Skipper meaningless

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
I see on the MOBO chat 3 boat owners have been charged with manslaughter due to a capsize/sinking.
It seems that the law hangs more on the owner than the skipper. If one of the owners was the designated skipper surely they would have been the only one charged.
A grey area?
 

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
What was I right about it would be a first and I would like to celebrate with my family.
As for the Law does anyone actualy know if they had a designated skipper would he shoulder all the blame?
 
G

Guest

Guest
No, there is no grey area. The question is: who was it that recklessly endangered the victim's life? It could easily be just the owners, just the skipper, or it could be a crew member who did it. It depends on the facts.

For example, if a group hired a mobo for the weekend, appointed one of their own as skipper, and the boat sank because the owner had not screwed the seacocks on properly, then the owner might be done for manslaughter. If on the other hand, one of the crew, without the blessing of the skipper, went haywire and sailed too close to a swimmer for a joke, and accidentally killed him in the process, that crewmember would be guilty of manslaughter. If the skipper told a crewmember to motor over a rock for a laugh, and the crew obeying him sank the boat, then the skipper could be guilty of manslaughter.
 
G

Guest

Guest
and about the other bit of your question: I don't know the facts of the particular case, but if the owners are the ones being prosecuted, it seems unlikely that if a skipper were appointed he would suddenly find himself being criminally prosecuted. In other words, I can't imagine a situation where someone would have been prosecuted for manslaughter where he would escape prosecution just by arguing that he hadn't been formally appointed skipper.

It might affect his civil liability to pay damages for negligence though - it is expected that skippers take responsibility to ensure that certain actions are done on a boat, and he might be liable to pay damages if he negligently failed in his duties. On the other hand, a court might decide that NOT appointing a skipper in itself is a negligent thing to do, and it is just about conceivable that crew members could be liable for failing to do so, if an accident occurred as a result.
 

mirabriani

New member
Joined
17 Mar 2004
Messages
1,219
Location
tite stops your nuts falling off
Visit site
So, if I understand correctly the owner could be guilty
(if he carried out maintenance recklessly)
even if not on board at the time of the accident.

In the instance quoted I would guess all three are charged
in order to have them in court and simplify the proceedings.

I cannot help thinking that this would have been the case
under existing legislation.

Regards Briani
 

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
''''The boat’s co-owners and a former boyfriend of one of the women appeared in court yesterday charged with manslaughter. Ruth Pearson, 39, Janice Ward, 42, and Thomas Prescot, 48, who was responsible for the helm of the vessel that night, deny the charge.''''

This is a quote from the times.

It seems that Thomas Prescot must have been the skipper and the two woman were the owners.

I think I can see now why they were all charged. He might be the skipper but he is under the owners orders if they were on board.

It is not as simple as it looks.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[ QUOTE ]
I think I can see now why they were all charged. He might be the skipper but he is under the owners orders if they were on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am afraid you have misunderstood. Manslaughter has nothing to do with being 'under owners' orders' or whatever. You do not commit manslaughter by proxy or just because of your status. It is a very serious crime - you have to YOURSELF have positively acted recklessly etc. It is not enough that someone else (owner or whoever) acted recklessly and you just happened to have been the skipper at the time.

Obviously in this case, we simply don't know the facts, and why all three are being charged. There are a million possible reasons why they might be. But if you are trying to imply that you can avoid manslaughter charges by not being skipper, then you are wrong. The question of whether a person acted recklessly is a question of fact that will normall have little to do with his title on board.
 

andy_wilson

New member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
2,716
Location
S. Yorkshire / Devon
Visit site
Easy

Check the soggy remains of the ships papers to see who was designated skipper.

If not conclusive, find out who the charterers are (not in this case I guess).

Failing the above, knock on the door of the owner(s).
 

billcowan

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2005
Messages
701
Location
Drumadoon
Visit site
Re: Easy

Mmm, when sailing always stick to the BLUE areas, dont ever sail in the GREY areas, and especially avoid the YELLOW areas. - well on my charts anyway.

Seriously, they will charge any body & everybody anywhere near a fatal incident. Guilty until you prove yourself inoccent etc.

Same on building sites, farms, factories etc.
 

Joe_Cole

New member
Joined
14 Feb 2002
Messages
2,348
Visit site
Re: Just to complicate matters

Out of interest..........The accident occured on the Severn (I assume inland). Does that mean that Maritime Law or "Land" law applies. Does it make any difference?
 

TheBoatman

New member
Joined
12 Nov 2002
Messages
3,168
Location
Kent
Visit site
I thought, but I might be wrong!

That under UK maritime law every vessel had to have a skipper.

That with that position (title) came certain responsibilities i.e. that ultimately the skipper is the person responsible for the safe conduct of the vessel and her crew.

So if skipper decides to put Master Bates or Roger the cabin boy on the helm he does so in the knowledge that he (the helm)is acting on behalf of the skipper and is deemed competant to helm the boat?

If the owners are aboard and instruct the skipper to carry out something that the skipper consideres to be dangerous then he should refuse the command.
If the owner(s) then persist in acting in a dangerous manner the skipper should record into the log words to that effect.

I can understand that various persons aboard could (can) be prosicuted under the law for negligence/manslaughter etc i.e "Herald of Free Enterprise" and the "Marchioness" incidents come to mind.

My understanding is, rightly or wrongly, that the skipper is ultimately responsible although other parties can be included subject to all the various scenario's that may crop up like hired boat maintenance etc?

Interesting thread this!!! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I've just read the post on Mobo Chat and they deserve all they get. It's a typical case of the ill-informed working alongside the un-suspecting/un-trained.
I would hazard a guess that not one of them aboard had any idea about boat handling or the dangers of being on the water!!!

Now we can see why the RNLI/RYA have safety programmes in place to help teach boat owners some responsibilities!
 

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
Re: I thought, but I might be wrong!

I believe the case will have to run its course and the evidence heard before any conclussion can be reached.
Why I said skipper irrelivent is the fact that both the skipper (in charge of helm) and the owners were charged.
This set of circumstances is contradictary and therefore needs clarification before any conclusion can be drawn.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Re: I thought, but I might be wrong!

A skipper undoubtedly assumes certain responsibilities when he becomes skipper.

There are two very different principles at work here: civil liability for negligence, and criminal prosecution for manslaughter. We are talking about only the second of these two - these guys are, we are told, being prosecuted for manslaughter. Probably a civil suit will follow hard on the heels, but that is another matter.

For manslaughter, the relative roles of everyone on board will undoubtedly be a relevant fact. For example, if a helsman were to do a crash gybe for fun just to scare everyone, and in the process kills someone, he might be done for manslaughter, and the fact that he was helmsman and had impliedly adopted a responsibility to steer a straight/safe course would be a very relevant fact. Similarly if the skipper recklessly carried out one of the duties that he had adopted, then it would be a relevant that he was skipper and that he had adopted such duties. The same applies to the Ship's Cook etc. etc. etc.

What is NOT the case is that he could be done for manslughter by proxy, ie. just because the owner made a balls up, and the skipper is the skipper and is the owner's representative on board. The skipper himself has to be personally reckless in some way.

About civil liability for negligence - this is a rather lower hurdle of proof, and the courts are more likely to say that he was negligent because he should have made it his business to find out about it, rather than a positive act of recklessness.
 

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
Re: I thought, but I might be wrong!

The guy who is beeing charged was as I understand it In charge of the Helm. He was not on the helm at the time.
My understanding so far is that because there is no requirement in British law for someone in charge of the size boat they were on to have any formal qualifications there is no recognition of a skipper. Therefore as the prosocution put it ''in charge of the helm''.
Because there is no recognition of the term skipper or of the concept of skipper the owners and the person in charge of the helm are equaly responsible.
If there was recognition of someone beeing soley in charge (skipper) He/she and only he/she would have been charged.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Re: Just to complicate matters

Makes no difference to the principles that apply. Manslaughter is the same anywhere in the English/Welsh jurisdiction. Accepted practise on board ships will be relevant however in order to work out who was the reckless one.
 

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
Re: Just to complicate matters

Not everything the CPS bring before the courts is correct they might be running this as a test case. That is why I would like to hear more about it before making up my mind. However it is seriously relevent to us as boat owners and I will watch the outcome with interest. Because even if we disagree with the CPS if they win we will have to re-asses our understanding of the law.
 

Das_Boot

New member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
UK north East
Visit site
Re: Just to complicate matters

Actualy just thinking about it it might be that.
1. The owners were knowingly negligent in employing a person who they should have or did know was incompetent for the job.
2. The person in charge of the helm 'skipper' was negligent in causing the circumstance surrounding the accident.
If this is the case the implications are minimal.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Re: Just to complicate matters

[ QUOTE ]
Not everything the CPS bring before the courts is correct they might be running this as a test case. That is why I would like to hear more about it before making up my mind. However it is seriously relevent to us as boat owners and I will watch the outcome with interest. Because even if we disagree with the CPS if they win we will have to re-asses our understanding of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law of manslughter is very well established indeed, so it's unlikely. The CPS should have good reason to bring all three before the courts (they would be acting irresponsibly if they didn't), and there is nothing unusual in them doing this.

Note that it doesn't necessarily mean that they are confident that all three will be convicted. Certainly in civil cases normal practise is to join as a defendant anyone who might liable, even if you're not 100% sure that you'll succeed against all of them - this is because if, as the facts become clearer, it turns out that someone other than the primary defendant is more culpable etc., then you don't have to start the case all over again from square one. With a criminal case, the same can apply, althought the CPS should hopefully be more careful about joining defendants because mud sticks, even if the eventual result is an acquittal.
 
Top