bedouin
Well-Known Member
I doubt if many of us have the sort of jobs where there is any circumstances in which we could commit manslaughter - I know I don't
OUZO.
- Thread starter Rabbie
- Start date
VicS
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the Wakhuna slowed down
[/ QUOTE ]
you are right of course! The report is at http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/nedlloyd%20vespucci%20and%20wahkuna.pdf
the Wakhuna slowed down
[/ QUOTE ]
you are right of course! The report is at http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/nedlloyd%20vespucci%20and%20wahkuna.pdf
aknight
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt if many of us have the sort of jobs where there is any circumstances in which we could commit manslaughter - I know I don't
[/ QUOTE ]
But you don't need to. If you drive a car you can kill someone ridiculously easily with a moment's inattention.
Perhaps more relevant, quite a few people round here take boats out to sea. A proportion of them, including myself, bog things up pretty regularly. Then it's just the luck of the draw whether it's something minor that people can joke about afterwards or something major as a result of which someone for whom I am responsible dies.
Apologies to Graham if I've just lakesailored him.
I doubt if many of us have the sort of jobs where there is any circumstances in which we could commit manslaughter - I know I don't
[/ QUOTE ]
But you don't need to. If you drive a car you can kill someone ridiculously easily with a moment's inattention.
Perhaps more relevant, quite a few people round here take boats out to sea. A proportion of them, including myself, bog things up pretty regularly. Then it's just the luck of the draw whether it's something minor that people can joke about afterwards or something major as a result of which someone for whom I am responsible dies.
Apologies to Graham if I've just lakesailored him.
oldharry
Well-Known Member
<If you drive a car you can kill someone ridiculously easily with a moment's inattention. >
And in all probability get a £200 fine for doing so. But the Police must think they have a fairly strong case to make a gross negligence charge stick in the Ouzo case.
FWIW an error of judgement in my job could see me locked up under 'Duty of Care' legislation - and that could extend to manslaughter in an extreme situation if I failed to act correctly as Carer.
And when I was skippering trip boats there was always the uncomfortable thought that I was directly responsible for the safety of up to 150 people if I made a mistake on the water.
And in all probability get a £200 fine for doing so. But the Police must think they have a fairly strong case to make a gross negligence charge stick in the Ouzo case.
FWIW an error of judgement in my job could see me locked up under 'Duty of Care' legislation - and that could extend to manslaughter in an extreme situation if I failed to act correctly as Carer.
And when I was skippering trip boats there was always the uncomfortable thought that I was directly responsible for the safety of up to 150 people if I made a mistake on the water.
Norman_E
Well-Known Member
The point I was making was not about who was responsible for the Wakhuna accident, but the simple fact that a yacht can be very hard to see from a big ship, particularly a stacked container ship with an aft bridge. It should have been easier from a ferry, but the Ouzo was a small yacht, and might have been hard to spot at night.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't need to. If you drive a car you can kill someone ridiculously easily with a moment's inattention.
Perhaps more relevant, quite a few people round here take boats out to sea. A proportion of them, including myself, bog things up pretty regularly. Then it's just the luck of the draw whether it's something minor that people can joke about afterwards or something major as a result of which someone for whom I am responsible dies.
Apologies to Graham if I've just lakesailored him.
[/ QUOTE ]
An accident caused by a moment's inattention would not be gross negligence - it would be an accident. You are right we all make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes could have serious consequences if we are unlucky.
Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. I have no sympathy for people who drive while drunk and if they kill someone they should be locked up for a very long time.
I identify much more with the crew and families of the Ouzo than the Officer on the ferry IF he is truely guilty. That is truely a case of "there but for the grace of god go I". For those of us who sail small boats we rely on the skill of all others and particularly on the professionalism of those in charge of commercial vessels
But you don't need to. If you drive a car you can kill someone ridiculously easily with a moment's inattention.
Perhaps more relevant, quite a few people round here take boats out to sea. A proportion of them, including myself, bog things up pretty regularly. Then it's just the luck of the draw whether it's something minor that people can joke about afterwards or something major as a result of which someone for whom I am responsible dies.
Apologies to Graham if I've just lakesailored him.
[/ QUOTE ]
An accident caused by a moment's inattention would not be gross negligence - it would be an accident. You are right we all make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes could have serious consequences if we are unlucky.
Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. I have no sympathy for people who drive while drunk and if they kill someone they should be locked up for a very long time.
I identify much more with the crew and families of the Ouzo than the Officer on the ferry IF he is truely guilty. That is truely a case of "there but for the grace of god go I". For those of us who sail small boats we rely on the skill of all others and particularly on the professionalism of those in charge of commercial vessels
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Agree entirely - some of the VLCCs that come down Southampton water have a 'blind spot' of half a mile and sometimes a great deal more ahead of them. But modern ferries like the Pride have very good forward visibility, and unless Ouzo was doing something very stupid, Pride should have had ample time to take appropriate action.
Has anyone heard any more of the recent spate of deliberate 'near misses' by Wightlink Ferries on yachts, QHM had a quiet word with them, or are they just behaving better since MCA revoked their safety certificates briefly for not reporting 2 minor engine room fires.
Has anyone heard any more of the recent spate of deliberate 'near misses' by Wightlink Ferries on yachts, QHM had a quiet word with them, or are they just behaving better since MCA revoked their safety certificates briefly for not reporting 2 minor engine room fires.
Oen
Well-Known Member
It might be worth pondering the possibility that the individual concerned has held his hands up to some degree... That, for me, is the possibility that most closely fits all events to date.
VicS
Well-Known Member
I don't know if you have sailed in that area off Bembridge. Most of my sailing has been out of Chichester and we have had one or two anxious times involving ferries in that area. I do not know if the Pride of Bilboa uses the deep water "Nab" channel but our "problems" have been with the ones using the route close to the Bembridge ledge and then in shore of the Princessa shoal. Its the small changes of course they make to go outside one buoy and inside the other that keep you on you toes especially at night. Just as you think it is not heading for you and you relax it alters course and is heading for you.
We are very conscious of the need to keep a good lookout all round in that area, not that I am implying any failure on the part of the Ouzo's crew to do so. We wiill have to wait until the MAIB report is published and the court case is concluded to know what actually happened.
I also remember hearing an argument over the VHF betwen the bridge of a ferry and the brdge of a ship about who had right of way in that area. I dont remember all the details now but the situation was resolved when the master of the ferry came onto the bridge and, without hesitation, offered to slow down and let the other pass.
I thought at the time if a couple of big ships could steam towards each other at full speed arguing about who had right of way what chance did a little yacht stand.
We are very conscious of the need to keep a good lookout all round in that area, not that I am implying any failure on the part of the Ouzo's crew to do so. We wiill have to wait until the MAIB report is published and the court case is concluded to know what actually happened.
I also remember hearing an argument over the VHF betwen the bridge of a ferry and the brdge of a ship about who had right of way in that area. I dont remember all the details now but the situation was resolved when the master of the ferry came onto the bridge and, without hesitation, offered to slow down and let the other pass.
I thought at the time if a couple of big ships could steam towards each other at full speed arguing about who had right of way what chance did a little yacht stand.
aknight
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
An accident caused by a moment's inattention would not be gross negligence - it would be an accident. You are right we all make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes could have serious consequences if we are unlucky.
Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. I have no sympathy for people who drive while drunk and if they kill someone they should be locked up for a very long time.
I identify much more with the crew and families of the Ouzo than the Officer on the ferry IF he is truely guilty. That is truely a case of "there but for the grace of god go I". For those of us who sail small boats we rely on the skill of all others and particularly on the professionalism of those in charge of commercial vessels
[/ QUOTE ]
If you take a look at the CPS website you'll see that gross negligence isn't quite the way you describe it. To quote them: "If a breach of the duty of care by the accused has occurred, and it is established that death of the deceased was caused by that breach, it is necessary to establish whether the breach was so great as to be classified a gross negligence. The main consideration is the extent to which the accused’s conduct departed from the standard expected of any reasonable person in that position."
What you describe is, I believe, described by criminal lawyers as 'recklessness'. Recklessness could be grounds for asserting gross negligence but so also could a genuine mistake, if it was one that the court considered to be beyond that which a reasonable person would commit.
My point was that all of us can and do make mistakes in and out of the workplace, including when we are out sailing, and that those mistakes can kill. Not all those mistakes are the result of recklessness.
As the case proceeds, we will all find out what this chap is supposed to have done that constituted ''gross negligence'. You shouldn't assume that the allegation will say that he was piling around the high seas not giving a toss for anyone in his path, deseritng the bridge, or doing anything else of that magnitude. That's possible, but there are other far less heinous possibilities too.
None of which in any detracts from my sympathy for the victims on board Ouzo.
An accident caused by a moment's inattention would not be gross negligence - it would be an accident. You are right we all make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes could have serious consequences if we are unlucky.
Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. I have no sympathy for people who drive while drunk and if they kill someone they should be locked up for a very long time.
I identify much more with the crew and families of the Ouzo than the Officer on the ferry IF he is truely guilty. That is truely a case of "there but for the grace of god go I". For those of us who sail small boats we rely on the skill of all others and particularly on the professionalism of those in charge of commercial vessels
[/ QUOTE ]
If you take a look at the CPS website you'll see that gross negligence isn't quite the way you describe it. To quote them: "If a breach of the duty of care by the accused has occurred, and it is established that death of the deceased was caused by that breach, it is necessary to establish whether the breach was so great as to be classified a gross negligence. The main consideration is the extent to which the accused’s conduct departed from the standard expected of any reasonable person in that position."
What you describe is, I believe, described by criminal lawyers as 'recklessness'. Recklessness could be grounds for asserting gross negligence but so also could a genuine mistake, if it was one that the court considered to be beyond that which a reasonable person would commit.
My point was that all of us can and do make mistakes in and out of the workplace, including when we are out sailing, and that those mistakes can kill. Not all those mistakes are the result of recklessness.
As the case proceeds, we will all find out what this chap is supposed to have done that constituted ''gross negligence'. You shouldn't assume that the allegation will say that he was piling around the high seas not giving a toss for anyone in his path, deseritng the bridge, or doing anything else of that magnitude. That's possible, but there are other far less heinous possibilities too.
None of which in any detracts from my sympathy for the victims on board Ouzo.
Davydine
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. I have no sympathy for people who drive while drunk and if they kill someone they should be locked up for a very long time.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, True, but sadly the papers are full of drunk drivers who kill and are given, what seem, very lenient sentences or even fines. Doesn't seem fair.
Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. I have no sympathy for people who drive while drunk and if they kill someone they should be locked up for a very long time.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, True, but sadly the papers are full of drunk drivers who kill and are given, what seem, very lenient sentences or even fines. Doesn't seem fair.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If you take a look at the CPS website you'll see that gross negligence isn't quite the way you describe it. To quote them: "If a breach of the duty of care by the accused has occurred, and it is established that death of the deceased was caused by that breach, it is necessary to establish whether the breach was so great as to be classified a gross negligence. The main consideration is the extent to which the accused’s conduct departed from the standard expected of any reasonable person in that position."
What you describe is, I believe, described by criminal lawyers as 'recklessness'. Recklessness could be grounds for asserting gross negligence but so also could a genuine mistake, if it was one that the court considered to be beyond that which a reasonable person would commit.
My point was that all of us can and do make mistakes in and out of the workplace, including when we are out sailing, and that those mistakes can kill. Not all those mistakes are the result of recklessness.
As the case proceeds, we will all find out what this chap is supposed to have done that constituted ''gross negligence'. You shouldn't assume that the allegation will say that he was piling around the high seas not giving a toss for anyone in his path, deseritng the bridge, or doing anything else of that magnitude. That's possible, but there are other far less heinous possibilities too.
None of which in any detracts from my sympathy for the victims on board Ouzo.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't define gross negligence - just pointed out that it is a lot more than momentary inattention and carelessness - which the link you post confirms.
I'm not condemning this chap yet because I don't know what happened and I am concerned that he may be being made a scapegoat - but if he is proved to be guilty I will have absolutely no sympathy for him.
If you take a look at the CPS website you'll see that gross negligence isn't quite the way you describe it. To quote them: "If a breach of the duty of care by the accused has occurred, and it is established that death of the deceased was caused by that breach, it is necessary to establish whether the breach was so great as to be classified a gross negligence. The main consideration is the extent to which the accused’s conduct departed from the standard expected of any reasonable person in that position."
What you describe is, I believe, described by criminal lawyers as 'recklessness'. Recklessness could be grounds for asserting gross negligence but so also could a genuine mistake, if it was one that the court considered to be beyond that which a reasonable person would commit.
My point was that all of us can and do make mistakes in and out of the workplace, including when we are out sailing, and that those mistakes can kill. Not all those mistakes are the result of recklessness.
As the case proceeds, we will all find out what this chap is supposed to have done that constituted ''gross negligence'. You shouldn't assume that the allegation will say that he was piling around the high seas not giving a toss for anyone in his path, deseritng the bridge, or doing anything else of that magnitude. That's possible, but there are other far less heinous possibilities too.
None of which in any detracts from my sympathy for the victims on board Ouzo.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't define gross negligence - just pointed out that it is a lot more than momentary inattention and carelessness - which the link you post confirms.
I'm not condemning this chap yet because I don't know what happened and I am concerned that he may be being made a scapegoat - but if he is proved to be guilty I will have absolutely no sympathy for him.
Norman_E
Well-Known Member
I agree that a ferry should have good forward vision, but in the dark a small yacht can be easily missed because of something as simple as failed navigation light bulb. If there are not enough time slots for everyone to have AIS transmitters, then I would not be comfortable sailing in the dark without an active radar reflector to give me a better chance of being "seen".
I feel very sorry for all the parties involved in the Ouzo tragedy. If anything good is to come from this it may be a greater realisation that yachts can be hard to see, and that if we sail at night we need to ensure that our own yachts maximise their radar signatures, and their night time visibility.
I feel very sorry for all the parties involved in the Ouzo tragedy. If anything good is to come from this it may be a greater realisation that yachts can be hard to see, and that if we sail at night we need to ensure that our own yachts maximise their radar signatures, and their night time visibility.
aknight
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't define gross negligence - just pointed out that it is a lot more than momentary inattention and carelessness - which the link you post confirms.
I'm not condemning this chap yet because I don't know what happened and I am concerned that he may be being made a scapegoat - but if he is proved to be guilty I will have absolutely no sympathy for him.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you did define it: you defined it as folllows: "Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. " And that is well wide of the true definiton as the CPS makes clear.
The point being that you do the P&O chap a disfavour becuase until the full nature of the assertions is known, you have not the slightest idea (and nor have I) whether they amount to an accusation that he "deliberately did something he knew very well would endanger", to use your language. Specifically you do him the disservice of labelling him with a potentially far more heinous accusation that may in fact turn out to be the case. The assertion may just as well be that he made a mistake - a very bad one perhaps, but still a mistake and not an act of deliberate endangerment. There is very significant range of possibilities between those extremes.
I didn't define gross negligence - just pointed out that it is a lot more than momentary inattention and carelessness - which the link you post confirms.
I'm not condemning this chap yet because I don't know what happened and I am concerned that he may be being made a scapegoat - but if he is proved to be guilty I will have absolutely no sympathy for him.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you did define it: you defined it as folllows: "Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. " And that is well wide of the true definiton as the CPS makes clear.
The point being that you do the P&O chap a disfavour becuase until the full nature of the assertions is known, you have not the slightest idea (and nor have I) whether they amount to an accusation that he "deliberately did something he knew very well would endanger", to use your language. Specifically you do him the disservice of labelling him with a potentially far more heinous accusation that may in fact turn out to be the case. The assertion may just as well be that he made a mistake - a very bad one perhaps, but still a mistake and not an act of deliberate endangerment. There is very significant range of possibilities between those extremes.
doris
Well-Known Member
Spot on Vic. Ouzo was a local boat so must have been aware of the possibility of a ferry using that channel.
I was out that day and the following, both well lumpy, and the Ouzo was a very small boat. I doubt that it would have been easily visible visually and, in that sea state, the radar image would get very mixed up in the sea clutter. A case of might is right so keep out of the way.
I hope the authorities have a very good case, prepared by experience seamen, rather than a few jobsworths ticking off boxes. If the latter then as Searush says, another life ruined.
I was out that day and the following, both well lumpy, and the Ouzo was a very small boat. I doubt that it would have been easily visible visually and, in that sea state, the radar image would get very mixed up in the sea clutter. A case of might is right so keep out of the way.
I hope the authorities have a very good case, prepared by experience seamen, rather than a few jobsworths ticking off boxes. If the latter then as Searush says, another life ruined.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you did define it: you defined it as folllows: "Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. " And that is well wide of the true definiton as the CPS makes clear.
[/ QUOTE ]
No - that is not a definition, it is a comparison (or even a simile). (hint - the word "similar"). It was not my intention to give a definition. In fact legally drunk driving is a lot less serious than manslaughter due to gross negligence though morally I think it is a reasonable comparison.
I was comparing them from the moral perspective not the legal in the context of the assertion that gross neglience was just making a mistake - or a moment of inattention leading to an accident.
I am quite shocked that there are people who would feel sorry for someone who was guilty (as opposed to charged with) manslaughter through gross negligence - and wondering if they feel the same way about drunk driving
Sorry, but you did define it: you defined it as folllows: "Gross negligence is similar to drunk driving - it is deliberately doing something you know very well will endanger. " And that is well wide of the true definiton as the CPS makes clear.
[/ QUOTE ]
No - that is not a definition, it is a comparison (or even a simile). (hint - the word "similar"). It was not my intention to give a definition. In fact legally drunk driving is a lot less serious than manslaughter due to gross negligence though morally I think it is a reasonable comparison.
I was comparing them from the moral perspective not the legal in the context of the assertion that gross neglience was just making a mistake - or a moment of inattention leading to an accident.
I am quite shocked that there are people who would feel sorry for someone who was guilty (as opposed to charged with) manslaughter through gross negligence - and wondering if they feel the same way about drunk driving
StugeronSteve
Well-Known Member
Until we know all of the facts conjecture is of little value, other than to highlight risks and scenario that we all face and give us chance to avoid similar situations. There has been a thorough enquiry, so presumably sufficient justification has been found for the authorities to consider the matter worthy of trial and given the apparent lack of physical evidence the case must be largely based on statements and evidence given.
It's a horrible situation and we can only hope, that what ever the outcome, justice is done and lessons learned.
Not a response to any post, I just happened to tag onto Bedouin coz he was bottom of the pile.
It's a horrible situation and we can only hope, that what ever the outcome, justice is done and lessons learned.
Not a response to any post, I just happened to tag onto Bedouin coz he was bottom of the pile.
aknight
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
No - that is not a definition, it is a comparison (or even a simile). (hint - the word "similar"). It was not my intention to give a definition. In fact legally drunk driving is a lot less serious than manslaughter due to gross negligence though morally I think it is a reasonable comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no moral comparison. It's not a necessary element of "gross negligence" that you recognise that your act might lead to someone's death. That's the point. Morally, a drunk driver knows that what he is doing could wind up killing hmself or others. Someone accused of "gross negligence" might also know that, as you suggest, but equally he might not. The House of Lords decided this a while back, at the same time as dispensing with the old "Caldwell" test of recklessness, which is what I think you are actually referring to.
[ QUOTE ]
I was comparing them from the moral perspective not the legal in the context of the assertion that gross neglience was just making a mistake - or a moment of inattention leading to an accident.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, as you can hopefully now agree, you can't separate the two perspectives here. You can't assume that 'gross negligence' means any more than a mistake, albeit one with serious consequences. So you can't take a position of moral outrage, because you don't know (and the charge doesn't imply) whether the chap was allegedly reckless or not.
[ QUOTE ]
I am quite shocked that there are people who would feel sorry for someone who was guilty (as opposed to charged with) manslaughter through gross negligence - and wondering if they feel the same way about drunk driving
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, for the reasons stated above, I could feel sorry him depending on what turn out to be the facts. If he just made a bad mistake - which is the essential element, and not the state of mind - then, yes, I do think "There but for the grace of God..." (apologies to Graham again).
No - that is not a definition, it is a comparison (or even a simile). (hint - the word "similar"). It was not my intention to give a definition. In fact legally drunk driving is a lot less serious than manslaughter due to gross negligence though morally I think it is a reasonable comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no moral comparison. It's not a necessary element of "gross negligence" that you recognise that your act might lead to someone's death. That's the point. Morally, a drunk driver knows that what he is doing could wind up killing hmself or others. Someone accused of "gross negligence" might also know that, as you suggest, but equally he might not. The House of Lords decided this a while back, at the same time as dispensing with the old "Caldwell" test of recklessness, which is what I think you are actually referring to.
[ QUOTE ]
I was comparing them from the moral perspective not the legal in the context of the assertion that gross neglience was just making a mistake - or a moment of inattention leading to an accident.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, as you can hopefully now agree, you can't separate the two perspectives here. You can't assume that 'gross negligence' means any more than a mistake, albeit one with serious consequences. So you can't take a position of moral outrage, because you don't know (and the charge doesn't imply) whether the chap was allegedly reckless or not.
[ QUOTE ]
I am quite shocked that there are people who would feel sorry for someone who was guilty (as opposed to charged with) manslaughter through gross negligence - and wondering if they feel the same way about drunk driving
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, for the reasons stated above, I could feel sorry him depending on what turn out to be the facts. If he just made a bad mistake - which is the essential element, and not the state of mind - then, yes, I do think "There but for the grace of God..." (apologies to Graham again).
bedouin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for the reasons stated above, I could feel sorry him depending on what turn out to be the facts. If he just made a bad mistake - which is the essential element, and not the state of mind - then, yes, I do think "There but for the grace of God..." (apologies to Graham again).
[/ QUOTE ]
That really is the crux of things - I don't think that just making a bad mistake counts as gross negligence. However I am really not qualified to debate the point.
However having just had a brief scan of cases where people have been found guilty, there isn't one where I would say "there but for the grace of God..."
Well, for the reasons stated above, I could feel sorry him depending on what turn out to be the facts. If he just made a bad mistake - which is the essential element, and not the state of mind - then, yes, I do think "There but for the grace of God..." (apologies to Graham again).
[/ QUOTE ]
That really is the crux of things - I don't think that just making a bad mistake counts as gross negligence. However I am really not qualified to debate the point.
However having just had a brief scan of cases where people have been found guilty, there isn't one where I would say "there but for the grace of God..."
Oen
Well-Known Member
Following my post above, I see that MBY reports that he entered a 'not guilty' plea, while YM doesn't tell us that there was any pleading.
I wonder which is right?
I wonder which is right?
