Lynch mob justice?

[JumbleDuck]

Indeed. A very powerful point. In these days of equality she was responsible for being on the boat as well.

As his guest, she would reasonably have expected him to have a boat in good repair and to operate it sensibly. He undoubtedly had a duty of care to her.

 

[JumbleDuck]

There have been a few, like this, Cases of negligence that may or may not be regarded as gross negligence (and so criminal).

There were no prosecutions - as far as I can tell - in the Milligan or Gardner cases. In the former the driver died but in the latter he did not. I wonder if rich people on holiday in Devon get treated a little differently from jack-the-lads trying to impress young women in London.

 

[Tomahawk]

As his guest, she would reasonably have expected him to have a boat in good repair and to operate it sensibly. He undoubtedly had a duty of care to her.

So if he had gone through the Woolwich Barrier before opening up and the boat was in A1 condition and it was daylight and they had not yet eaten or drunk and then hit a submerged object causing the boat to flip and the passenger died of hypothermia whilst wearing a lifejacket, would that be manslaughter?

PS when the 68 Putney to Calais powerboat race ran about half a dozen boats hit driftwood in broad daylight.

 

[jordanbasset]

It's not rocket science, if you cant see you reduce your speed not increase it, you do not get pissed up and you do not let a total beginner at the wheel in those circumstances. He was responsible

 

[Motor_Sailor]

So if he had gone through the Woolwich Barrier before opening up and the boat was in A1 condition and it was daylight and they had not yet eaten or drunk and then hit a submerged object causing the boat to flip and the passenger died of hypothermia whilst wearing a lifejacket, would that be manslaughter?

No, that's an accident. Manslaughter is causing the death of another through recklessness or gross negligence. Both contributed to the death in this case.

 

[Tomahawk]

So it was an accident where other circumstances allow someone to do the pointy finger bit.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

The 'pointy finger' bit is always there in English law and has been for a 1000 years. Everyone is always responsible for the consequences of their actions or omissions - tort law.

It only becomes a criminal case of manslaughter through either overwhelming recklessness or gross negligence.

 

[JumbleDuck]

So if he had gone through the Woolwich Barrier before opening up and the boat was in A1 condition and it was daylight and they had not yet eaten or drunk and then hit a submerged object causing the boat to flip and the passenger died of hypothermia whilst wearing a lifejacket, would that be manslaughter?

No, I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[Solent sailer]

Having done jury service, I am quite sceptical of the reporting of trials.
It's not clear to me whether it's accepted the person who died was on the control at the time.
I do wonder how differently it would have been viewed had it been two lads in a powerboat after a few beers?
I suspect it would have gone down as misadventure?

I've let less experienced people drive my RIB. You sort of trust people not to smack it wide open, much as when you are driving in town.

You hit a log too fast, a speedboat will probably go over it, the outboard leg will hit the log. It goes pearshaped when either the steering isn't held straight or the throttle isn't shut. It's landing with the power on on full lock that flips the boat.

I agree with the above, i think the important bit was he was the "experenced " skipper she was depending on his expertise, if it had been two inexperienced kids it would have an unfortunate accident. Even if it were two experenced skippers both should have equal responsibility but this wasent equal. If she was at the helm then it should have been supervised and the experienced skipper would still be responsible.

 

[lw395]

I agree with the above, i think the important bit was he was the "experenced " skipper she was depending on his expertise, if it had been two inexperienced kids it would have an unfortunate accident. Even if it were two experenced skippers both should have equal responsibility but this wasent equal. If she was at the helm then it should have been supervised and the experienced skipper would still be responsible.

How experienced do you have to be to be an 'experienced skipper'?
I don't think the bloke here was a YM or charging for his services.

I don't doubt that this guy was a dodgy character and all that, but where do you draw the lines?

Let's imagin a scenario.
Person owning a RIB goes for a ride with another adult. They've both had maybe a couple of pints. Owner drives a bit over the speed limit, but no problems other than a bit of noise and wash. Other adult takes the helm and despite the owner saying 'just give it about half throttle' crams it wide open, then panics.
Hits solid object etc.
How far have any of us been towards that scenario?

The comments on this thread are an interesting constrast to the abuse I got when I suggested a qualified YM might have faced questions when some unqualified people got killed on Cheeki Rafiki, had he not also persihed.

 

[Tranona]

So it was an accident where other circumstances allow someone to do the pointy finger bit.

It was an event where the facts passed the legal tests for manslaughter. You can't make statements like yours. The court deals with facts and assesses them against what the law says. The tests for an "accident" or misadventure are different from those for negligence or manslaughter.

It is absolutely pointless saying if the circumstances and facts were different the verdict would be different - of course it would. That is the whole point of bringing the case - to determine if a criminal act took place in this SPECIFIC case. The jury agreed. It is of course open to the defendant to appeal if he thinks not all the facts were revealed or the law was not followed, but guess this is unlikely given the overwhelming evidence and his behaviour subsequent to being charged.

 

[Uricanejack]

I almost always argue against prosecution.
I believe very strongly accidents are not prevented by prosecutions or law suits. Very little use full information comes from a guilty verdict.
I don't know the facts of this case. One significant fact or allegation the jury probably decided was a fact.
Two bottles of wine.
I have no objection to drink drivers being prosecuted and sentenced severely.

My controversial opinion, I believe the criminal action is operating the boat after drinking. The unfortunate fact someone lost their life as a result. In my opinion, is not relevant to the original negligent act of operation of the boat at excess speed at night while under the influence of alcohol. I take it English law does not agree.

Just my opinion. The drunk driver who makes it home unharmed and the drunk driver who kills someone is luck. Both committed the same offence and should receive a similar sentence. The law, Juries and Judges no doubt disagree.

A lynching suggests a mob action without a fair trail. This particular Cad. Chose not to turn up for his trial which may or may not have affected the outcome. His action and His Choice. Not the courts. No point crying about it now.

Proving negligence is a pretty tough test. A bit surprised he was not charged with an offence regarding operation of the boat while under the influence of alcohol.

If I believed he was under the influence of alcohol, I would vote for a guilty verdict. Regardless of the rest of the facts.

Maybe. English law should change?

 

[Seajet]

Having done jury service, I am quite sceptical of the reporting of trials.
It's not clear to me whether it's accepted the person who died was on the control at the time.
I do wonder how differently it would have been viewed had it been two lads in a powerboat after a few beers?
I suspect it would have gone down as misadventure?

I've let less experienced people drive my RIB. You sort of trust people not to smack it wide open, much as when you are driving in town.

You hit a log too fast, a speedboat will probably go over it, the outboard leg will hit the log. It goes pearshaped when either the steering isn't held straight or the throttle isn't shut. It's landing with the power on on full lock that flips the boat.

A friend of mine did this solo in a heavy 9' dinghy with a 4hp outboard - the prop hit something - he was new to the area - twisted the engine tiller and over it went.

As I say he as alone, in daylight also wearing a LJ and sobre, but in fact was quite hanging on for quite a while before the yellow bottom of the boat was spotted and he was rescued.

I took an inexperienced lady friend out for a daysail recently, gave her an auto lifejacket, briefing on how it worked and a quick briefing on the boat engine, fire extinguishers, sheets, anchor in locker and VHF before we set off - some would say a turn off but an intelligent lady seemed to appreciate it - and I do take my skipper's position seriously.

Also it helps people to enjoy things a lot more if they don't feel completely clueless.

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 ?

 

[duncan99210]

Ive been looking at this and can’t quite get my head round the idea that there is any real defence for this man’s actions. He had drunk a fair quantity of alcohol, took a passenger out at night in a somewhat dodgy speedboat, exceeded the speed limit on the river and then compounded all of the above by handing over the controls to a totally inexperienced person. If he hadn’t killed the woman by the combination of his actions then he would still have been liable to prosecution for speeding and drinking. That he has subsequently compounded his actions by running away simply reinforces the fact that he was in the wrong.

 

[RichardS]

Just my opinion. The drunk driver who makes it home unharmed and the drunk driver who kills someone is luck. Both committed the same offence and should receive a similar sentence. The law, Juries and Judges no doubt disagree.

I think that the problem is that the definition of a "drunk driver" is an extremely arbitrary one so account has to be taken of the actual results of driving over the arbitrary alcohol limit. There are many drivers who are still much better drivers when they are technically over the drink driving limit than other drivers who are stone cold sober. I can understand why a "drunk driver" who kills someone should be treated more harshly than a sober driver who kills someone but treating a "drunk driver" who is driving perfectly safely (although admittedly not as safely as they could if they were not drinking or not exhausted etc etc) as harshly as a driver who kills someone because of their dangerous driving, whether sober or not, would be grossly unfair.

Of course, I also enjoy a tipple.

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

IJust my opinion. The drunk driver who makes it home unharmed and the drunk driver who kills someone is luck. Both committed the same offence and should receive a similar sentence. The law, Juries and Judges no doubt disagree.

Generally speaking, the Law agrees with you. Culpability and punishment depend on what you did, not on any unforeseeable consequences of it. So, for example, when Gary Hart fell asleep, veered off the M62 and landed on the East Coast Main Line, his five year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was not increased because of the number of people (ten) who died. He could have foreseen that driving in his state of tiredness would cause an accident, but he couldn't have foreseen that his car would end up on the railway line just in time to be hit by one train which was just in time to be hit by another.

I completely agree with you that drunk driving should be a very serious offence, and would point out that you don't have to kill someone, or even have an accident, to be convicted of it.

 

[RichardS]

Generally speaking, the Law agrees with you. Culpability and punishment depend on what you did, not on any unforeseeable consequences of it. So, for example, when Gary Hart fell asleep, veered off the M62 and landed on the East Coast Main Line, his five year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was not increased because of the number of people (ten) who died. He could have foreseen that driving in his state of tiredness would cause an accident, but he couldn't have foreseen that his car would end up on the railway line just in time to be hit by one train which was just in time to be hit by another.

I completely agree with you that drunk driving should be a very serious offence, and would point out that you don't have to kill someone, or even have an accident, to be convicted of it.

I don't see how the Gary Hart case is relevant?

He was prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving. Had he made exactly the same driving error and crashed onto the railway line but a train had not driven into him and no-one had been killed, he would not have been prosecuted for death by dangerous driving.

Under UJ's proposal, there would be an equivalence between killing someone and not killing someone and that is not how British law operates as the charge is different, except in very limited circumstances.

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

I don't see how the Gary Hart case is relevant?

He was prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving. Had he made exactly the same driving error and crashed onto the railway line but a train had not driven into him and no-one had been killed, he would not have been prosecuted for death by dangerous driving.

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

The sentence for causing death by dangerous driving (a charged introduced because juries wouldn't convict of manslaughter) is more than just for dangerous driving, but it didn't go up because the consequences of his accident were so catastrophic. In fact five years was fairly modest sentence for the offence: here are the guidelines

Under UJ's proposal, there would be an equivalence between killing someone and not killing someone and that is not how British law operates as the charge is different, except in very limited circumstances.

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.

 

[Tomahawk]

A bit of drift from the OP..

In the Gary Hart case, the police spent a lot of time trying to identify if any other causes could have contributed to the accident. The implication being that steering failure, puncture, or other event could have caused the vehicle to leave the motorway and go down the embankment.

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.

If course, this was not bought up in court as the prosecution carried out a character assination to get a heavy sentance. I suspect there is a lot of the same here.

 

[savageseadog]

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.