Girl, 15, dies in Southampton boat crash

[penberth3]

ban yachts then. A good friend of mine was killed on a yacht.

By crashing at 37 knots?

 

[Bouba]

ban yachts then. A good friend of mine was killed on a yacht.

I agree....if you think about it, the deck of a yacht is a trip hazard and there is a very real risk of head injury if the wind changes...how did they get past health and safety

 

[Elessar]

By crashing at 37 knots?

It doesn’t matter how.
Hard cases make bad law and the knee jerk reaction to ban activity is just reactionary.

 

[ylop]

Yes I recon that the scentence was too lenient by far

ignoring whether is was suspended or not, the maximum for the offence the jury convicted for is 2 yrs imprisonment; seems hard to find that 3/4 of the maximum is too lenient for first offender. You could argue that the maximum should be larger for failing to keep a lookout - but I’m not sure how happy the yachting fraternity would be if singlehanded skippers were risking bigger penalties when they go to put the kettle on / make tea. The offences they were found guilty of apply whether there was a death, or even a collision.

If you are pleading not guilty...it would probably hurt your case to apologize

I suspect that at all times they probably acted on the advice of their brief

I suspect you are right, although it is surprising that the solicitor was unable to help them find a form of words that expressed their sympathy without actually implying any fault. I don’t suppose the insurance company will be encouraging any appologies either. It’s easy to assume we know what we would do but presumably none of us have been staring down the barrel of a manslaughter charge, losing your job regardless of outcome (and probably not likely to get a similar one) and facing the family of someone you killed, even in writing is a daunting task.

Difficult not to agree.

His conviction and sentence fails to reflect what actually happened. Manslaughter and suspended jail term would have been bearable but this conviction reads like he just had a poor hair day.

The family must be distraught.

.

A jury heard ALL the evidence over several weeks and concluded that they could not be sure it met the test the judge told them was necessary for manslaughter. We can all sit here raising our eyebrows at that but it was the crowns job to prove the case, and with all the resources of the state they failed to do so. I’m comfortable that 12 jurors were better placed to reach that conclusion than people who didn’t hear even 1 day of evidence.

Since you would have been happy with a suspended sentence your unhappiness - calling the sentence a farce - doesn’t really make sense to me. The judge has to sentence on what the jury convicted for, even if he is sitting raising his eyebrows at the manslaughter part.

Personally I find suspended sentences a weird idea, but that is nothing to do with this case - it’s for all cases. That’s not because I’m hungry to send people to jail, they are horrible places which in the vast majority of cases achieve little positive benefit. Most people will have ignored the 125 hours of community service; probably because they think that is a walk in the park. It will almost certainly achieve something more useful than actually locking them up.

 

[doug748]

..A jury heard ALL the evidence over several weeks and concluded that they could not be sure it met the test the judge told them was necessary for manslaughter. We can all sit here raising our eyebrows at that but it was the crowns job to prove the case, and with all the resources of the state they failed to do so. I’m comfortable that 12 jurors were better placed to reach that conclusion than people who didn’t hear even 1 day of evidence...

My thoughts were directed towards the feelings of the family of the dead girl. You yourself would probably be less comfortable if it was your 15 year old daughter, killed by this man's actions.

.

 

[Capt Popeye]

ignoring whether is was suspended or not, the maximum for the offence the jury convicted for is 2 yrs imprisonment; seems hard to find that 3/4 of the maximum is too lenient for first offender. You could argue that the maximum should be larger for failing to keep a lookout - but I’m not sure how happy the yachting fraternity would be if singlehanded skippers were risking bigger penalties when they go to put the kettle on / make tea. The offences they were found guilty of apply whether there was a death, or even a collision.




I suspect you are right, although it is surprising that the solicitor was unable to help them find a form of words that expressed their sympathy without actually implying any fault. I don’t suppose the insurance company will be encouraging any appologies either. It’s easy to assume we know what we would do but presumably none of us have been staring down the barrel of a manslaughter charge, losing your job regardless of outcome (and probably not likely to get a similar one) and facing the family of someone you killed, even in writing is a daunting task.

A jury heard ALL the evidence over several weeks and concluded that they could not be sure it met the test the judge told them was necessary for manslaughter. We can all sit here raising our eyebrows at that but it was the crowns job to prove the case, and with all the resources of the state they failed to do so. I’m comfortable that 12 jurors were better placed to reach that conclusion than people who didn’t hear even 1 day of evidence.

Well your statement above is correct , but one major 'fly in the ointment' is that its most probable that none of the Jury know anything about boating at all , so are only basing their judgement upon carefully constructed and willfully argued statements from Legals who are very well versed in camoflaging the facts , from the Jury : AS you state , none of us on these pages heard any evidence that was given in court , might be better if a person aquainted with Boating had been on the Jury , as from my experience in Courts , most often a Qualified /Experienced person can challenge these Legals plus rebut them

 

[flaming]

As we discussed further up the thread, the issue is that there is no “causing death by careless/dangerous boating” offence. If you look at the history of the equivalent motoring offences, juries being unwilling to convict on manslaughter charges seem to have been a big part of their creation.

 

[benjenbav]

Following the conviction for the watchkeeping offence it is the judge who decides the sentence. Judges tend to be very knowledgeable men and women who have to balance a number of factors such as punishment/retribution, protection of the public and rehabilitation of the offender whilst the judge in this case was, of course, sadly aware that nothing they could do would bring the dead girl back to her family.

 

[ylop]

Well your statement above is correct , but one major 'fly in the ointment' is that its most probable that none of the Jury know anything about boating at all , so are only basing their judgement upon carefully constructed and willfully argued statements from Legals who are very well versed in camoflaging the facts , from the Jury : AS you state , none of us on these pages heard any evidence that was given in court , might be better if a person aquainted with Boating had been on the Jury , as from my experience in Courts , most often a Qualified /Experienced person can challenge these Legals plus rebut them

It’s the prosecutions job to lead the evidence to achieve the conviction, not the role of individual jurors to bring their “expert knowledge” to bear. I would be amazed if the prosecution did not bring expert witnesses to explain to the jury any boating knowledge they needed to reach the verdict (and of course the defence may have done the same).

contrary to what you may have seen on TV jurors don’t get to challenge lawyers. Indeed if a juror had said in the jury room that they were a powerboat enthusiast and started explaining what he thought did/did not go wrong - if that was drawn to the judges attention it would most likely have resulted in a retrial because the judge will have given a very clear direction at the start of the trial that only things which were discussed in court in front of the accused, the lawyers and the jury could be part of the deliberations.

My thoughts were directed towards the feelings of the family of the dead girl. You yourself would probably be less comfortable if it was your 15 year old daughter, killed by this man's actions.

despite the efforts of the media - the justice system doesn’t exist for the retribution of victims, it exists for the benefit of society in general. No sentence would ever make the parent of a 15y old deceased ever feel satisfied - even if he had got 12 years for manslaughter it would not have brought their daughter back and it would have done absolutely nothing to stop another person suffering the same fate (as everyone in the industry already believes it would never happen to them).

 

[doug748]

According to the news yesterday this wasn't the first time that particular 'operator' had hit things. It was also reported that neither the business owner or the driver had shown much, if any, contrition and / or apolgised to the girl's parents

Indeed not. The company was said to have had three other incidents one resulting in a £300,000 payout. Even so they followed "few" recommended safety guidelines.

As well as offering no apology nor explanation, after changing his initial story; directly after the accident Lawrence was described as “unprofessional, terse and dismissive”.

.

 

[finestgreen]

Heavy contact between the high-speed passenger craft Seadogz and a navigation buoy with loss of 1 life

 

[Stemar]

The poor girl died as a result of hitting a handhold in front of her. Seat belts would provide protection against such impacts, as well as against the risk of being thrown overboard, at an increased risk of being trapped in the event of a capsize. Where would those with knowledge of operating such boats put the balance? Would an auto-release in the event of a capsize work?

 

[ean_p]

I tend to think that the poor girl died because a fukwit was driving the boat........

bye bye everyone!

 

[dunedin]

I tend to think that the poor girl died because a fukwit was driving the boat........

bye bye everyone!

Perhaps better to read the report. The Foreword in particular is pretty stark and damning - “an accident waiting to happen”.
And it isn’t so much just blaming the skipper - but also the poor boat design of fast passenger RIBs which needs to be changed, in terms of poor forward visibility from a stern helm position, lack of second lookout and poor safety features for passengers.
I wonder if anything will actually happen to prevent further loss of life.

 

[finestgreen]

I tend to think that the poor girl died because a fukwit was driving the boat........

bye bye everyone!

Probably the most dangerous conclusion you could probably reach

 

[[165042]]

Not really. The skipper was to blame and came up with feeble excuses. If your visibility or ability to navigate is impaired you slow down and he didn't. Both he & the operator should have gone to prison.

 

[Bouba]

Not really. The skipper was to blame and came up with feeble excuses. If your visibility or ability to navigate is impaired you slow down and he didn't. Both he & the operator should have gone to prison.

Slowing down is a problem if your passengers have paid good money for a high speed thrill.
Also I’m not sure how an extra lookout works…at that speed is there any time to issue a warning to the helmsman and for him to react ?
In my opinion these thrill rides should end …and if not then the passengers should be fully aware that they are signing their life away

 

[RunAgroundHard]

The poor girl died as a result of hitting a handhold in front of her. Seat belts would provide protection against such impacts, as well as against the risk of being thrown overboard, at an increased risk of being trapped in the event of a capsize. Where would those with knowledge of operating such boats put the balance? Would an auto-release in the event of a capsize work?

Four point seatbelts that can be released when loaded with weight, when upside down are available for fast craft, helicopters et cetera. However they do require a degree of training to be able to use. As simple as it seams (just rotate the buckle) a consumer paying for a thrill ride, and the operator will not be in a position to receive / provide the training. An auto release mechanism would require the individual being automatically released to perform some action i.e. be aware what to do to aid their survival.

 

[steveeasy]

Not much I want to add other than if you can’t see clearly you should not be going fast regardless if people have paid for a thrill ride. Of course there should be a lookout on the bow at the min after this dreadful accident.

Steveeasy

 

[ylop]

Slowing down is a problem if your passengers have paid good money for a high speed thrill.

That is certainly a problem, but if it’s a momentary problem it’s easy to slow down, fix issue then speed up. I’ve both been a passenger on and driven high speed ribs. You soon become comfortable, possibly too comfortable, in the boat’s ability, and so to maintain the thrill you have to push harder - whether speed, jumping waves, passing close to others etc.

Also I’m not sure how an extra lookout works…at that speed is there any time to issue a warning to the helmsman and for him to react ?

The position of the bouy should have been apparent to the skipper (and therefore a second lookout) for 14s before impact. That is plenty of time to see it, warn, and take avoiding action. BUT the second lookout would also be used to going close to the bouy, likely be reticent at telling the skipper what to do, and so probably would have been a very late intervention. However division of responsibilities - eg observing passengers, nav instruments etc would also mean it was more likely the helm was looking where he should be. A second crew member would also help the owner know if one of his skippers was getting more and more carried away with his antics (or doing stuff he probably shouldn’t like using his phone etc when helming as speed).

In my opinion these thrill rides should end …and if not then the passengers should be fully aware that they are signing their life away

It seems to me like insuring a boat to do stupid stuff must become increasingly harder. I can imagine that it won’t become impossible, but there will be more scrutiny on both paperwork systems and actual inspection of operations. Given their history of accidents I’m surprised they were able to get insurance.