Ouzo - not guilty on all charges.

Not wishing to pass comment on the right or wrong of the outcome, but this bit seems a bit odd -

"A report into Ouzo's disappearance by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch (MAIB), published in April, was not shown to the jury. "

It was published for all to see, so its quite possible that the individuals could have read it in advance anyway /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Yes, I thought that was strange. An expert, unbiased, respected organisation being precluded from providing evidence. Hard to see how the outcome of the trial would not have been different if the MAIB report had been admitted?
 
The outcome doesn't seem right but the problem was hard evidence - no Ouzo, no eyewitnesses, no evidence. I read the MAIB report and it's hard not to believe their opinion, but the standards for a court are different. Don't understand why the report was not used by the prosecution though. You feel for everyone involved but particularly the families of the Ouzo crew.
 
While MAIB reports are thorough and professional inquiries into marine accidents, MAIB itself is at pains to point out that the reports are not intended to apportion blame and are specificatlly not to be used in support of legal action. It is almost certain, however, that the facts of a MAIB report will find their way into the record of a court case via other channels as will any findings and conclusions a report reaches.

The reason MAIB takes this position is that it wants to encourage people to come forward and discuss accidents openly and freely, without fear of reprisals, for the greater good of seamen in general
 
I believe that the report was produced on the basis that it could not be used as evidence - if it were to be used as evidence then the investigators would have to have been far more circumspect in there findings and would probably not be able to make the recommendations that they did.
 
Given the circumstances, it was always going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he displayed such a gross level of negligence that it amounted to manslaughter. He may have been sufficently negligent to warrant putting an end to his career, but there, but for the grace of God goes many a reasonably competent seaman who wasn't quite as unlucky in the way a load of little deficiencies stacked up.

So many tragedies are caused by a whole lot of individually insignificant things - equipment failures and human errors - lining up the wrong way.
 
I am not happy with the way this has ended. The jury failed to agree, and the judge recorded not guilty verdicts. I think this means that even if new evidence is found there can be no re-trial. I am glad I do not sail in the English Channel, and am concerned that the message from this trial is that it is OK for a big ship to carry on after a very close encounter with a smaller vessel (so close that they may not even be sure whether they have hit it) without making certain that the crew of the smaller vessel are safe.
 
Unless the MAIB have a statutory exemption then I cannot see how evidence garnered by them can be kept out of Court
if either the defence or the prosecution requests it.The judge could rule the MAIB report or parts of it inadmissable and therefore it would not be put before the jury.I have not followed the case in any detail so I don't know what happened re the MAIB report.
 
There is nothing to stop a private prosecution. With the reduced standard of evidence - "balance of probabilities" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt" - I wonder if the outcome would be different?
 
One cannot help thinking that some of the questions may only be answered if the wreck of Ouzo is found, though we are in needle ands haystack territory.

Its a sad affair all round really.

Tim
 
Not sure. Can a private prosecution be brought for the same offence that has seen aquittal already? I think the judge's verdict on the charges where the jury failed to agree has ruled out re-trial, even by private prosecution.
The judge and the CPS presumably have reasons for ruling out a re-trial, it is just that I do not know what they are, and with the possibility of new evidence if the Ouzo wreck is ever found it might be a considered premature decision.

Maybe an action for damages against P & O might succeed, particularly if the Wreck of the Ouzo is found and supports the findings of the MAIB report.
 
A disgusting outcome. The man should at least lose his ticket and save us all from worry.

Hopefully no self respecting Shipping Company will ever employ thos joker again, at least in proximity to UK.
 
As a motorboater, who has been across the channel a few times and crossed those very shipping lanes, can I ask a fairly simple, but perhaps a slightly controversial question?

As I understand it , the Ouzo was bound for the West country. Would one planning that trip at night, take a track so far south of St Cats. point and not turn West sooner to run more parallel to the western shipping lane?

I would have thought the tidal flow would have been in their favour, particularly as they went so early.

Please excuse me if I have missed something very obvious.

Stuart
 
This is from the HSE pages but the principle is the same whether the originas be private or the Crown.


"A person may not be tried for a crime for which s/he has previously been acquitted or convicted, or in respect of which s/he could, on the same previous indictment / summons have been lawfully convicted, where the offence charged in the second indictment / summons was committed at the time of the first charge 1. This means that the principle is strictly applicable only where the same offence in fact and in law is alleged in the second indictment 2. In this situation the defendant enters a plea of 'autrefois acquit' (if s/he was acquitted in the first prosecution) or 'autrefois convict' (if s/he was convicted). If the court rules that the plea is correct, the indictment or charge is invalid and is dismissed.
However, where a person is prosecuted for an offence arising out of the same or substantially the same facts as a previous prosecution, this is not an example of the doctrine of autrefois, which gives the accused an absolute right to relief, but may be an abuse of process which entitles a judge to exercise his/her discretion to stay the proceedings. That discretion should be exercised in favour of an accused unless the prosecution establishes that there are special circumstances particular to the case for not doing so. 3
The circumstances that could be considered as arising out of substantially the same facts may be relatively broad. A prosecution brought by both the HSE and the Environment Agency for unsafe asbestos removal and un-licensed removal/disposal of the asbestos respectively would probably need to be taken jointly to avoid a successful application to stay proceedings on the ground of abuse of process.
There was, for example, an abuse of process when the CPS prosecuted a person for manslaughter in circumstances where he had already been prosecuted by the HSE for health and safety offences in relation to a defective gas installation that caused a fatality. 4 The Court of Appeal in Beedie considered that, in the absence of special circumstances, the second prosecution should be halted. The public interest in a manslaughter prosecution and the concerns of the victim's family did not give rise to special circumstances"
 
Thanks for the clarification James, which I understand.

However, there is an assumption that the jury will not have seen the MAIB report even though it was put into the public domain.

Some of them might have read it in advance of finding themselves on the jury - others could have easily looked it up in the spare time during the trial.
 
My understanding is that a private prosecution would still be a criminal case and beyond reasonable doubt would still apply.

I suspect you are thinking of a civil case where balance of probability is the test but that would be for damages and I suspect would be brought against P&O rather than the individual.

The MAIB specifically exclude the use of their reports from use in legal proceedings. As James says, if they didn't they would never be able to get people to co-operate with the production of the report. Further much of what they find is from conversations with those involved and if presented by the MAIB would be ruled out as hearsay. They cannot, I believe, take statements under caution in the way the police do.

My view, for what it may be worth, is that the verdict on manslaughter is just. There is no evidence that the boat that they avoided was Ouzo, There is no evidence that even if it was Ouzo the crew were still on board. There is the possibility that the Ouzo was run down bu the undermanned tanker. There is no evidence that even if the boat PoB avoided was Ouzo and was crewed, that it was damaged in any way.

I cannot see that anyone could convict with so many questions of fact.

I don't know about the lesser charges but difficult to say he was negligent a bit without being negligent enough when you have already said he wasn't negligent enough to have caused the deaths.

There a lots of questions raised by this tragedy - such as the effectiveness of radar watch, and how fast should vessels be sailing in limited visibility.

Since most ferries and merchant ships follow reasonably predictable routes should leisure boats take this into account in passage planning - particularly at night and in reduced visibility.

Without wishing to reopen past arguments should there be some consideration to the lights carried by small boats at night and in poor visibility.

many others too I suppose.

Last thought - despite being found not guilty I suspect that at his age and with this still hanging over him I suspect he has little chance of further employment as a ships officer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

D
Dyneema ain’t all that.
2 3
Replies
50
Views
1K
Dogone
D

Share this page

Top