As first reported by SomersetLive, a Teignmouth fisherman narrowly avoided a collision with a Royal Navy nuclear submarine, prompting the captain of HMS Triumph to take evasive action.

The incident, which occurred in Plymouth Sound on May 10, led to legal repercussions for the fishing vessel’s skipper, Aaron Denning.

Denning, 40, admitted to breaching maritime regulations when he crossed into a Moving Exclusion Zone (MEZ) around HMS Triumph as it departed HMNB Devonport. Despite warnings from police launches, tugs, and sirens, his vessel, the Girl Rona, came within 137 metres of the submarine—well inside the 250-metre exclusion zone.

In court, prosecutor Alistair Verheijen highlighted the risks posed by the incident, stating that the submarine had to reduce speed and alter course to avoid a collision. Denning initially contested his actions during a police interview but changed his stance after reviewing CCTV footage. He admitted to being unaware of the specific exclusion zone regulations in Plymouth.

Denning pleaded guilty to two charges: failing to comply with the King’s Harbour Master’s general directions and failing to navigate with care and caution. District Judge Lisa Boyce fined him £400, along with a £160 surcharge and £85 in court costs, to be paid in £50 monthly installments.

The submarine’s captain reported that a collision could have disrupted essential defence operations, requiring the vessel to return to port for safety checks.

The judge acknowledged Denning’s early guilty plea and accepted that his actions were not deliberate.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

8 COMMENTS

  1. The CO of Triumph CLEARLY saw the FV, he could have easily adjusted the course of the (FV) boat. I feel for the FV, however he should have been on the bridge and “have eyes”. It’s quite clear that The Court have been biased on the result! If your Navy (regardless of your nation), you’re above the law and your word is well above factual information that proves what happened. They say the judges/sheriffs have no bias but it’s very clear they do! The British Courts/Police are an embarasment when it come to this kind of thing!

    They really need to look at facts rather than what they “think” happened.

    • Strange view point Dave. A notice to mariners was in force, the police vessel was alongside the fishing vessel for 3 minutes and both tugs sounded 5 short blasts. 50yds of safe water to alter into owing to the keel depth of the submarine….would suggest your statement is merely ignorant.

    • He was in restricted military water and clearly at fault but as a general rule in all situations the larger less manuverable vessel had right of way. What makes you think the fisherman was right?

      • Yes, good question since the captain of the FV held his hands up when shown the CCTV footage of the events. Sounds more like Dave has a chip on his shoulder about the police and courts and is lashing out at what seems to be a reasonable judgement given the facts and a relatively minor fine that can be paid off in fairly small monthly installments.
        I wonder how close they were to considering it to be being a possible suicide boat bomb and opening fire?

      • When he says ‘whatever the Nation’ I think that it tends to be from ‘foreign agents’ trying to unconvincingly appear ‘objective’ to the useful idiots they are trying to manipulate. Probably would have been better to have aimed it at the Morning Star or the Canary where useful idiots predominate than here, but equally that shows their lack of focus. The blunderbuss approach with emphasis on the blunder in this case.

    • @Dave
      So why, having seen the evidence did the skipper change his plea? The fine is tiny and he has a very generous payment scheme period to pay it so no evidence of bias against the fisherman. If you have actual facts to prove your viewpoint then show them to us or perhaps you should have delivered them to the Court and the defendant himself. Making claims of this nature without any remote evidence simply paints you as deeply prejudiced or just another bot with an unconvincing attempt at fake news raising a false anti military stance by stimulating useful idiots. Wrong place mate.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here