Girl, 15, dies in Southampton boat crash

[westernman]

can you expand...?

He fled the country before his trial and had to be extradited.
He was drunk (or at least had drunk enough to make him drunk), his boat was in poor condition including poor steering and he was driving at 34knots well over the 12 knot speed limit at night.
He was also convicted and sentenced for attacking and injuring some one with a broken bottle.

The sentence is not as severe as it appears at first sight as it is to run concurrently with a sentence for the broken bottle attack.

 

[ean_p]

He fled the country before his trial and had to be extradited.
He was drunk (or at least had drunk enough to make him drunk), his boat was in poor condition including poor steering and he was driving at 34knots well over the 12 knot speed limit at night.
He was also convicted and sentenced for attacking and injuring some one with a broken bottle.

The sentence is not as severe as it appears at first sight as it is to run concurrently with a sentence for the broken bottle attack.

I don't want to retry the trial by any means, but simply point out the 'unfairness' of the events when compared.
Fleeing the country is irrelevant to the charge and the trial, as is the fighting in the pub.
They had both been drinking but no level was offered in court from what I read ( though may be wrong here) so it seems quite deficient of the prosecution not to have also charged him with that as an offence which would suggest they weren't that intoxicated.
The steering defect was that it had a little 'free play' in the steering wheel and the craft had a tendency to pull to the right hand side......really?
Also the windscreen had a degree of crazing.....don't they all when examined?
He wasn't driving during the impact, another adult had chosen to do that. You could claim that she had no experience of that and that he should not of handed over control but many many people take a boat for a run for the first time with no experience as do many children. Hitting a submerged object would / could have happened to the most experienced. He should with his greater experience have asked her to slow down but he didn't. Is that really a greater crime than another who's professional job is the safeguarding of his passengers while in his care and control that hits a buoy in broad daylight?
The boat when tested by the surveyor for the prosecution mentioned it had a speed of 29knts at 75% throttle.
The two trials were on different days and so even without the secondary conviction he would still have received the six sentence.
I think thats about it on this for me and we'll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I think that the law can make scapegoats out of some people whereas others by comparison seem to get off lightly.

 

[westernman]

I don't want to retry the trial by any means, but simply point out the 'unfairness' of the events when compared.
Fleeing the country is irrelevant to the charge and the trial, as is the fighting in the pub.
They had both been drinking but no level was offered in court from what I read ( though may be wrong here) so it seems quite deficient of the prosecution not to have also charged him with that as an offence which would suggest they weren't that intoxicated.
The steering defect was that it had a little 'free play' in the steering wheel and the craft had a tendency to pull to the right hand side......really?
Also the windscreen had a degree of crazing.....don't they all when examined?
He wasn't driving during the impact, another adult had chosen to do that. You could claim that she had no experience of that and that he should not of handed over control but many many people take a boat for a run for the first time with no experience as do many children. Hitting a submerged object would / could have happened to the most experienced. He should with his greater experience have asked her to slow down but he didn't. Is that really a greater crime than another who's professional job is the safeguarding of his passengers while in his care and control that hits a buoy in broad daylight?
The boat when tested by the surveyor for the prosecution mentioned it had a speed of 29knts at 75% throttle.
The two trials were on different days and so even without the secondary conviction he would still have received the six sentence.
I think thats about it on this for me and we'll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I think that the law can make scapegoats out of some people whereas others by comparison seem to get off lightly.

All good points, and I largely agree.
The sentencing in these two cases does seem to be inconsistent.
I would have also expected the professional carrying passengers in any case to be held and judged to a higher standard.

 

[flaming]

All good points, and I largely agree.
The sentencing in these two cases does seem to be inconsistent.
I would have also expected the professional carrying passengers in any case to be held and judged to a higher standard.

Point of note, the skipper in this case has yet to be sentenced.

 

[Supertramp]

And what about the owner of the business - did the skipper routinely drive close to the buoy on these trips and was it with the awareness, approval or even suggestion of the owner?

The similarity with driving offences is interesting - imagine you took paying passengers for a fun ride in your supercar and hit a cyclist, pedestrian or house while "showing off"?

In industry the HSE would be looking at the safety culture and attitude of the organisation and its senior leaders, and punish accordingly.

 

[ylop]

Traditionally we had a justice system which required a significant element of "intent" to commit a crime but we have moved towards a more strict liability system where that is less important. We have also moved to a more punitive system with much longer prison terms than before. It is not too much of a surprise that some juries are reluctant to play along.

manslaughter has never required intent; that’s what differentiates it from murder. I’m not sure you are right about longer prison sentences either (especially given only half of any prison sentence is spent behind bars, and the tendency to suspend short sentences for first offenders) - certainly with manslaughter there’s no compulsion for a prison sentence at all. It’s the downside to the secrecy of the jury room - nobody knows how they reached seemingly incompatible verdicts. That said if the verdicts were truly incompatible the judge should have told them that.

And what about the owner of the business - did the skipper routinely drive close to the buoy on these trips and was it with the awareness, approval or even suggestion of the owner?

he was also found guilty. Given the news that came after that they’ve previously injured people I expect he may be treated fairly seriously!

In industry the HSE would be looking at the safety culture and attitude of the organisation and its senior leaders, and punish accordingly.

I wish we would prosecute firms for causing and permitting Road Traffic offences, eg, if the driver was speeding on company time the burden should be on the company to show they gave the employee enough time etc.

 

[benjenbav]

manslaughter has never required intent; that’s what differentiates it from murder. I’m not sure you are right about longer prison sentences either (especially given only half of any prison sentence is spent behind bars, and the tendency to suspend short sentences for first offenders) - certainly with manslaughter there’s no compulsion for a prison sentence at all. It’s the downside to the secrecy of the jury room - nobody knows how they reached seemingly incompatible verdicts. That said if the verdicts were truly incompatible the judge should have told them that.
he was also found guilty. Given the news that came after that they’ve previously injured people I expect he may be treated fairly seriously!
I wish we would prosecute firms for causing and permitting Road Traffic offences, eg, if the driver was speeding on company time the burden should be on the company to show they gave the employee enough time etc.

There are several elements to gross negligence manslaughter: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, grossness (of the negligence) etc.

I would guess that the jury’s view was that the grossness of the negligence was not sufficient for a guilty verdict on gross negligence manslaughter, albeit enough for the not-keeping-a-proper-watch conviction.

The text quoted below is taken from the CPS guidelines on the head of grossness:

“The prosecution must prove the following two elements:

a) that the circumstances were such that a reasonably prudent person in the defendant's position would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death arising from the defendant's act or omission;

b) that the breach of duty was, in all the circumstances, so reprehensible and fell so far below the standards to be expected of a person in the defendant's position with his qualifications, experience and responsibilities that it amounted to a crime.”

The defendant gave evidence that his vision had been impeded by his mask being blown over his eyes. Perhaps that may have put sufficient doubt into the minds of the jurors in terms of the second element quoted above.

 

[Greenheart]

The flappy mask defence is the lamest excuse I've heard. The fact that a powerboat doesn't steer unless the power remains applied, doesn't excuse making no attempt to steer out of danger. That whole area was empty except for the buoy, so if he was suddenly unable to see, why didn't he steer significantly away from where he knew the buoy to be?

Such a manoeuvre wouldn't have had to be violent, but even a recklessly sudden, violent turn would have been more reasonable and forgiveable than doing nothing at that point. Impeded vision doesn't begin to explain or justify letting the vessel continue dead straight, when from the first, he must have planned to swerve late, cutting close to the buoy to accentuate his passengers' sense of speed.

That daft pursuit of the sense of speed seems to be behind this tragedy. It might be a good rule or principle that above a speed of (let's say) ten knots, no non-racing vessel should ever pass closer to a navigation mark (or other fixed or moored object) than its own overall length. PWCs excepted. They can go as fast and close as they like, closer ideally.

 

[doug748]

Travelling a nearly 50 kts and temporally incapacitated, I think most people's first reaction would be to slow down. What a disaster.

On the face of it, without knowing fully what was said in court, the finding must add to the distress of Emily's family.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Travelling a nearly 50 kts and temporally incapacitated, I think most people's first reaction would be to slow down. What a disaster.

On the face of it, without knowing fully what was said in court, the finding must add to the distress of Emily's family.

Indeed. 50 knots is 25metres per second. If he'd just let go of the throttle as soon as his vision was obtructed, the boat would have stopped very quickly - at 14 seconds, the distance from where his vision was obstructed to the buoy would be 350metres; amply far enough for drag to slow the boat to a very low speed.

 

[38mess]

I used to drive fast 9.5 mtr ribs for crew replenishment at sea and from 30 knots to zero knots can be accomplished in just over a boat length.

 

[capnsensible]

I used to drive fast 9.5 mtr ribs for crew replenishment at sea and from 30 knots to zero knots can be accomplished in just over a boat length.

Amazing in action. I was taught to immediately pull the throttle back to slow ahead and put the helm over to prevent getting swamped by the wash. Works a treat.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I used to drive fast 9.5 mtr ribs for crew replenishment at sea and from 30 knots to zero knots can be accomplished in just over a boat length.

That's what I thought. I've seen the fast RIBs from Ballycastle arrive at Rathlin Island, and they don't drop the throttle until they pass the harbour entrance at Rathlin Island, and still come to a slow maneuvering speed within a boat length or so.

 

[38mess]

That's what I thought. I've seen the fast RIBs from Ballycastle arrive at Rathlin Island, and they don't drop the throttle until they pass the harbour entrance at Rathlin Island, and still come to a slow maneuvering speed within a boat length or so.

As captain sensible says it's best to turn as you stop other wise the wake comes into the boat

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I’m a rib driver too, my own and someone elses super tender, that’s a 9 metre Revenger with 300hp. Stopping isn’t a problem, apart from being swamped by your own wash unless you turn. Both my Ring 6.5 and the Revenger will turn sharply without backing off, just a couple of boat lengths. I have no idea how you can hit a buoy that size without removing your brain before starting up. I’d be absolutely terrified if I couldn’t see, and at the very least shut the throttle.

 

[38mess]

I used to hate driving ribs with a vengeance. I don't know how old the guy in this case was at the time of the accident, but I was 55 when I gave up, my body wouldn't take it anymore.

 

[DownWest]

Since one presumes that he planned to pass the buoy close by for effect, it makes no sense that if his vision got blocked by the mask and that he didn't take immediate action, either by chopping the throttle (as above) or turning early. Apart from just pulling the mask off with one hand in under a second.... I don't buy the excuse.

Bit of a history of thrill rides going wrong, precisly because the margins are close to provid the thrill. I notice another alpine base jumper got it wrong yesterday.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I don’t get why buzzing a buoy is so exciting. Jumping the Red Jet wash, if your spine is up to it perhaps. We often end up compromising speed for comfort though. That Revenger will do 55kn. I may well be driving it on Monday unless they want me to steer it’s mother ship. I doubt I’ll go over 20kn even though it’s somebody else's fuel bill.

 

[Capt Popeye]

I don't want to retry the trial by any means, but simply point out the 'unfairness' of the events when compared.
Fleeing the country is irrelevant to the charge and the trial, as is the fighting in the pub.
They had both been drinking but no level was offered in court from what I read ( though may be wrong here) so it seems quite deficient of the prosecution not to have also charged him with that as an offence which would suggest they weren't that intoxicated.
The steering defect was that it had a little 'free play' in the steering wheel and the craft had a tendency to pull to the right hand side......really?
Also the windscreen had a degree of crazing.....don't they all when examined?
He wasn't driving during the impact, another adult had chosen to do that. You could claim that she had no experience of that and that he should not of handed over control but many many people take a boat for a run for the first time with no experience as do many children. Hitting a submerged object would / could have happened to the most experienced. He should with his greater experience have asked her to slow down but he didn't. Is that really a greater crime than another who's professional job is the safeguarding of his passengers while in his care and control that hits a buoy in broad daylight?
The boat when tested by the surveyor for the prosecution mentioned it had a speed of 29knts at 75% throttle.
The two trials were on different days and so even without the secondary conviction he would still have received the six sentence.
I think thats about it on this for me and we'll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes I think that the law can make scapegoats out of some people whereas others by comparison seem to get off lightly.

Humm , well , I viewed a Video programme of the events leading up to the Trial of Ben S ; In the prog it was clearly stated that the River Police were not aware of the Girl being in the Speedboat , when they attended the call to the crash ; so as I formed an opinion that BS had not declared her being in the River , so guess that the Police did not look for her to give Aid or recover her : if correct guess that unforgivable ; TGHe Video states that Land Police discovered that there were 2 persons in the Boat following inquirees of local residents ; So was it ever established that She was in fact driving the boat ?
As a one time member of River Patrols on that stretch of the River , I am astounded that the River Police had not been strict over the Speeding of Boats , its a very dangerous part of the River , drift woods , floating commercial debrie , beer kegs abound floating about there .
Re the references to the videoed assault charges , that formed part of another case ; guess that the Police and Courts like to refer to any such events in order to obtain an idea of the personality of a defendent ?

 

[penfold]

Since one presumes that he planned to pass the buoy close by for effect, it makes no sense that if his vision got blocked by the mask and that he didn't take immediate action, either by chopping the throttle (as above) or turning early. Apart from just pulling the mask off with one hand in under a second.... I don't buy the excuse.

Bit of a history of thrill rides going wrong, precisly because the margins are close to provid the thrill. I notice another alpine base jumper got it wrong yesterday.

Exactly that; high speed toward a bouy and you lose sight of it, shutting the throttle seems the obvious thing to do as it will lose speed very quickly, turning would be nice but wet feet are preferable to colliding with a mark. As explanations go it's seethrough.