Lynch mob justice?

[Tomahawk]

.

I've seen plenty of speedboats flat out in the dark, on the River Frome for a start - and what if it was a family in a tender or small boat the speedboat had hit ?

In the dark without nav lights?

I have been in that situation. A day sail from the Hamble to Bealueigh was delayed when one of the group went aground and a pebble jamed the centreboard up, We spent four hours trying to sort it until we tied a floorboard over the side and limped home in the dark without any lights. We could hear powerboats getting ready for the Isle of Weight race next day..
I was scared.

 

[RichardS]

The charges may be different, but I agree that the sentences should be similar. Or to put it another way, you (one) shouldn't get away with it simply because a bit of luck mitigated the outcome.

But why focus on luck?

If driver B is a better driver than driver A, even when driver B is technically over the drink limit and driver A is sober, and driver A, whilst over the limit kills someone but driver B is able to drive home without killing anyone albeit driver B is also over the limit, I would say that it is driving skill which has prevented driver B killing anyone, not luck. Imposing the same sentence on both drivers, assuming that driver B was breathalysed on the way home for a non-driving offence, would be grotesquely unfair.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

True, but "his five year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was not increased because of the number of people (ten) who died"

But how is that relevant to UJ's proposal and your response that "generally speaking, the law agrees" with him?

Richard

 

[Seajet]

In the dark without nav lights?

I have been in that situation. A day sail from the Hamble to Bealueigh was delayed when one of the group went aground and a pebble jamed the centreboard up, We spent four hours trying to sort it until we tied a floorboard over the side and limped home in the dark without any lights. We could hear powerboats getting ready for the Isle of Weight race next day..
I was scared.

Yes, a whole pissed up gang of them playing ' Star Wars ' down the narrow, winding river at night - nav lights would have been no warning to anyone, the speed they were going - may have behaved differently if they were between rocks instead of reed banks, but having met and had self and wife threatened by them earlier, maybe not.

Anyone in a tender or small boat would have been mincemeat.

That was just one occasion, speedboats just do not attract sensible people, there's the elephant let out of the room !

 

[Tomahawk]

I offer a perspective drawn from actual events.

The chap who was my best man was a very very fast driver. He was also a very competent driver with lightening fast reactions.
His finance sitting in the passenger seat got used to moving at high speed. She was not a competent driver. But she was used to moving fast so she also drove at high speed. We had only one drive with her at the wheel and were both very scared. The inevitable happened. She lost control of the car on a sharp bend and went into the front of a lorry on the other side of the road.

Was it misadventure? Or manslaughter on behalf of my friend?

Of course it was not under maritime law.

 

[Tomahawk]

Yes, a whole pissed up gang of them playing ' Star Wars ' down the narrow, winding river at night - nav lights would have been no warning to anyone, the speed they were going - may have behaved differently if they were between rocks instead of reed banks, but having met and had self and wife threatened by them earlier, maybe not.

Anyone in a tender or small boat would have been mincemeat.

That was just one occasion, speedboats just do not attract sensible people, there's the elephant let out of the room !

Disagree in my circumstances.
These were pro or semi pro powerboat racers. I was in the wrong place. It was still scary.

 

[Tomahawk]

Yes, a whole pissed up gang of them playing ' Star Wars ' down the narrow, winding river at night - nav lights would have been no warning to anyone, the speed they were going - may have behaved differently if they were between rocks instead of reed banks, but having met and had self and wife threatened by them earlier, maybe not.

Anyone in a tender or small boat would have been mincemeat.

That was just one occasion, speedboats just do not attract sensible people, there's the elephant let out of the room !

Disagree in my circumstances.
These were pro or semi pro powerboat racers. I was in the wrong place. It was still scary.

 

[laika]

speedboats just do not attract sensible people

I confess to not having watched broadcast tv in ages but do they still give them away as “star prizes” like they used to on sale of the century etc? I always wondered what people did with them when they won them. Someone must have done something other than immediatelyselling their prize.

 

[Tranona]

I offer a perspective drawn from actual events.

The chap who was my best man was a very very fast driver. He was also a very competent driver with lightening fast reactions.
His finance sitting in the passenger seat got used to moving at high speed. She was not a competent driver. But she was used to moving fast so she also drove at high speed. We had only one drive with her at the wheel and were both very scared. The inevitable happened. She lost control of the car on a sharp bend and went into the front of a lorry on the other side of the road.

Was it misadventure? Or manslaughter on behalf of my friend?

Of course it was not under maritime law.

This is really unhelpful and not relevant to the current case. How can you make a decision based on such skimpy "facts"?

The current case was not covered by "maritime law" but by criminal law. The fact that the offence took place on water is irrelevant and the law sees no difference. There is the possibility of bringing charges under the MSA, or under the Thames bye laws (breaking the speed limit or being drunk). any of these might have been successful based on the facts, if the evidence was sound. For example if he was breathalyzed or there is proof of the speed at which he was travelling. However the CPS would have reviewed the evidence and come to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to justify a charge of manslaughter. The jury agreed.

Not entirely sure why you are questioning this, and particularly why you are constantly bringing in other scenarios and guessing what the charge would be. That is pointless as I pointed out earlier. You can only look at cases where the facts were the same or sufficiently similar to get a comparison. Even then you need to look at the totality of the evidence that the jury had to consider and you rarely get this from a news report, which inevitably only reports the bits that the reporter thinks are important!

 

[Seajet]

I'm not convinced about ' pro ' powerboat racers either re seamanship; I admit it was years ago and the person in the back is now probably glued to a big GPS screen among other monitors, ( collision avoidance is a different matter ) but one slammed to a stop alongside us in the Solent once, had to shut down before we could hear each other - " s'cuse me, where are we ? " then roared off again

If you were aground in a dangerous place on their route they should be looking out for any such obstacle just the same as racing drivers ideally keep an eye out for crashed cars ahead, but at least they are on a closed circuit not public waters where anything can happen.

 

[Seajet]

I confess to not having watched broadcast tv in ages but do they still give them away as “star prizes” like they used to on sale of the century etc? I always wondered what people did with them when they won them. Someone must have done something other than immediatelyselling their prize.

That's the problem !

Of course I am generalising wildly, partly tongue in cheek, but if ever any type causes legislation and rules to be inflicted on us it will be drunken oafs in projectile shaped things capable of very high velocities and usually owned by people who think ' what's a tide ? - if it's got a steering wheel it must be just like my Impreza ' without realising how toe-curling easy these boats are either to get sunk by waves or prang into - and maybe kill - someone, after all it's all out on the water by the seaside for fun isn't it ?

 

[laika]

That's the problem !

I wouldn’t have thought a handful of bullseye winners would have constituted a sufficiently large group to be an especially significant problem even if they didn’t immediately sell their prize for cash

 

[JumbleDuck]

Which means that the Railway and Highway Authority had failed to carry out an adequate risk assessment as to the dangers of such an event. Had they done do, there would be barriers in place to prevent a rogue vehicle hitting the railway regardless of the cause..

You're right about the barriers, which have been beefed up there and elsewhere since. Hart was a prat, but the road design was asking for trouble.

 

[JumbleDuck]

If driver B is a better driver than driver A, even when driver B is technically over the drink limit and driver A is sober, and driver A, whilst over the limit kills someone but driver B is able to drive home without killing anyone albeit driver B is also over the limit, I would say that it is driving skill which has prevented driver B killing anyone ...

We don't ask all drivers to have the same skill but we do insist that they don't do anything which they know will impair whatever skill they have.

Anyway, the old "I have superior driving skills so I can be over the limit and still drive safely" schtick, so beloved of outraged old men, has been long disproved by experiment.

 

[JumbleDuck]

But how is that relevant to UJ's proposal and your response that "generally speaking, the law agrees" with him?

It shows that generally you get done for what you did and not for unforeseeable consequences. By extension, if there were no consequences at all but you still unnecessarily increased the risk to others, you deserve to get done, which was UJ's point.

 

[[2068]]

I'd like to see what moboers have to say about speed at night.
I don't think it's normal practice to reduce down to displacement speed at night.

On open water, with radar, GPS, moonlight and AIS all fired up, then minimum planing speed could be an option for a mid sized mobo.

For a small speedboat on the Thames at night, running at any speed above displacement would be risky.

 

[RichardS]

We don't ask all drivers to have the same skill but we do insist that they don't do anything which they know will impair whatever skill they have.

Anyway, the old "I have superior driving skills so I can be over the limit and still drive safely" schtick, so beloved of outraged old men, has been long disproved by experiment.

If your first statement was true all cars would be fitted with a tachograph ...... and no-one has suggested the second statement in quite those absolute terms. However, who would argue that, in relative terms, a good driver with 36 mg/dl cannot be an order of magnitude better at driving than a sober poor driver.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

It shows that generally you get done for what you did and not for unforeseeable consequences. By extension, if there were no consequences at all but you still unnecessarily increased the risk to others, you deserve to get done, which was UJ's point.

Errrr .... no it doesn't. The unforeseen consequence of leaving the road was that so many passengers on a train would be killed. Hart was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It is correct that he received the same sentence if he had killed one person rather than ten but I can't see how that relates to UJ's view that a drunk driver who doesn't have an accident should receive the same punishment as a drunk driver who kills someone. UK law most certainly does not conflate those two different situations

Richard

 

[Uricanejack]

Calling the idiot "Captain" or "Skipper" formalises what was probably a completely informal decision to have a post drinking session around the river. In my view the girl made made some very bad choices and is to blame as well. She should have had no expectation that the idiot would be capable of piloting her safely round the river in a speedboat while drunk. Anyone more sensible and less drunk would have looked at the situation and said "no thank you". I still think he was guilty, I'm not sure of the sentence, it might be harsh, he's definitely a bad one but the girl shouldn't have got in the boat.

Which is blaming the victim. Not an unusual occurrence. I have when young and "immortal" gotten in a car and accepted a ride home from a friend who had been drinking. Yes I was guilty of remarkable stupidity and disregard for my own safety and life.
I enabled my friend. We were Lucky. We were also guilty. He was guilty of an offence. I don't think the law has a particular statute for my offence. As a parent I worried greatly my son or daughter might be foolish enough to do the same.

I was very grateful to a sober young man who brought my son home unharmed from a party which made the local news.
I have also got up in the middle of the night and went to collect the same young man and my son and others. To deliver them home safely on more than one occasion. I did so without commenting on the fact they had been drinking. I did not want to discourage them from calling for a ride.

Tragedy still strikes, One night two of my sons friends did not make it home from yet another party. The young man who chose to drive lost his life the young man who chose to accept the ride. Spent a long time in a coma and will never be the same again.
Both had responsibility for their actions as did others who didn't try to stop them. All of whom regret it.
The law I suspect holds the driver responsible.

The girl should have been wiser. So should many other girls and boys. It wasn't her boat. She wasn't the Skipper. I am sure a lot of people who knew her wish she had called for a ride home. It doesn't relieve the driver for his actions.

 

[Uricanejack]

But why focus on luck?

If driver B is a better driver than driver A, even when driver B is technically over the drink limit and driver A is sober, and driver A, whilst over the limit kills someone but driver B is able to drive home without killing anyone albeit driver B is also over the limit, I would say that it is driving skill which has prevented driver B killing anyone, not luck. Imposing the same sentence on both drivers, assuming that driver B was breathalysed on the way home for a non-driving offence, would be grotesquely unfair.

Richard

Driver A or Driver B.
Both chose to get in a car and drive after drinking, both were over the limit. My opinion driving skills are irrelevant. This time I think the Law agrees with me.

The controversial point. I believe the act of getting in the car (or boat) and choosing to drive under the influence is the offence. Both drivers have shown the exact same disregard for the law and the safety of everyone else they encounter.
One makes it home the other kills someone. Driving ability irrelevant. Both were playing Russian roulette with a car.

I would charge them both and sentence them both equally.

Unfortunately, I don't rule the world