interesting

[betty boop]

Interesting to see this story in the news today - not sure its reached some of the extreme locations of the forum?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41666295

This happened on the Chiswick patch so it was our guys searching for the body and recovering etc. A very sad situation but it opens up some thoughts or discussion on who steps on board your boat. OK he was a complete cock, going at night with no lifejackets possibly with booze involved but he isnt the only one and Im sure some of those out at the weekend in the solent would have been out at night with no jackets, possibly with family or friends on board (& Im not judging)

BUT would it mean that I would be on a similar charge if the other half fell over board, I hit something underwater, had a collision day or night and something happened? Im not suggestion boating immunity just because he owned a boat but it makes me to think that if one thing goes wrong (mayday or pan pan ) and Im in the dock possibly for years. Or would he be let off IF they were wearing jackets? even so one of them if not both possibly would still have died in that stretch of river in December, freezing and severe under currents etc.

[Ianfs]

Very interesting Ian, I hadn't seen the article, but I've just read a few of the stories in the papers.

The Wandsworth police turned the case over to Scotland Yard who presented findings to the CPS who then instructed them to charge the guy with Manslaughter by Gross Negligence, then a District judge sent the case to the Old Bailey.

BUT would it mean that I would be on a similar charge if the other half fell over board, I hit something underwater, had a collision day or night and something happened? Im not suggestion boating immunity just because he owned a boat but it makes me to think that if one thing goes wrong (mayday or pan pan ) and Im in the dock possibly for years. Or would he be let off IF they were wearing jackets? even so one of them if not both possibly would still have died in that stretch of river in December, freezing and severe under currents etc.

I just looked up Gross Negligence in English law and some articles say that it is only in recent years that the law has distinguished between "negligence" and "gross negligence". I'm not sure if this statement about the law answers your question or not but .................

“gross negligence” was clearly intended to represent something more fundamental than failure to exercise proper skill and/or care constituting negligence.
The concept of gross negligence is capable of embracing not only conduct undertaken with actual appreciation of the risks involved, but also serious disregard of or indifference to an obvious risk.

On the face of it I think this is why the District Judge referred the case to the high court in order that he doesn't have to interpret the law. However this guy has been charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter, a couple of extracts here....

Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is ostensibly acting lawfully
Gross negligence manslaughter is not dependant on demonstrating an unlawful act has been committed
Gross negligence manslaughter can be said to apply where the defendant commits a lawful act in such a way as to render the actions criminal

I think therefore your question is valid, but In answer to it, I haven't got a clue. However interpreting what you said about freezing water and life jackets is an "indifference to an obvious risk" as above.

[sprocker]

I haven't read anything other than the link that BB posted, was this gross negligence due to the 'skipper' not making crew wear a lifejacket, or failing to provide a lifejacket?

I struggle with understanding how an amateur can be held negligent if a lifejacket was made available but chosen not to be worn.

Or was their something else that maybe hasn't been reported accurately by the BBC......say alcohol, speed not taking account of conditions etc?

Still a tragic loss for the poor girls family and friends.

[Ianfs]

All the reports are similar with hardly any information. I suspect it will all come out after the Old Bailey trial.

[betty boop]

I haven't read anything other than the link that BB posted, was this gross negligence due to the 'skipper' not making crew wear a lifejacket, or failing to provide a lifejacket?

I struggle with understanding how an amateur can be held negligent if a lifejacket was made available but chosen not to be worn.

Or was their something else that maybe hasn't been reported accurately by the BBC......say alcohol, speed not taking account of conditions etc?

Still a tragic loss for the poor girls family and friends.

The report as I understand it was they were on a date (first or otherwise). So an amount of macho impressive behaviour was a factor, It was December so dark at 4pm and he was aware of his limited safe time on the water, there are not really any pubs around that stretch where you can moor and drink so either they travelled far at speed (3 miles MIN on plane at least) or were drunk before hand, in which case he was drunk driving to launch at Putney Hard (where there are loads of pubs) So may be Ive answered my own question. He was in the pub for lunch- launched drunk and things went wrong. But the question still remains - If I take Ian for example to cowes for the day across southampton water, he has a drink (Im sober) - he falls over board or we have a genuine accident and theres a fatality, will I be charged with Manslaughter by GC? I assume so and therefore there is a hidden impact to things we do daily or for hobbies. Sorry Ian not that I want to see you overboard - just saying

[sprocker]

But the question still remains - If I take Ian for example to cowes for the day across southampton water, he has a drink (Im sober) - he falls over board or we have a genuine accident and theres a fatality, will I be charged with Manslaughter by GC? I assume so and therefore there is a hidden impact to things we do daily or for hobbies. Sorry Ian not that I want to see you overboard - just saying

That is quite a sobering thought. I am sure more will come out of this as the case progresses.

p.s. I assume Ian has finished his drink before his theoretical falling overboard? Wouldn't want it spilled on the teak!

[Ianfs]

Sorry Ian not that I want to see you overboard - just saying

Me neither old chap.

p.s. I assume Ian has finished his drink before his theoretical falling overboard? Wouldn't want it spilled on the teak

That is quite a sobering thought. I am sure more will come out of this as the case progress

I agree Andy, lots more to read I think.

[Bigplumbs]

I am afraid to say that in this modern world and with the current belief that there is always blame, the saying There but for the Grace of God go I is very relevant

Dennis

[NikTheGeek]

One would hope that if:
1. The skipper was sober
2. The skipper and crew had lifejackets and/or other suitable forms of life saving equipment
3. The skippers was piloting to his ability and the conditions
4. The boat was maintained and in good condition
Then even in the event of an accident, it would be deemed just that, an accident.

I don't see why it should be treated any differently to a car. The driver is responsible for a death if speeding, drunk, reckless etc. But it's an accident if you have a blowout, or someone runs out in front of you.

Nick

[betty boop]

One would hope that if:
1. The skipper was sober
2. The skipper and crew had lifejackets and/or other suitable forms of life saving equipment
3. The skippers was piloting to his ability and the conditions
4. The boat was maintained and in good condition
Then even in the event of an accident, it would be deemed just that, an accident.

I don't see why it should be treated any differently to a car. The driver is responsible for a death if speeding, drunk, reckless etc. But it's an accident if you have a blowout, or someone runs out in front of you.

Nick

thats true but in the event of a car accident is the drive convicted if he looses concentration to open the window or sneeze etc. ? in that case I assume that the most careful advanced driver will be convicted of manslaughter because he/she is piloting a weapon and not being in control and who is to judge his ability? I can pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time but I cant juggle chainsaw's - does that make me less or more able than the next guy