Quote:
Can somebody clarify why a charge of involuntary manslaughter has been applied in this case.
Thanks to Wings Folded, Dicky Pearse and tkazaz for their answers.
I don't think the question has ben answered though.
The UK act only applies to the corporation and comes with a fine. This trial is against individuals and the penalties could involve a fine and prison time for those folks.
I will attempt a better explanation for those trying to understand the legal process.
Applicable law is French law. UK Acts and US law have no relevance.
The case is being heard in the Tribunal Correctionnel at Pontoise, the administrative capital of the Departement in which the accident took place. (A "Departement" is an administrative sub division of France. Think of a "County" or a "State" if you are in doubt)
A Tribunal Correctionnel is the second in ascending sequence of Courts according to the severity of the accusations. French law classifies three types of process. The lowest are to deal with "contraventions" (e.g. traffic offenses), the second are to deal with "delits" and this is the one we are dealing with here. The most severe deals with "Crimes" (e.g. murder)
There is no jury.
The court is composed of three career judges. Not elected. Not appointed by some mysterious inner circle. Selected on merit into a very demanding specialised school, and trained intensively.
A prosecutor (called Procureur) pleads the case against the accused on behalf of the Nation (for Americans, think of "The People versus...."; for Brits, think of "Regina versus.."
Defendants are legally represented.
Affected third parties may be present and plead. They are termed "Parties Civiles". Relatives of victims on the ground fall in this category.
What are the sanctions for manslaughter in France?
That's not how it works. It is not laid down. Towards the end of the trial, the Procureur requests the Court to impose the sanctions which he or she has determined to be appropriate, but the Court makes its own mind up.
Fines and / or up to 10 years prison are possible, but may be doubled in the event of a case of a recurrence by the accused. This is not likely to be the case here.
A prison sentence may (and often is) be suspended, whereby the accused does not actually serve time, but does however have a criminal record.
The judges take expert evidence and legal argument, and determine accordingly.
The process may not be perfect; the judges are not aviation accident experts.
They are trained however to weigh the evidence and to make a determination within the application of the law.
In so doing, they put an end to the sorts of controversies expressed already on this thread in the vein of "theory / counter theory",
Such as "I have a mate who knows exactly what happened", "it must have been the titanium strip", it must have been shoddy tyre design", "it must have been overloading" or whatever.
Given the exchanges of views expressed on this thread by people who appear to know quite a bit about the topic, at times with, at best bad temper, and sometimes quite frankly puerile, the explanation of this tragedy is clearly not straightforward.
It is not just in aviation that sometimes a chain of events or circumstances leads to an outcome, but any one link in that chain may not be the sole root cause.
The judges will hear evidence amounting to 90 volumes of documents, some from the BEA, some from Sud Aviation, some from Continental, and so forth. Inconsistencies in the evidence will be spotted. The decision will be made according to the most convincing explanation.
All civilised societies have in place a judicial system to resolve this kind of dilemma.