Senior associate James Broomhall discusses the growing trend in recent years of criminalising seafarers, in light of the recent North Sea collision involving the Solong container ship, in Maritime Risk International.

In recent years, we’ve seen a concerning trend within the maritime industry: the criminalisation of seafarers, especially ship captains, following maritime incidents. While corporate entities often escape meaningful accountability, captains find themselves facing criminal charges, professional ruin, and, in some cases, imprisonment. This raises significant questions about fairness, responsibility, and what this means for the broader shipping industry.

High-profile cases highlight the growing trend of holding seafarers accountable for maritime incidents. Perhaps the most well-known case is that of Captain Francesco Schettino, who was sentenced to 16 years in prison after the Costa Concordia disaster in 2012. While his actions played a role, the focus on Schettino overshadowed any potential corporate failures. Despite questions about Costa Crociere’s safety policies, the company faced no comparable legal consequences.

The corporate failures associated with the Costa Concordia disaster were significant. The ship had been manoeuvred dangerously close to the shore in an operation known as “inchino,” which was reportedly encouraged by Costa Crociere to enhance the cruise experience. Additionally, the company failed to promptly inform maritime authorities about the severity of the situation, which delayed effective rescue operations. Furthermore, investigations revealed inadequate safety standards and insufficient evacuation drills, which contributed to the chaos during the emergency. Despite these failures, Costa Crociere faced only a small fine and no serious legal consequences, while Schettino was left to carry the brunt of the blame.

More recently, Captain Karim Kudrjawizki’s involvement in the 2020 Wakashio disaster, where the vessel ran aground off the coast of Mauritius, demonstrated how captains continue to be scapegoated. Despite evidence that corporate and regulatory failures played a major role, Kudrjawizki was sentenced to 20 months in prison. In the case of the Wakashio, corporate failures included the negligent deviation from the ship’s planned route and the distraction of the crew, who were reportedly using mobile phones to establish an internet connection instead of focusing on navigational duties. The shipping company also failed to enforce proper navigational oversight, and its response to the resulting oil spill was slow and inadequate, contributing to significant environmental damage. Despite these corporate oversights, the captain was left to face the legal consequences.

A similar trend is emerging with the recent North Sea collision involving the Solong container ship, which collided with the Stena Immaculate on 10 March 2025. One sailor from the Solong, Filipino national Mark Angelo Pernia, is currently missing, presumed dead. The captain, Vladimir Motin, a Russian national, has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter following the crash. Mr Motin has appeared at the Old Bailey via video link from prison and his next appearance is on 14 April 2025, and a provisional date for a trial at the Old Bailey has been set for 12 January 2026.

This further highlights the trend of holding individuals accountable for corporate failures. Although safety inspections revealed that the Solong had failed several critical checks, the attention has been focused on the captain rather than the possible corporate negligence behind the ship’s poor condition. Early findings suggest potential corporate failures, including inadequate safety compliance and operational negligence. The Solong had reportedly failed safety inspections before the incident, raising concerns about the company’s commitment to maintaining vessel standards. Additionally, the collision occurred near environmentally sensitive areas, suggesting lapses in route planning and risk assessment by the operating company. The spill of jet fuel in the aftermath of the collision highlighted potential shortcomings in the company’s environmental risk management strategies and emergency response preparedness.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the criminalisation of seafarers is the ability of corporations to evade responsibility for maritime disasters. The maritime industry, as a whole, is notoriously complex, with ownership structures often designed to limit the legal exposure of corporations. This enables shipping companies to shield themselves from legal consequences, leaving captains and senior officers to bear the brunt of blame.

The use of flags of convenience is a key tool for corporate evasion. By registering vessels in countries with lower taxes and weaker regulations, shipping companies can avoid stricter safety, environmental, and labour standards. For instance, a company headquartered in Europe may register a vessel under the flag of a small Caribbean nation, where regulations are far less stringent. This enables companies to minimise their liability while taking advantage of lower operational costs. This system complicates accountability and helps obscure the real issues. The ship’s owner might be located in one jurisdiction, while the operator is in another, and the flag state in yet a different country. In the aftermath of an incident, this web of ownership and jurisdictional complexity makes it difficult to pin down where the ultimate responsibility lies. As a result, the captain often becomes an easy target for prosecution, while the corporate entities responsible for the vessel’s safety slip through the cracks.

The use of parent and subsidiary companies also allows for further evasion of responsibility. Large shipping companies often operate through a network of subsidiaries, each with its own legal identity. This makes it easier for parent companies to distance themselves from incidents, even if they were involved in the decision-making process that led to an accident. For example, in the case of the Wakashio disaster, the parent company behind the ship was rarely scrutinised, despite its direct role in overseeing operational policies.

The criminalisation of seafarers doesn’t just affect their professional lives but also takes a significant psychological toll. Captains who have spent decades building their careers can find themselves unemployable due to criminal convictions. Facing criminal charges, particularly in foreign countries (as in the case of Mr Motin), adds further stress, especially when the legal system is unfamiliar or perceived as unjust. There are even reports of seafarers being detained without due process or denied basic legal protections, a practice that further undermines their ability to defend themselves.

For example, Captain Karim Kudrjawizki, involved in the Wakashio disaster, faced harsh conditions during his detention in Mauritius. Despite being arrested and held for months without a clear understanding of the charges against him, he reported a lack of access to adequate legal counsel. Similar conditions have been reported by other seafarers who found themselves in foreign legal systems after maritime disasters, further compounding their stress and uncertainty.

For many experienced captains, the constant threat of prosecution creates an environment of fear and uncertainty. Younger seafarers are increasingly hesitant to take on senior roles, knowing they could one day find themselves in a similar legal predicament. In the case of the Solong, the captain arrested following the collision faces not only the prospect of jail time but also the collapse of his professional life. This reality is not unique but is shared by many seafarers who feel they are being unfairly held responsible for systemic issues beyond their control.

Following the arrest and charge of the Solong captain, the authorities will review evidence from maritime experts, take witness statements, and review vessel data to strengthen their prosecution. The maximum penalty for gross negligence manslaughter is life imprisonment. However, sentences for this type of offence typically range from a few years to around 10, depending on the severity of the negligence and any aggravating or mitigating factors. Mitigating factors, such as genuine remorse, cooperation with the investigation, a lack of prior convictions, or personal circumstances such as ill health or family responsibilities, could lead to a reduction in sentence. Conversely, aggravating factors like a history of poor safety practices, the scale of the incident, or any attempt to cover up the events could result in a longer sentence. An early guilty plea could also result in a reduction of up to one-third of the sentence. It’s also important to note that under English law, individuals often serve only half of their sentence in prison. With the controversial early release scheme, the actual time served could be further reduced. This case underscores the significant legal responsibilities in maritime operations and could have wider implications for regulatory scrutiny and safety standards in the industry.

International organisations and advocacy groups are beginning to challenge the criminalisation of seafarers. Groups such as the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the Nautilus Federation argue that criminal liability should not be applied selectively, and that corporate accountability must be enforced alongside individual responsibility. The media also plays a vital role in shaping public perception – while captains are often vilified in the immediate aftermath of incidents, investigative journalism has been crucial in exposing the systemic failures that contribute to maritime disasters.

The Solong incident serves as a timely reminder of the need for a balanced approach to accountability. While the captain’s arrest and charge have made headlines, it’s important that the broader issues of safety standards and corporate negligence are not overlooked. Advocacy groups are pushing for a system where both individuals and corporations are held to account for their roles in causing maritime accidents.

To correct the imbalance in accountability, meaningful reforms are needed across both legal frameworks and maritime industry practices. This should include new legislation that places direct liability on shipping companies and their senior executives for failures such as unsafe working conditions and breaches of safety protocols. Companies found to be in violation must face tougher penalties to reflect the seriousness of their obligations. At the same time, seafarers, especially those facing proceedings abroad, must have immediate access to fair legal representation. Stronger legal safeguards should also be introduced to protect them from arbitrary detention and to guarantee fair treatment throughout investigations. Crucially, maritime incident inquiries must be truly independent and designed to identify the full range of contributing factors, including corporate oversight, rather than disproportionately targeting individual crew members.

The criminalisation of seafarers, particularly captains, represents a deeply concerning trend that threatens not only individuals but also the wider maritime industry. While accountability is crucial, it must be applied fairly, ensuring that corporations are held responsible alongside individuals. Until systemic changes are made, captains will continue to bear the brunt of a flawed system, often paying the price for corporate negligence beyond their control.

James’ article was published in Maritime Risk International, 10 April 2025