Lynch mob justice?

[RichardS]

+1

Well said - I tried to explain that earlier. Pity the thread has wandered away from the central issue that was raised in the original question as most of the discussion about car crashes is completely irrelevant. The case is solely about whether his actions based on the evidence met the test for manslaughter.

The discussion started by Uricanejack has actually been about the balance of punishment between those who take a risk and do not cause injury or death and those who take a risk and do cause injury or death. It is absolutely relevant to this case.

Richard

 

[Tranona]

Yes, which is why I wrote "No doubt he was guilty but I'm not at all convinced it was because of any kind of status as 'captain' of the boat.".

No different from calling the person in charge of a car "driver". I know "captain" has a particular meaning in some circumstances, but in this case it is just a general word to indicate he was in charge of the boat. You would only need to define his role precisely if the case was brought under the MSA as that would define his responsibilities.

It is a pity the "boat" side of this has assumed such a level of importance in this discussion although perhaps not surprising as it is a boaty forum. Remember the original question was asking if the circumstances as evidenced were enough to convict.

 

[Tranona]

The discussion started by Uricanejack has actually been about the balance of punishment between those who take a risk and do not cause injury or death and those who take a risk and do cause injury or death. It is absolutely relevant to this case.

Richard

But that is a discussion he wants to have and not the question raised in the original post. You can hypothesise about all sorts of different scenarios, but they don't have any bearing on this one. What happened happened and the court considers the evidence against the applicable laws.

 

[RichardS]

I took the question raised in the OP to be about all the factors relating to the accident referred to in the linked article and the relevance of those factors to the tragedy. The element of risk-taking by the speedboat driver shines through the entire article ..... and therefore must be relevant to what happened, or didn't happen, both at the the time of the accident and, later, in court.

Richard

 

[Tranona]

I took the question raised in the OP to be about all the factors relating to the accident referred to in the linked article and the relevance of those factors to the tragedy. The element of risk-taking by the speedboat driver shines through the entire article ..... and therefore must be relevant to what happened, or didn't happen, both at the the time of the accident and, later, in court.

Richard

Correct, but still don't see the relevance of speculating what punishment he might have got if the death had not occurred. However, I did post about that earlier. He could have been charged for exceeding the speed limit or for being drunk as there are enforceable laws for both of those offences. However they were not pursued because there was enough evidence for a far more serious criminal charge. No doubt there would have been a problem with evidence for the other charges as well.

 

[Mark-1]

Just a thought; is there any evidence, other than the blokes own statement, that the girl was actually at the helm when the incident occurred?

Good point. The media often report the claims of the prosecution/defence as though they were established fact, maybe the BBC are doing that. It's entirely possible the evidence that she was driving was weak and the jury took the view he was driving. On the other hand there was a fair bit of video evidence so maybe there is mobile phone footage of the collision or even witnesses.

Just re-read the article and it says the defence argued there was no "duty of care", given the 'Neighbour principle' I'm really not sure that defence was ever going to work, again maybe that was just one aspect of the defence and the BBC haven't picked up on better arguments.






Google and wikipedia tell us:

gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:

the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care; (either by statute or by the neighbour principle[8])
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law

The neighbour principle: "Lord Atkin stated his famous “neighbour principle” test as a device to determine when a duty of care is owed. “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."

https://www.cilexlawschool.ac.uk/as...and SPs 2016/HQ13 Law of Tort Sample 2016.pdf

 

[Tranona]

Good point. The media often report the claims of the prosecution/defence as though they were established fact, maybe the BBC are doing that. It's entirely possible the evidence that she was driving was weak and the jury took the view he was driving. On the other hand there was a fair bit of video evidence so maybe there is mobile phone footage of the collision or even witnesses.

Just re-read the article and it says the defence argued there was no "duty of care", given the 'Neighbour principle' I'm really not sure that defence was ever going to work, again maybe that was just one aspect of the defence and the BBC haven't picked up on better arguments.

That is the underlying problem of basing an argument on what is in the media reports. No doubt they try to identify the key factors that resulted in the verdict but there is always the temptation to dwell on the sensational bits. This case had more than enough of these which is perhaps why by concentrating on them one might get the impression that he was being victimised - "lynched" as in the original post.

The only way to get at the key evidence is to read the transcript or at the very least the judge's summing up.

 

[Uricanejack]

But that is a discussion he wants to have and not the question raised in the original post. You can hypothesise about all sorts of different scenarios, but they don't have any bearing on this one. What happened happened and the court considers the evidence against the applicable laws.

I accept all your points as correct.
My view is out of step with the law and societies expectation of how the law is applied.

The OP an title of the thread suggest a miscarriage of justice. Or Lynching a lack of justice. The OP suggestion appears to be the conviction is the result of public opinion rather than the law. Along with other suggestions from other post suggesting if it were two lads. Rather than a young girl on a date.
Gross negligence is a very tough test. Manslaughter is a very serious charge. He was convicted. The thread is about the "Justice" in this particular conviction. I know its often said the law and justice are two different things.

In this case the Law was served. I would have agreed with the verdict. rightly or wrongly because I believed he had drunk at least a bottle of wine, gotten in the boat, operated the boat, under the influence of alcohol. He was grossly negligent. Clearly the jury believed he was grossly negligent. Poor condition of the boat, Speeding, Impaired. = Grossly Negligent = Guilty.

My point is not legal, at least its not how the law is applied. Its about Justice. I doubt if he intended any harm. He did however consciously drink drive and speed in a shoddy boat.

To some extent, even though I believe he is guilty, I agree the scales of justice might not be balanced, not to the extent I would call it a Lynching.

 

[chrishscorp]

I listened to the Jeremy Vine show today on Radio 2 and they had the parents of this poor girl on, speaking about what happened that night the trial and the changes they would like to see brought in to boating legislation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bclppz

Starts at 34 minutes in

 

[macd]

I listened to the Jeremy Vine show today on Radio 2 and they had the parents of this poor girl on, speaking about what happened that night the trial and the changes they would like to see brought in to boating legislation.

This is a commonplace, predictable and tragically understandable reaction to events of this sort. Fortunately, for the most part lawmakers heed the maxim that "hard cases make bad law". Campaigns based on such events rarely make much headway (unless the tabloids get on board.)

Perhaps a bigger issue in many people's lives is the difficulty of gaining convictions in corporate masluaghter cases, which seems lately to be getting some traction.

 

[Tranona]

My point is not legal, at least its not how the law is applied. Its about Justice. I doubt if he intended any harm. He did however consciously drink drive and speed in a shoddy boat.

To some extent, even though I believe he is guilty, I agree the scales of justice might not be balanced, not to the extent I would call it a Lynching.

If there had been intention then the charge would have been murder, not manslaughter.

As to justice, there are proposals today to revise the guidelines for sentencing for manslaughter as the view is that they are currently too lenient, particularly for negligence as opposed to other forms of manslaughter. This is influenced to an extent by cases such as the up coming trial of the police officer for the Hillsborough disaster.

 

[Tomahawk]

It may be commonplace and predictable.

But even so, I am concerned the BeeB are giving airtime to it. Such a mee-dia campaign is the sort of thing that gets traction.

 

[Tranona]

It may be commonplace and predictable.

But even so, I am concerned the BeeB are giving airtime to it. Such a mee-dia campaign is the sort of thing that gets traction.

Doubt it will get anywhere. There are no votes in it.

 

[macd]

It may be commonplace and predictable.

I hope my use of those words didn't imply indifference (the following words should have indicated otherwise), but simply that the bereaved often reach out in ways which have relevance only to the special circumstances of their loss. Of course it's also possible for such reactions do relate to a more widespread concern.

 

[solent clown]

spending hours a day every day on a marina well upstream of the 6kts speed limit - around a mile upstream ans surrounded by other marinas also, the law has zero effect on the behaviour of those who choose to flout it, despite harbourmaster and police patrols. Speedboats and jetskis piloted by those who dont care just do what they want. Any new law would need a lot of registration and enforcement the GOVT simply would have trouble finding the money/willstaff for anyway. Unless we end up with Capita speed cops on the river We are still considering water cannon!

 

[Tranona]

spending hours a day every day on a marina well upstream of the 6kts speed limit - around a mile upstream ans surrounded by other marinas also, the law has zero effect on the behaviour of those who choose to flout it, despite harbourmaster and police patrols. Speedboats and jetskis piloted by those who dont care just do what they want. Any new law would need a lot of registration and enforcement the GOVT simply would have trouble finding the money/willstaff for anyway. Unless we end up with Capita speed cops on the river We are still considering water cannon!

Just like the roads - despite all the legislation and enforcement. 28000 driving/road offences in Dorset alone last year - and that only the ones that result in a penalty.

 

[RichardS]

Just like the roads - despite all the legislation and enforcement. 28000 driving/road offences in Dorset alone last year - and that only the ones that result in a penalty.

Roads? Did I hear roads? Pity the thread has wandered away from the central issue that was raised in the original question as most of the discussion about car crashes is completely irrelevant.

Richard

 

[Tranona]

Roads? Did I hear roads? Pity the thread has wandered away from the central issue that was raised in the original question as most of the discussion about car crashes is completely irrelevant.

Richard

Directly relevant to the issue raised about legislation and what the family said in the interview on the radio. They specifically said that they wanted to see legislation brought in for boats like there is for cars. Also suggested the same legislation for commercial vessels should apply to private vessels.

Somehow they thought this would prevent other families going through the same unhappy time that they had.

So, keep up with where the debate about justice (the original question) in this case is going.

 

[RichardS]

So, keep up with where the debate about justice (the original question) in this case is going.

Exactly so. Welcome to the club. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[chrishscorp]

Directly relevant to the issue raised about legislation and what the family said in the interview on the radio. They specifically said that they wanted to see legislation brought in for boats like there is for cars. Also suggested the same legislation for commercial vessels should apply to private vessels.

Somehow they thought this would prevent other families going through the same unhappy time that they had.

So, keep up with where the debate about justice (the original question) in this case is going.

The family said in the interview that one of the reasons this had taken so long to go to court was the lack of legislation that covers this sort of activity, as Tranona said they thought that the legislation brought in after the Marchioness tragedy should have been applied to private vessels.

As Solent Clown has said many of those on jetskis, pwc and small speedboats do seem to do what they want with little regard for other water users or the bylaws in force on rivers or harbours