ABSTRACT
While the strict liability offences provided in UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) clearly are intended to deliver redress, the way in which that redress is carried out is a matter for the judicial processes of the individual States – and they may go far beyond the Convention limitations of a fine. How the normative ethics of the society in whose jurisdiction the issue will be tried, which may go far beyond that and demand retribution, is illustrated in a number of case studies. In such cases, seeking to criminalise the Master as the most convenient person to blame all too often appears to be the prime function in sentencing. Culpability and harm are the key elements in sentencing, and these are examined in detail, which gives us the foundation upon which sentencing guidelines can be rationalised within the State’s understanding of crime and punishment. By illustrating this with contrasting case studies the picture emerges of how the Court rationalises its decision in sentencing.
