus was under the direction of the master of the ship. - (a) the discharge happened because of operator error by someone not under the master’s direction and the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; - (b) the discharge happened because of a fault in transfer apparatus not operated at the master’s direction and— (i) if the person charged with committing the offence is the ship’s owner or master— (A) before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and (B) after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or (ii) if the person charged with committing the offence is another member of the ship’s crew whose act caused the discharge—the person did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault; - (i) if the person charged with committing the offence is the ship’s owner or master— (A) before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and (B) after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or - (A) before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and - (B) after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or - (ii) if the person charged with committing the offence is another member of the ship’s crew whose act caused the discharge—the person did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault; - (c) the discharge happened because of a fault in transfer apparatus brought onto the ship and operated at the master’s direction if— (i) the master took all reasonable steps to ensure that the apparatus was in good working order immediately before the transfer operation started; and (ii) the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; - (i) the master took all reasonable steps to ensure that the apparatus was in good working order immediately before the transfer operation started; and - (ii) the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge; - (d) a defence available under another part of this Act for a discharge of the relevant pollutant. - (i) if the person charged with committing the offence is the ship’s owner or master— (A) before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and (B) after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or - (A) before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and - (B) after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or - (ii) if the person charged with committing the offence is another member of the ship’s crew whose act caused the discharge—the person did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault; - (A) before the transfer operation, the owner or master did not know, or could not reasonably have known, about the existence of the fault and the master took all reasonable steps to find out whether the transfer apparatus was in good working order; and - (B) after the discharge happened or was discovered, the master took all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimise the discharge; or - (i) the master took all reasonable steps to ensure that the apparatus was in good working order immediately before the transfer operation started; and - (ii) the master took all reasonable precautions after the discharge happened or was discovered to prevent or minimise the discharge;