StrateandLevel, do you have any more details that might help me to find a reference to this?
I'm not sure about "either way he was prosecuted" in this instance. That is to say, if they couldn't make the endagerment charges stick that makes a big difference. Presumably the charge under Art 43 was because of the lack of fuel. If I had enough fuel, could I successfully be prosecuted? That's the big question and I suppose this case, whilst very interesting and relevant, doesn't answer it.