Filo Jet Suspects Remanded in Custody for Seven More Days

The 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.”

During the hearing at the Kyrenia District Court, police said expert opinions had been sought regarding damage sustained by the Filo Jet.

According to information provided to police by experts, the area where the damage was detected is one of the sections of a catamaran-type vessel most exposed to impact and friction.

“The Damage Could Not Be Repaired With Makeshift Work”

It was stated that the damage could not have been properly repaired through makeshift work carried out by the crew and that technical knowledge and expertise were required. Experts reportedly said such damage could only be fully repaired at a shipyard.

Police also said accounting records showed that money had been spent on repairs to the damage sustained by the vessel. Experts reportedly concluded that the interventions carried out were insufficient and that the vessel should have been taken to a shipyard for proper repairs.

Police: Investigation Would Change Completely If Damage to Bow Caused Sinking

Police told the court that the course of the investigation would change completely if it was established that the damage detected at the front of the vessel was one of the causes of its sinking.

Police said this would be significant because the crew and captain had attempted to carry out technical repairs themselves that should normally have been performed at a shipyard.

Police stated that the repair materials had been purchased in the TRNC and that, according to the second captain’s statement, the repairs had been carried out by the captain and crew. Police reiterated that such technical repairs would normally have to be conducted at a shipyard.

Investigation Being Conducted in Coordination With Turkey

Police said individuals and organisations in Turkey whose statements needed to be taken as part of the investigation had been identified and that work was being carried out in coordination with prosecutors in Turkey to obtain their statements.

Police also said members of the crew and the second engineer had given voluntary statements confirming the second captain’s account that a repair that should have been carried out at a shipyard had instead been undertaken by the crew.

The statements were said to be consistent with the second captain’s testimony.

“Ports Department Would Not Have Allowed Vessel to Depart”

The defence lawyer argued that referring to the “bow” component before it had been established whether the damage to it had caused the vessel to sink could create reasonable doubt.

Police, however, said the Ports Department had confirmed that it would not have allowed the vessel to leave the port had it known that the “bow” component required repairs.

Police: Accident Could Have Been Prevented if Bow Was in Proper Condition

Police told the court that the accident could have been prevented if the component referred to as the “bow” had been in proper condition.

The defence lawyer, however, argued that the component was not one of the vessel’s main structural parts but a wave-cutting component, and that the damage to it was not of a nature that could have caused the accident.

The lawyer asked police: “Did you ask Türk Loydu, which classed the vessel, about the component that required repair?”

Police replied: “We did not ask Türk Loydu, but we consulted expert engineers and captains.”

Defence: “If It Were That Important, Ports Department Would Have Identified It”

The defence lawyer argued that if the component were “that important,” the Ports Department would certainly have identified it and inspected the “bow” component.

Police responded that the Ports Department had not detected the problem with the component.

The court subsequently ordered all nine suspects to remain in custody for a further seven days.