Man faces two charges following death

Cornishman

Cornishman

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Jul 2002
Messages
6,402
Location
Cornwall
Visit site
A man has been charged under Colregs and the Merchant Shipping Act after a fatal accident in the Fal Estuary last July. He will appear before Truro Magistrates in February.

One man died when the boat he was in was in collision with another off St Mawes.
 
Allegedly, a speedboat went over the top of a dory. The man who was killed was in the dory. It now appears that the speedboat driver has not yet been charged with the offences but has been summonsed to appear before the magistrates in Truro on the 10th of February. The police say that because he has not been charged there is no question of bail and that the summons was sent by letter for the speedboat driver to answer the allegations.
A joint investigation was carried out by MAIA and the police.
 
Hope he goes to jail.

I hope he goes to prison for a good long time, and I hope that news of his sentence is in the national headlines.

I have been horrified by the many occasions when one sees people driving speedboats and RIBs in twilight and near dark conditions at very high speeds, when they are patently unable to see other small craft.
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

Does depend a bit on whether there were any lights shown. It doen't absolve the need to take reasonable care though.
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

From photos of the dory, it would appear that it was hit by the speedboat on it's starboard side. What is not known publicly yet is whether either or both were showing navigation lights. The evidence given in court will, I hope, bring out the full story. If both were under way, the dory would, from the photos, have been the "give way" vessel!

In the meantime, the statement: "I hope he goes to prison for a good long time, and I hope that news of his sentence is in the national headlines." is, to say the least, rather premature.

Bob Tyler
 
Not yet charged. It looks as if the authorities are making sure that if they do bring charges, they get the correct ones and make them stick. (Unlike the cock-up with the jetskier)
As for the dory being the give way vessel because it was hit on the starboard side, that would depend on whether the speedboat was actually an overtaking vessel, and therefore bound to give way. The other obvious issue is one of speed in poor light. The authorities seem to be taking a careful look at the evidence before deciding on any charges, and I think we should applaud that stance, and not rush to judgement.
 
well said norman. that`s the second eminently sensible post you`ve done in this field recently. i`m glad to see that rhinorhino`s legal posts are bearing fruit.
must now set him to work on mirelle /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

[ QUOTE ]
If both were under way, the dory would, from the photos, have been the "give way" vessel!


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any photos - was the dory a power-driven vessel?
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

I believe that it was power driven but do not know if it was under way. If so I agree with you and the point I was making was that it appeared to me to be the "give way" vessel.
 
" A man has been charged under Colregs and the Merchant Shipping Act after a fatal accident in the Fal Estuary last July. He will appear before Truro Magistrates in February."

"It now appears that the speedboat driver has not yet been charged with the offences but has been summonsed to appear before the magistrates in Truro on the 10th of February."

Confused

Has he been charged or not

Presumably there must be some charge for him to answer if a summons has been issued

But is it a breach of col regs or manslaughter?

or

A small fine or life inside

All seems very unclear
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

Bob,

If the dory was "give way", then I suspect they'll also look at "failure to maintain lookout' and possible non-compliance with lighting regs. The blame could be portioned between the two "masters." What, if any, certification is required in the UK to 'drive' a boat? They've been gradually instating the requirement for a 'Pleasure craft operator's certificate' in Canada. It's actually dead simple to get, but at least ensures that the boat operator has a minimal competence. This doesn't seem to stop some from committing acts of stupidity, and of course our dear neighbours to the South have no such requirement, so half the boats cruising around here follow the "more money than brains" model.


Kevin
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

"What, if any, certification is required in the UK to 'drive' a boat?"

Without wanting to start another very long posting on this subject, the answer is "none at all."
 
Many offences can be dealt with either by way of a summons (letter in the post saying please come to court etc..) or by charge (arrest followed by bail or remand in custody etc).
In either case you stand accused of the offence, it is just the mechanism of getting you before the court that differs.
In this case the defendant has been formally accused of an offence, it would seem.
The confusion arises from the word charged having two meanings in this context.
If the matter has been dealt with by way of summons it strongly suggests that the case is considerd a minor one.
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

Very harsh!! They were apparently best of friends, unfortunately accidents do happen. Does there always have to be someone to take the blame?
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

You're right that the earlier comment was harsh. Particularly as it was made without the result of an enquiry.

However, accidents rarely just "happen"; they are usually caused by something or someone. For that reason it seems right that a full investigation takes place. If that means that somebody ends up taking the blame then so be it. The alternative, by implication, is that if we kill a good friend it's OK because we obviously didn't intend to do it............I don't think that anyone would support that.

If it was his fault, it must be very tough on the guy concerned, but he still needs to be held accountable, or vindicated.
 
Re: Hope he goes to jail.

There are never any winners in a case like this. The guy who did it has probably had a hell of a time as a result. The guy who was killed hasn't come any better out of it - errr, hasn't come out of it at all.

The courts aren't going to wind the clock back and make everything OK.

Sending the guy to prison is only useful if it (a) makes others stop and think (I doubt it); (b) stops him from doing it a second time (but if he's a normal human being he probably won't want to go near a motorboat again anyway except perhaps in broad daylight at not more than 2 knots) (c) satisfies other people's thirst for revenge. (c) is kind of satisfying for the general public and maybe the dead man's relatives if they're the vindictive sort, but is a bit of an unnecessary luxury if it does no other good than that, and does further [--word removed--] up another life for not much reason.

The other issue is the civil one of damages. The dead man won't benefit from these. The question is whether his relatives should. Logically that should depend on whether or not eg. the guy had three small children who need feeding, or at the other extreme he had not a relative in the world. Rather illogically it'll rather depend instead on who was negligent. Whatever the IRPCS position it's very unlikely that our villain was 100% negligence-free, so he'll end up paying anyway, if he has any money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top