Filo Jet Suspects Remanded in Custody for Eight More Days

At a court hearing, police outlined details concerning allegations that the vessel had previously taken on water, had experienced engine and steering problems before the accident, and had sailed despite being damaged. Details were also presented regarding the captain’s qualifications, missing certificates and the crew’s emergency response capabilities.

The nine suspects were brought before the court again today as part of the investigation launched after eight people died in the disaster. They were brought to the courthouse in police vehicles under heavy security. The street outside the courthouse was closed to traffic, while police maintained extensive security measures in the area.

The hearing addressed the circumstances of the accident, the vessel’s history and technical condition, inspections carried out, sailing permits and the crew’s response during the incident.

Nine Suspects Initially Detained

On August 31, company director A.Ö., captain M.Ö., second captain M.S., chief engineer Z.Ö., second engineer M.G. and crew members S.E., K.K., V.H. and R.İ. were brought before Kyrenia District Court and charged with “causing death through negligence and carelessness.”

The court initially ordered all nine suspects to remain in custody for three days and issued orders for technical data and documents to be collected as part of the investigation.

Details of Voluntary Statements Presented

During the hearing, details from the suspects’ voluntary statements were presented regarding the Filo Jet passenger vessel, which capsized and sank off Kyrenia on August 30.

According to the information presented in court, the captain stated that the vessel had departed under conditions he considered suitable, but that it began taking on water for a reason that had not yet been determined. His statement reportedly said that passengers were assisted after the vessel began taking on water.

“The Decision to Sail Was Made at the Captain’s Discretion”

Police statements reportedly indicated that Taşucu Port had been closed due to the storm on the day of the accident and that the decision to sail was made at the captain’s discretion.

The court also heard that the crew had been warned that the vessel could take on water.

Autopsy results for the eight people who died in the disaster were also presented. The victims were found to have died by drowning.

Blood and urine samples were taken from the nine suspects for alcohol and drug testing, although the results were not yet available, the court heard.

It was also stated that a six-year-old child was among those injured in the accident and remained under treatment at hospital.

Second Captain: Captain Was Urged Not to Sail

The voluntary statement of second captain M.N.S. was also presented to the court.

M.N.S. said Taşucu Port had been closed until 3 p.m. because of the storm on the day of the accident and that he had urged the captain not to set sail.

Details of Captain’s Licence

According to information presented in court, the captain obtained his captain’s licence from Honduras for approximately $3,500. The licence was later registered in Greece and underwent a compliance process in the TRNC.

The court was told that the captain’s licence was valid.

Captain’s Turkish Licence Had Expired

Police told the court that the captain, one of the suspects, had initially obtained a captain’s licence from Turkey. However, the licence had expired after the captain had not practised for 10 years.

No Problems Found in Vessel Documents

The court was also told that no problems had been identified in examinations of the vessel’s documents and inspection procedures.

No problems were reportedly found in the vessel’s maintenance and inspection records either.

Two International Certificates Missing

According to information presented in court, the vessel was missing a Radio Safety Certificate and a Load Line Certificate. The court was told that both were among the vessel’s international certificates.

Police Seek Eight More Days in Custody

The police requested that the nine suspects remain in custody for a further eight days, citing the need to continue the investigation and collect the necessary information, documents and technical data.

Turkish Accident Investigation Team to Examine Vessel

The court was told that an accident investigation team from Turkey, which had arrived in the TRNC, would examine the vessel.

Police would also participate in the examination process and seek to incorporate the resulting report into the investigation, the court heard.

Police Believe Vessel Sailed While Damaged

According to the police’s initial assessment presented in court, the vessel had sustained damage and subsequently sailed despite that damage.

The assessment was reportedly supported by footage obtained during the investigation and statements from people affected by the accident.

Suspects Said Water Entered Passenger Area

The court heard that, in their voluntary statements, the suspects said water entered the vessel through the passenger area.

Vessel Had Previously Taken on Water

According to the police’s initial assessment presented in court, the vessel had taken on water previously and, as a result, the latest incident of water ingress was not given sufficient consideration.

Vessel Could Have Returned to Port at Low Speed

Police told the court that expert opinions and witness statements indicated the accident could have been prevented if the voyage had been aborted once the vessel was found to be taking on water and it had returned to port at a very low speed.

Crew’s Emergency Response Capabilities Under Investigation

Police are also investigating allegations, based on survivors’ statements, that passengers were not adequately informed about what to do in an emergency.

The crew’s knowledge and ability to respond to emergencies are also being examined, the court heard.

Police: Release Could Affect Investigation

Police told the court that the suspects could interfere with the investigation if released.

For this reason, prosecutors requested that their detention period be extended.

Türk Loydu to Examine Inspection Documents

The court was also told that Türk Loydu would arrive in the TRNC today to examine the vessel’s inspection documents.

Police said they would consult Türk Loydu to determine whether the inspection certificate was genuine.

Defence Does Not Object to Eight-Day Detention

The defence lawyers for the suspects did not object to the police request for a further eight days in custody.

One defence lawyer told the court that the vessel had been certified by Türk Loydu and that the crew possessed valid maritime certificates in the countries where they had worked.

Regarding the captain, the lawyer said he held an internationally recognised captain’s certificate listed on the IMO website.

Company Director’s Role Described as Symbolic

The court was told that the role of suspect A.Ö., the company director, was symbolic and that he was not the person actually running the company.

“The Vessel Made More Than 300 Voyages After Being Repaired Following the 2003 Accident”

A defence lawyer told the court that although the vessel had been involved in an accident in 2003, it was later purchased and repaired by a company in Greece.

The lawyer said the vessel had made more than 300 voyages after being repaired.

The lawyer argued that Filo Denizcilik had relied on survey and inspection results carried out by international organisations when purchasing the vessel, and claimed that the suspects had no information about the vessel’s previous accident.

Police: Shouldn’t the Director Have Known?

The defence lawyer said none of the suspects had been aware of the vessel’s previous accident or its current condition.

Police responded by asking, in relation to company director A.Ö., “Shouldn’t the director have known?”

The defence maintained that A.Ö. was not the person actually managing the company and that his directorship was merely symbolic.

Second Captain’s Lawyer: He Fulfilled His Responsibilities

The second captain’s lawyer argued that his client had assisted passengers during the accident and fulfilled his responsibilities.

They Knew About the Problems in Advance

According to information presented in court, both the second captain and the captain stated in their voluntary statements that the vessel had experienced engine and steering problems before the date of the accident and had previously taken on water.

Police: Captain Did Not Reduce Speed

Police told the court that they considered it negligence that the captain failed to reduce the vessel’s speed after it was determined that the vessel was taking on water.

Hundreds of Statements Taken

The court was also told that hundreds of people had given statements as part of the investigation and that further statements would be taken as the investigation progresses.

The nine suspects — company director A.Ö., captain M.Ö., second captain M.S., chief engineer Z.Ö., second engineer M.G. and crew members S.E., K.K., V.H. and R.İ. — face charges of “causing death through negligence and carelessness.”