Liquid Vortex trial starts

RYA

Question, were the RYA a bit hasty! A month after the storm the RYA stripped JM of his accreditation and he lost his school/ business. This was before the MCA had completed their investigations.

Yet the court/ jury decided he had done nothing wrong!

It was not a even an RYA course was it, but the charter side of his business: a delivery trip/ mile builder.
 
maxi77 said:
Personally I tend to disagree, this was not liesure sailors but a coomercial operation and rather than allowing sailors to contact the Coastguard, it suggests that the duty of care commercial operations are supposed to have for their customers cannot be enforced by the law, now is that a good thing.
Click to expand...

We don't know if any of that is that case.

We don't even know if the fact there were paying customers on board was relevant to the trial.

The duty of care operations are supposed to have for their customers IS enforceable by law. It just seems in this case, for reasons we don't know, the jury felt those obligations were met to the degree the law requires. Or maybe the charges had nothing to do with any duty of care.
 
johndove said:
Question, were the RYA a bit hasty! A month after the storm the RYA stripped JM of his accreditation and he lost his school/ business. This was before the MCA had completed their investigations.

Yet the court/ jury decided he had done nothing wrong!

.
Click to expand...

The jury decided he had not broken whatever law it was that he was accused of breaking.
You can be very wrong in many ways without actually breaking a law.
 
johndove said:
Question, were the RYA a bit hasty! A month after the storm the RYA stripped JM of his accreditation and he lost his school/ business. This was before the MCA had completed their investigations.

Yet the court/ jury decided he had done nothing wrong!

It was not a even an RYA course was it, but the charter side of his business: a delivery trip/ mile builder.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction vs the RYA having a duty of care to make sure that their training schools look after the punters.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
You could use that argument to argue against the verdict in any trial where the accused isn't guilty!

Anyway more rigorous than S58 of the MSA? How could it be more rigorous? It's already illegal to do something likely to damage your own vessel. [1] How would you tighten that up? Make it illegal to do something that wasn't very likely to damage to your own vessel?

If by "more rigorous" you mean "clearer" then that's a good thing AFAIC. Not that I can think how that could be achieved.

AFAIC this is a good result, on the face of it people are allowed to go out sailing in storms if they wish. If someone compels or tricks other people to sail in storms then that is already illegal.

[1] Think of the implications of that - is Club Racing Illegal? Is the RTIR illegal? Is the Vende Globe in a UK flagged boat illegal?
Click to expand...

hmmmmmm .. personally I think endangering people's lives that you owe a duty of care to is rather more serious than damaging a vessel. Don't you agree?


This case shows how difficult it is to achieve a conviction on that.

ergo there will be a call for more legislation that will be capable of gaining convictions in these circumstances.

Simple really innit?
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
We don't know if any of that is that case.

We don't even know if the fact there were paying customers on board was relevant to the trial.

The duty of care operations are supposed to have for their customers IS enforceable by law. It just seems in this case, for reasons we don't know, the jury felt those obligations were met to the degree the law requires. Or maybe the charges had nothing to do with any duty of care.
Click to expand...

The fact there were paying customers on board was relevant because it did indicate the passage was a commercial one leading to the charges. Quite why the jury did not find them guilty we should never know, but the reality that they didn't may well be seen by some as the go ahead for more macho descisions in commercial opperations.

Of course the whole episode has little impact on our activities unless we opt for some training.
 
innesker said:
The jury decided he had not broken whatever law it was that he was accused of breaking.
Click to expand...

As per post 472, CS has not been found innocent of one of the charges.

'But they failed to reach a verdict on a charge of whether he failed to properly assess the risk of the voyage '
 
jimi said:
hmmmmmm .. personally I think endangering people's lives that you owe a duty of care to is rather more serious than damaging a vessel. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Also covered by S58 in exactly the same terms. The text of S58 has already been posted. I've added that to my post in case anyone else couldn't manage to read it.

toad_oftoadhall said:
We don't even know if the fact there were paying customers on board was relevant to the trial.
Click to expand...

maxi77 said:
The fact there were paying customers on board was relevant because it did indicate the passage was a commercial one leading to the charges.
Click to expand...

Can you post your source for that please. As far as I know the law applied was S58 of the MSA and you don't need to be carrying fee paying customers for that to apply.

Pye_End said:
As per post 472, CS has not been found innocent of one of the charges.
Click to expand...

All that means is he might face another trial, at the moment he's innocent.
 
Last edited:
The judgement has been made and CS and JM are not criminals. It was mentioned about the RYA being hasty in taking HL'S accreditation away. I dont think so. Imagine a big poster at the London Boat Show showing the RNLI's report of the rescue in front of a sailing school's stand-would it attract the punters-I think not. HL Sailing going under may or may not have been a result of losing accreditation. A properly run business should have a reserve for bad times. For it to go under so soon after the event may give a clue as to its financial stability-a look at the accounts would help. I believe the sail training industry has seen itself under the spotlight and is currently examining its practices. Eight years ago when I did Dazed Kipper-with JM as Skipper/ Instructor with On Deck sailing-now also not trading-my motorsports collegue, race competitor and race organiser who did it as well was appalled. He stated very strongly that " If Health and Safety get hold of this lot, bloody well watch out.!" This from a guy who is a pilot, racing competitor with both bikes and cars and runs a large engineering business, all heavily involved with H&S responsibilities. I suspect a case bought by the local council on H&S grounds may have had a different result. It is over now and we must recognise that Justice has been done-and it has been seen to be done. It has also been done to death on these pages..................
 
The Jury didn't understand the trial

Pye_End said:
As per post 472, CS has not been found innocent of one of the charges.

'But they failed to reach a verdict on a charge of whether he failed to properly assess the risk of the voyage '
Click to expand...

Sadly as there's still the possibility of a re trial I can't comment fully, but I was on the boat and the Jury were clearly at a different trial! I attended most of it and the evidence was overwhelming but did require some knowledge of the subject. The Judge did his best without appearing biased but they just didn't get it.
Incidentally, the two 'not guilty' verdicts were not unanimous after ten hours of deliberation so had to be decided on a majority...
 
rotrax said:
The judgement has been made and CS and JM are not criminals. It was mentioned about the RYA being hasty in taking HL'S accreditation away. I dont think so. Imagine a big poster at the London Boat Show showing the RNLI's report of the rescue in front of a sailing school's stand-would it attract the punters-I think not. HL Sailing going under may or may not have been a result of losing accreditation. A properly run business should have a reserve for bad times. For it to go under so soon after the event may give a clue as to its financial stability-a look at the accounts would help. I believe the sail training industry has seen itself under the spotlight and is currently examining its practices. Eight years ago when I did Dazed Kipper-with JM as Skipper/ Instructor with On Deck sailing-now also not trading-my motorsports collegue, race competitor and race organiser who did it as well was appalled. He stated very strongly that " If Health and Safety get hold of this lot, bloody well watch out.!" This from a guy who is a pilot, racing competitor with both bikes and cars and runs a large engineering business, all heavily involved with H&S responsibilities. I suspect a case bought by the local council on H&S grounds may have had a different result. It is over now and we must recognise that Justice has been done-and it has been seen to be done. It has also been done to death on these pages..................
Click to expand...

Might have been done to death on these pages but the bollax keeps on flowing
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
rhinorhino, are you able to tell us how to find out exactly what the charges are/were and, when the trial's over, how can we get hold of a transcript of witness statements.
Click to expand...

The charges are a matter of public record and the Court will tell you if you ask. As to a transcript these have to be ordered from the transcribers and they are not cheap (c. £100/hr last time I paid) you may be asked why you need one and may require permission from the trial judge.
 
jimi said:
I'm not so sure that it is unmitigated good news. indubitably it is good news for JM & CS but the fact that convictions have failed under existing law may lead to more rigorous legislation being called for. The hoorays may be a little premature.
Click to expand...

It is a possibility, and in reality that any such legislation should have a degree rigor about it. My problem is not so much the degree of rigor but the almost total lack of clarity.

Risk assessment for example - does a check of shipping forecast and a sniff at the wind amount to a risk assessment?

Are you obliged to use some sort of pro-forma? - and if so what must it take account of?

Is setting out in a F7 illegal - even in a substantial, well equipped vessel? - if it is legal does it become illegal if several hours later it becomes an un-forecast F9?

I could go on

There are so many variables at sea and forecasting always comes with a margin of error and seemingly the MCA now seem keen to start prosecutions for incidents that would have gone.

The number of casualties at sea is extremely small - fatalities are far fewer than driving or a number of other pastimes, so exactly what problem are the MCA trying to solve?

With my cynical head on I would be linking this type of prosecution with the Governments decision to reduce the number of Coastguard stations. To put it crudely the MCA are seeking to demonstrate that they do have a function to perform, even if its got to be at the cost of damaging the marine industries, not to mention spoiling the pleasure of thousands of people who enjoy the sea.
 
Old Troll

Common Sense prevails at last. How could the Skipper be held guilty on such ridiculous charges. A guilty verdict would have meant the end of adventure or sea school sailing as we know it. The RYA been made to look foolish in making hasty charges against, no surprise of course, anything to keep the media happy and keep bums on seats. They always make the skipper "walk the plank".
MCA of course should also have known better,than bring charges without substance. Give the man his ticket back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top