Haverfordwest paddleboard deaths - MAIB report published

[Laser310]

10.5 years

Nerys Lloyd: Paddleboard company owner being sentenced for deaths of four people in Haverfordwest

seems harsh to me, but probably I wouldn't feel that way if i had lost someone...

 

[SaltIre]

From BBC: "David Elias KC tells the court there was a plan to get out of the water at a landing stage ahead of the weir."

I guess this does make sense and answers most of my questions about why they ever planned to shoot a weir at all regardless of safety. It has the ring of truth.

The Judge dismissed that suggestion:

Alternative routes 'dismissively rejected' by Lloydpublished at 12:39
12:39​

The judge says it is clear to her that Nerys Lloyd intended for the group to go overthe weir down the fish ramp if possible "which would be more interesting" thancarrying the boards round the weir.

Mr O'Dwyer had researched alternative routes, but all were "dismissively rejected byyou", the judge says. Nerys Lloyd: Paddleboard company owner who caused four deaths sentenced to 10-and-a-half years in prison

 

[dunedin]

seems harsh to me, but probably I wouldn't feel that way if i had lost someone...

Much less harsh than the "sentence" on the people who died

 

[Malish]

will be interesting to see if there is an interview with the families to get their viewpoint on the sentence...

 

[Laser310]

Much less harsh than the "sentence" on the people who died

and, I think in this case, there is a pretty strong argument that a tough sentence has utility, in the sense that it is a warning to other guides in this and similar businesses., and might save lives.

if I understand correctly, the norm is that people actually serve about half of these sentences - is that correct?

 

[dunedin]

and, I think in this case, there is a pretty strong argument that a tough sentence has utility, in the sense that it is a warning to other guides in this and similar businesses., and might save lives.

if I understand correctly, the norm is that people actually serve about half of these sentences - is that correct?

Yes. Possibly only 40% now due to prison overcrowding

 

[Mark-1]

The Judge dismissed that suggestion:

She doesn't really. She just says there was an intent to go over the weir. She doesn't say there was no intent to stop stop first.

They were actually concerned that there wouldn't be enough water so stopping made a lot of sense.

So going back to my original question which was "Was there any way this plan could ever have worked?". I guess there was a state of the weir where you could get down the fish weir without ripping your skeg off and they were intending to stop to make sure that was the case and carry around if it was too shallow. In the event the fast river prevented them doing that and shallowness was not an issue. (Understatement.)

So there was a situation where this plan wasn't insane. Just not on that day.

seems harsh to me, but probably I wouldn't feel that way if i had lost someone...

What else could the courts do? - Your business can't kill 4 people through blatant mindlessness and the law do almost nothing.

 

[SaltIre]

He doesn't really. He just says there was an intent to go over the weir. He doesn't say there was no intent to stop stop first.

They were actually concerned that there wouldn't be enough water so stopping make a lot of sense.

So going back to my original question which was "Was there any way this plan could ever have worked?". I guess there was a state of the weir where you could get down the fish weir without ripping your skeg off and they were intending to stop to make sure that was the case and carry around if it was too shallow. In the event the fast river prevented them doing that and shallowness was not an issue. (Understatement.)

So there was a situation where this plan wasn't insane. Just not on that day.



What else could the courts do? - Your business can't kill 4 people through blatant mindlessness and the law do almost nothing.

The Judge was a she, as you'll know if like me you watched the proceedings today.

 

[Laser310]

What else could the courts do? - Your business can't kill 4 people through blatant mindlessness and the law do almost nothing.

on thinking about it.., i have changed my mind, and I now feel the sentence is appropriate.

and as far as what the plans were; she has not been entirely honest, and i don't think we can really know. It could be that the plans were never fixed in her own mind.

 

[Mark-1]

on thinking about it.., i have changed my mind, and I now feel the sentence is appropriate.

and as far as what the plans were; she has not been entirely honest, and i don't think we can really know. It could be that the plans were never fixed in her own mind.

That's pretty much my take. She seems utterly clueless which makes this sentence *feel* a little unfair, but given the large number of people who lost their lives a lighter sentence seems logically and politically impossible. A bit like fining a 95yo for forgetting to pay their road tax. Seems harsh, but you can't just let them off.

 

[ylop]

He doesn't really. He just says there was an intent to go over the weir. He doesn't say there was no intent to stop stop first.

They were actually concerned that there wouldn't be enough water so stopping make a lot of sense.

So going back to my original question which was "Was there any way this plan could ever have worked?". I guess there was a state of the weir where you could get down the fish weir without ripping your skeg off and they were intending to stop to make sure that was the case and carry around if it was too shallow. In the event the fast river prevented them doing that and shallowness was not an issue. (Understatement.)

I'd go watch what she said as she was sentencing. Both guides had gone through the fish route successfully on the reccy weeks beforehand, the other guide (who died trying to rescue people) had sent a number of whatapp messages suggesting alternatives to actually going across the weir but the owner said no it would be more interesting to do as they had done. The judge was clear there was absolutely no evidence that they planned to stop before the weir to assess it as she had claimed in mitigation. It wasn't part of a briefing at the start, the participants hadn't been informed they might need to portage at all or told to go to a particular place to wait for instructions, she had explicitly told her colleague she didn't want to do that. The judge was crystal clear this was the plan, was always the plan and no real consideration was given by the defendant of any alternative.

So there was a situation where this plan wasn't insane. Just not on that day.

Yes it appears to be possible for people with the right experience, the right kit and in the right conditions to cross the weir in a paddleboard. Both guides/instructors had done so.

 

[Mark-1]

The judge was clear there was absolutely no evidence that they planned to stop before the weir to assess it as she had claimed in mitigation. It wasn't part of a briefing at the start, the participants hadn't been informed they might need to portage at all or told to go to a particular place to wait for instructions, she had explicitly told her colleague she didn't want to do that.

Thanks, that's clear.

Erases any concern I have over the verdict/sentence (which wasn't much!). There was one way this plan could work, and two ways it couldn't and she knew at least one of the failure modes. So failing to explicitly plan a stop wasn't simply a mistake or lack of knowledge.

 

[ylop]

That's pretty much my take. She seems utterly clueless which makes this sentence *feel* a little unfair, but given the large number of people who lost their lives a lighter sentence seems logically and politically impossible.

Judges (in the UK) have zero interest in what is politically impossible (even with a small p) - they care only about what the law and the sentencing guidelines say. In fact the judge made a point at one stage that she wasn't clueless (she didn't use those words) but has been extensively trained in risk mitigation by the police and rnli who said she was meticulous with her paperwork in those settings. She seems to have failed to transfer that dilligence to her own business.

A bit like fining a 95yo for forgetting to pay their road tax. Seems harsh, but you can't just let them off.

I couldn't think of a less appropriate analogy. I'm sure some 95yo have forgotten some car admin, gone to court and said I'm not as good with paperwork as I used to be and everything is on the blasted internet these days, so I've asked my son/daughter to take care of it in future and got away with a conditional discharge or token penalty. If the judge felt this needed a lesser sentence it was certainly in her discretion. She explained all her logic and reasoning at length so you don't need to jump to your own conclusions.

 

[Laser310]

That's pretty much my take. She seems utterly clueless which makes this sentence *feel* a little unfair, but given the large number of people who lost their lives a lighter sentence seems logically and politically impossible. A bit like fining a 95yo for forgetting to pay their road tax. Seems harsh, but you can't just let them off.

yes - clueless, which is what i think led to my initial response.

kind of a case of: "you don't know what you don't know".., and there was a lot she didn't know.

But, in the end, if you are running a business in which peoples lives are in your hands, there is an obligation to plan and learn and to actively evaluate risks, even in an activity like this that has little in the way of formal guidelines.

 

[Mark-1]

Judges (in the UK) have zero interest in what is politically impossible (even with a small p) - they care only about what the law and the sentencing guidelines say. In fact the judge made a point at one stage that she wasn't clueless (she didn't use those words) but has been extensively trained in risk mitigation by the police and rnli who said she was meticulous with her paperwork in those settings. She seems to have failed to transfer that dilligence to her own business.

I couldn't think of a less appropriate analogy. I'm sure some 95yo have forgotten some car admin, gone to court and said I'm not as good with paperwork as I used to be and everything is on the blasted internet these days, so I've asked my son/daughter to take care of it in future and got away with a conditional discharge or token penalty. If the judge felt this needed a lesser sentence it was certainly in her discretion. She explained all her logic and reasoning at length so you don't need to jump to your own conclusions.

Yes, I wrote that post before the judge's words were paraphrased which made most of what I said before that post irrelevant/wrong.

...and I didn't mean politically in a literal sense. I hope/think most posters got what I was driving at.

 

[ylop]

and, I think in this case, there is a pretty strong argument that a tough sentence has utility, in the sense that it is a warning to other guides in this and similar businesses., and might save lives.

if I understand correctly, the norm is that people actually serve about half of these sentences - is that correct?

The judge told her she will serve (a maximum?) of 2/3rd and then be entitled to release on license. I have a feeling that Manslaughter is one of the serious offences where politicians don't like the idea of letting people out early so she would not get out earlier under the recent overcrowding changes.

 

[DreadShips]

Being a softy liberal type... ten years probably isn't enough and it's regrettable the sentencing guidelines didn't allow the judge to properly throw the book at her.

 

[benjenbav]

Late to this thread; apologies if this has been covered already. But I think this week’s proceedings were a sentencing hearing, Lloyd having pleaded guilty to gross negligence manslaughter.

I think the UK is fortunate in the quality and experience of its judiciary, who carry out a fairly thankless task; whatever the sentence here, it won’t bring back the poor souls so tragically lost.

So what do you do to punish the guilty party, discourage others from doing the same and protect society?

 

[billskip]

discourage others from doing the same and protect society?

I don't believe it does though.
I believe there are many "black" money making schemes and those that don't " get caught" will continue.
I would suspect there is at least one on these forums that makes a few bob with their boat, they have absolutely no wish for disaster.

 

[penberth3]

Late to this thread; apologies if this has been covered already. But I think this week’s proceedings were a sentencing hearing, Lloyd having pleaded guilty to gross negligence manslaughter.

I think the UK is fortunate in the quality and experience of its judiciary, who carry out a fairly thankless task; whatever the sentence here, it won’t bring back the poor souls so tragically lost.

So what do you do to punish the guilty party, discourage others from doing the same and protect society?

You've answered your own question. It's unlikely the individual here could afford a £7-figure fine, so it has to be prison.