Adding to Iron Duck's commentary on the phrase
At no point in this string of events did anyone knowingly do something wrong or shirk his or her responsibilities
That seems like a straightforward comment, but I notice it hides a lot which is relevant to these legal events. First, I note that this can be separated into two assertions:
1.
At no point in this string of events did anyone knowingly do something wrong
2.
At no point in this string of events did anyone shirk his or her responsibilities
ad 1. The French court disagreed with this assessment. They decided that the mechanic had committed involuntary manslaughter. I don't know what the French criteria for this are. In Britain, as far as I understand British law (and I am not a professional), one major criterion for having committed a criminal act which led to unlawful killing is having indulged in "gross negligence". There is negligence, and there is gross negligence. "Knowing" plays, if at all, a subsidiary role. Exercising one's duty of care, or not, plays a major role, as I understand it.
ad 2. I think it is obvious, as it appears does Iron Duck, that the Continental mechanic did not exercise his duty of care to perform the repair according to applicable procedure. If "not exercising his duty of care" is what is meant here by "shirking his or her responsibilities", then this second statement is false. And if it doesn't mean that, then I don't know what it would mean.
I am no expert in whether not exercising one's duty of care in this case constitutes "negligence" or "gross negligence", but these concepts are not necessarily applicable in French law. As for French law, the decision is before us and the quoted statement above just contradicts it. That is easy to do from another country and another legal system.
Edit: Just to make clear my position, I re-engaged with PPRuNe in Spring 2007, because of my concern with the increasing criminalisation of transport accidents, in order to try to contact people involved with investigating the ATC side of the GOL-Legacy collision. I think, along with a majority of aerospace professionals and professional societies, that the increasing criminalisation is a trend about which to be very concerned, not just as a question of justice but also in its oft-demonstrated conflict with thorough procedures in accident investigation. I think the public interest is ultimately best served by thoroughly investigating complex accidents as to cause, and this is hindered by criminal investigations in known and well-reported ways. However, I do not think the public interest is in any way well served by ignoring legal matters, not only the matter of determining compensation but also the matter of criminal proceedings in the case of possibly-criminal action. I think we need to work to reconcile the concerns in a way which appropriately acknowledges the public interest in all these aspects. This won't happen through aviation professionals reactively denigrating legal proceedings in each instance, and it won't happen through legal professionals asserting their right to do what they do independent of broader concerns of the polity.
PBL