Canadian Pilot charged with Criminal Negligence in crash
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that many juries know nothing of the subject of a criminal charge 99% of the time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post, Cosmo.
Here's a story that is basically the same situation, from a Canadian chat forum......
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus driver conveys condolences at trial opening
OTTAWA - The trial of an OC Transpo bus driver accused of criminal negligence in the death of a toddler from Toronto got underway Monday in Ottawa.
The bus slammed into the back of the Appuhamy's rental car, killing 18-month-old Chamin
Lawrence Burt, 49, is on trial for one count of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
The bus he was driving on July 13, 2003, slammed into a car rented by the Appuhamy family, in Ottawa from Toronto for a wedding. Their car had run out of gas and was stranded in the bus lane on Regional Road 174.
The accident killed 18-month-old Chamin Appuhamy, and has left his father, Jude, with head injuries and paralyzed from the waist down. Chamin's mother, Kanchana, was also seriously injured but has more or less recuperated.
One of the first things the court heard was a message from Burt to the Appuhamy family.
"He's wanted to, since that very day, express his condolences and sympathies to the Appuhamy family and I did that on his behalf in the court session today," said lawyer Lawrence Greenspon.
But it wasn't an apology. Burt and his lawyer say this accident was not a matter of negligence.
As part of that, the court heard how a passenger was standing beside and speaking to the driver as the bus approached the Appuhamy's car at about 100 km/h.
Ross Molot, the Appuhamy's lawyer, said the family is keeping an open mind and is "just trying to find out what happened."
"We're frankly looking for more information about what happened and [to] discover why this accident happened in the first place," said Molot.
"That's really what we're trying to get out of this trial. Nobody's looking for any kind of conviction per se, nobody's looking for any kind of retribution."
This criminal trial, by judge, is scheduled to last two weeks.
Later this week, the family plans to file a $10-million civil suit against Burt, the City of Ottawa, and a city employee.
Here's a story that is basically the same situation, from a Canadian chat forum......
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus driver conveys condolences at trial opening
OTTAWA - The trial of an OC Transpo bus driver accused of criminal negligence in the death of a toddler from Toronto got underway Monday in Ottawa.
The bus slammed into the back of the Appuhamy's rental car, killing 18-month-old Chamin
Lawrence Burt, 49, is on trial for one count of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
The bus he was driving on July 13, 2003, slammed into a car rented by the Appuhamy family, in Ottawa from Toronto for a wedding. Their car had run out of gas and was stranded in the bus lane on Regional Road 174.
The accident killed 18-month-old Chamin Appuhamy, and has left his father, Jude, with head injuries and paralyzed from the waist down. Chamin's mother, Kanchana, was also seriously injured but has more or less recuperated.
One of the first things the court heard was a message from Burt to the Appuhamy family.
"He's wanted to, since that very day, express his condolences and sympathies to the Appuhamy family and I did that on his behalf in the court session today," said lawyer Lawrence Greenspon.
But it wasn't an apology. Burt and his lawyer say this accident was not a matter of negligence.
As part of that, the court heard how a passenger was standing beside and speaking to the driver as the bus approached the Appuhamy's car at about 100 km/h.
Ross Molot, the Appuhamy's lawyer, said the family is keeping an open mind and is "just trying to find out what happened."
"We're frankly looking for more information about what happened and [to] discover why this accident happened in the first place," said Molot.
"That's really what we're trying to get out of this trial. Nobody's looking for any kind of conviction per se, nobody's looking for any kind of retribution."
This criminal trial, by judge, is scheduled to last two weeks.
Later this week, the family plans to file a $10-million civil suit against Burt, the City of Ottawa, and a city employee.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotornut
That may be the case in Canada, I have no idea. In the UK on inditment (trail by the Crown Court) there is always a jury. As I said, there is no need, and I can see some argument for saying it is better that they don't know anything about the subject of a trial, it means they would not be swayed by thier own opinons. In any case the idea of the jury system is to give a verdict based on what the reasonable man belives. Not what an expert thinks.
If the lawyers/barristers/Solicitors are doing thier jobs properly, they will have explained what is nessesary, expert witnesses in my experience are very good at explaining matters to perplexed jurys.
That may be the case in Canada, I have no idea. In the UK on inditment (trail by the Crown Court) there is always a jury. As I said, there is no need, and I can see some argument for saying it is better that they don't know anything about the subject of a trial, it means they would not be swayed by thier own opinons. In any case the idea of the jury system is to give a verdict based on what the reasonable man belives. Not what an expert thinks.
If the lawyers/barristers/Solicitors are doing thier jobs properly, they will have explained what is nessesary, expert witnesses in my experience are very good at explaining matters to perplexed jurys.
Last edited by bjcc; 22nd Oct 2004 at 17:54.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......pilot s may not co operate and get sued anyways....
but,
the rest of us pilots ,may never find out what happened . safety in the aviation world is based on the lessons that we learn from other peoples mistakes and when we stop talking about our mistakes then people get to make the same ones (not that you make your self accident proof ,but you minimize the risk)
and ,
we should stop using the term pilots error ....it never was a true statment to begin with .......the term is human error....cause if you look deeper, its the human' nature of the individual that gets him in to trouble ....i cannot posibly imagine a normal ,sane,human beeing wanting to kill himself and others by causing an accident .
its easy to critisize someone ,but if we look deep in our selfs ,we can recall of things we have done that we r not proud of ......sometimes the chain of events breaks before the accident ,sometimes ,for some,it never does .
for those interested in reading about known accidents from a different prospective i suggest "the naked pilot" (and no it does not contain any naked pictures!)
but,
the rest of us pilots ,may never find out what happened . safety in the aviation world is based on the lessons that we learn from other peoples mistakes and when we stop talking about our mistakes then people get to make the same ones (not that you make your self accident proof ,but you minimize the risk)
and ,
we should stop using the term pilots error ....it never was a true statment to begin with .......the term is human error....cause if you look deeper, its the human' nature of the individual that gets him in to trouble ....i cannot posibly imagine a normal ,sane,human beeing wanting to kill himself and others by causing an accident .
its easy to critisize someone ,but if we look deep in our selfs ,we can recall of things we have done that we r not proud of ......sometimes the chain of events breaks before the accident ,sometimes ,for some,it never does .
for those interested in reading about known accidents from a different prospective i suggest "the naked pilot" (and no it does not contain any naked pictures!)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
In Canada for the more serious crimes, the accused always gets to elect his (or her) mode of trial except for murder, high treason, and a few other offences which must go before a jury. There's even an exception to this rule but I won't go into that right now.
For some interesting reading here is the last word on criminal negligence causing death from the Supreme Court of Canada:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...any~~x=12~~y=5
Hope you don't fall asleep
In Canada for the more serious crimes, the accused always gets to elect his (or her) mode of trial except for murder, high treason, and a few other offences which must go before a jury. There's even an exception to this rule but I won't go into that right now.
For some interesting reading here is the last word on criminal negligence causing death from the Supreme Court of Canada:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...any~~x=12~~y=5
Hope you don't fall asleep
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, thanks, I've read the Naked Pilot, and your right didn't have any photos of undressed pilots...
I take your point, however there are ways round it. Firstly, under UK law now, you no longer have a right to silence as such. So if there is a criminal enquiry, unless you are guilty, then you are lightly to answer questions. The answers to those questions could well help you, and other pilots find out what happened.
At the moment, the fact a pilot may be sued after an incident, or may have his lience removed does not deter them from telling all. So they already stand the chance of losing all. OK, the possibility of a prison term may not may not make some one feel co operative if they are guilty of something, but it is always good mitigation that you co operated with any investigation. In any event there is nothing at the moment to prevent a pilot, in the UK from being prosecuted. It doesn't seem to stop them co operating with AAIB. I suppose its proffesionism.
Another way round it, is to have 2 sepeate investigations. the accident investigation not being released until after a criminal investigation has been completed and any trials concluded. That may well be what happens now, I don't know, but it would stop any worry that co operating with an accidnt investigation would impair someone's ability to defend against a criminal action
I take your point, however there are ways round it. Firstly, under UK law now, you no longer have a right to silence as such. So if there is a criminal enquiry, unless you are guilty, then you are lightly to answer questions. The answers to those questions could well help you, and other pilots find out what happened.
At the moment, the fact a pilot may be sued after an incident, or may have his lience removed does not deter them from telling all. So they already stand the chance of losing all. OK, the possibility of a prison term may not may not make some one feel co operative if they are guilty of something, but it is always good mitigation that you co operated with any investigation. In any event there is nothing at the moment to prevent a pilot, in the UK from being prosecuted. It doesn't seem to stop them co operating with AAIB. I suppose its proffesionism.
Another way round it, is to have 2 sepeate investigations. the accident investigation not being released until after a criminal investigation has been completed and any trials concluded. That may well be what happens now, I don't know, but it would stop any worry that co operating with an accidnt investigation would impair someone's ability to defend against a criminal action
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: vancouver oldebloke
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LED,in IFALPA circles the fact that Canada followed 'common law' became very evident when comparing judicial policies elsewhere.'innocent until proven guilty',this depends on the defence one puts up,ergo the unions!!once over the channel one is condidered guilty until proven innocent(even in upright Germany).....Canada's'act' on CVR privelege was regarded as a corner stone for Common sense with it regard to immunity for Safety..This too has been wittled down now in that the TSB can refer to the CVR in'reportable' Incidents,which might be regarded as the thin edge of the wedge towards unnecessary exposure..
BJCC,the BA case eventually led to the COURT fineing the Captain 2000 pounds.....
BJCC,the BA case eventually led to the COURT fineing the Captain 2000 pounds.....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldbloke
Yes I am aware of what happened to him in court. I was sat in the police station canteen when it thundered over our heads (That being next to the Penta as it was then)....and I doubt anyone there was chuffed about it.
The fact remains that yes he was taken to court, by the CAA not as the result of Police investigation or charge. In actual fact he was, as I recall, summonsed...Yes he was fined, why was that? Because the jury found him guilty. It is sad that finding had such an effect on him, but that was not what the jury was there to consider.
I presume he cooperated with the investigation into the incident....
Differant countries have differant ways of trying people. Actualy I think Germany has innocent until proven guilty, although France does the opposite. Either way, thier systems of justice are established and work perfectly well, Europe has a convention on human rights, at least in theory giving one the right to a fair trial.
I doubt you or anyone else would complain if that system found a person guilty of any other offence, why should it be different for pilots.
I take your point on safety, however that claim can be made by many other occupations, train drivers, coach drivers ships captains. None of these make the same claims for immunity for thier actions.
Yes I am aware of what happened to him in court. I was sat in the police station canteen when it thundered over our heads (That being next to the Penta as it was then)....and I doubt anyone there was chuffed about it.
The fact remains that yes he was taken to court, by the CAA not as the result of Police investigation or charge. In actual fact he was, as I recall, summonsed...Yes he was fined, why was that? Because the jury found him guilty. It is sad that finding had such an effect on him, but that was not what the jury was there to consider.
I presume he cooperated with the investigation into the incident....
Differant countries have differant ways of trying people. Actualy I think Germany has innocent until proven guilty, although France does the opposite. Either way, thier systems of justice are established and work perfectly well, Europe has a convention on human rights, at least in theory giving one the right to a fair trial.
I doubt you or anyone else would complain if that system found a person guilty of any other offence, why should it be different for pilots.
I take your point on safety, however that claim can be made by many other occupations, train drivers, coach drivers ships captains. None of these make the same claims for immunity for thier actions.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can suggest it yes and sometimes you are absolutly right, there are such things as pure accidents.
However there are other occations when the 'screw up' is foreseeable and not stopped, or the appropriate action was not taken to prevent the situation happening or from getting worse.
It is these cases there may, depending on the circumastances attract criminal proccedings. And rightly so.
I emphisise that each case is differant, just as in any accident. Sometimes someone is criminaly culpable, they should not be given blanket protection on the grounds that there may be lessons to be learned, that argument could be applied to any occupation or activity where someone could be injured or killed, albeit on a greater or lesser scale.
If you apply it to aircrew then, no doubt train drivers would want the same, as would bus and coach drivers, apply it to them, and why not apply the same to any vehicle driver.....All could use the same argument, 'Others could learn safety lessons, therefore I should not be prosecuted'
However there are other occations when the 'screw up' is foreseeable and not stopped, or the appropriate action was not taken to prevent the situation happening or from getting worse.
It is these cases there may, depending on the circumastances attract criminal proccedings. And rightly so.
I emphisise that each case is differant, just as in any accident. Sometimes someone is criminaly culpable, they should not be given blanket protection on the grounds that there may be lessons to be learned, that argument could be applied to any occupation or activity where someone could be injured or killed, albeit on a greater or lesser scale.
If you apply it to aircrew then, no doubt train drivers would want the same, as would bus and coach drivers, apply it to them, and why not apply the same to any vehicle driver.....All could use the same argument, 'Others could learn safety lessons, therefore I should not be prosecuted'
Mistrust in Management
bjcc
Sunfish is quite possibly referring to the distinct possibility that the Captain in the Penta incident made a mistake - a serious one it has to be said, but I believe it was a mistake nevertheless.
The jury found him guilty, but that does not necessarily mean he was in fact guilty of the offence in moral terms. It seems strange that our legal system allows a jury with no specialist knowledge to make a judgement that requires just that knowledge. I accept that they will probably have been given some brief on the technical details but it must be difficult to turn a bricklayer or a bank manager into an aviation specialist in a few hours.
I wonder why thoughts were not given into criminal proceedings against British Airways following this incident.
I operated as an F/E on the 747 fleet at the time and I was not surprised when the 'All Weather Ops' procedures were changed significantly, and very shortly after this event.
You should note also that the fleet office were in the habit of allowing a dispensation (over the radio) if a crew member was not qualified for all weather ops, as was the case of the Penta F/O. I myself have operated a flight as an F/E when this very procedure took place - I didn't agree with it at the time but as third in command there was little I could do to influence the situation.
There is also the fact that both the F/O and F/E were unwell through a stomach bug, but I would imagine you were aware of that.
This Captain took his job seriously but made a mistake. After the event he chose a path that in hindsight seems ill advised.
This poor fellow’s life, and that of his family, was destroyed by one mistake. That this man was driven to suicide may be hard to understand, but it may just be a measure of how seriously he felt towards the professional side of his life. May he rest in peace.
Regards
Exeng
The jury found him guilty, but that does not necessarily mean he was in fact guilty of the offence in moral terms. It seems strange that our legal system allows a jury with no specialist knowledge to make a judgement that requires just that knowledge. I accept that they will probably have been given some brief on the technical details but it must be difficult to turn a bricklayer or a bank manager into an aviation specialist in a few hours.
I wonder why thoughts were not given into criminal proceedings against British Airways following this incident.
I operated as an F/E on the 747 fleet at the time and I was not surprised when the 'All Weather Ops' procedures were changed significantly, and very shortly after this event.
You should note also that the fleet office were in the habit of allowing a dispensation (over the radio) if a crew member was not qualified for all weather ops, as was the case of the Penta F/O. I myself have operated a flight as an F/E when this very procedure took place - I didn't agree with it at the time but as third in command there was little I could do to influence the situation.
There is also the fact that both the F/O and F/E were unwell through a stomach bug, but I would imagine you were aware of that.
This Captain took his job seriously but made a mistake. After the event he chose a path that in hindsight seems ill advised.
This poor fellow’s life, and that of his family, was destroyed by one mistake. That this man was driven to suicide may be hard to understand, but it may just be a measure of how seriously he felt towards the professional side of his life. May he rest in peace.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exeng
I don't know, he may have meant thats yes....
I have no idea why BA were not prosecuted, although I am struggling to think of something criminal to prosecute them for.
I don't want to go into the specifics too much about the Penta incident, mostly because I don't recall the reported details. However in general terms, the jury would have been told what the captain should have done, he would have said what he did do, and the jury would have made thier decision on that and evidence from the investigation.
He did not appeal as I recall, which tends to mean that everyone was happy that the jurys decision was made correctly. I accept that does not mean he was happy with the verdict, which he obviously was not.
There are many cases which go before a jury which are technical in nature, and provided the lawyers do thier jobs then its not nessesary to turn a bricklayer or bank manager into an expert on the subject in order to understand the issues they are deciding.
A mistake can be criminal if it is made where a reasonable person in the same circumstances would not or should not have made the same error. I can see what you mean by not moraly guilty, but the courts don't make such a distinction.
I don't know, he may have meant thats yes....
I have no idea why BA were not prosecuted, although I am struggling to think of something criminal to prosecute them for.
I don't want to go into the specifics too much about the Penta incident, mostly because I don't recall the reported details. However in general terms, the jury would have been told what the captain should have done, he would have said what he did do, and the jury would have made thier decision on that and evidence from the investigation.
He did not appeal as I recall, which tends to mean that everyone was happy that the jurys decision was made correctly. I accept that does not mean he was happy with the verdict, which he obviously was not.
There are many cases which go before a jury which are technical in nature, and provided the lawyers do thier jobs then its not nessesary to turn a bricklayer or bank manager into an expert on the subject in order to understand the issues they are deciding.
A mistake can be criminal if it is made where a reasonable person in the same circumstances would not or should not have made the same error. I can see what you mean by not moraly guilty, but the courts don't make such a distinction.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester
Age: 79
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criminal charges (including manslaughter) are possible in English law against those who conduct their activities with GROSS negligence. What amounts to that degree of negligence is, at the end of the day, a matter decided by the jury. Nevertheless, it has to be of a very very high degree. Canadian law will be very similar. Many professionals have found this out including the medical profession.
Mistrust in Management
bjcc
The vast majority of incidents/accidents have not one contributary cause but many. (Holes in the cheese lining up etc)
I do not believe that proceedings should have been brought against British Airways for their unintended contributions to this incident, however nor do I believe it was correct to single out the Captain for criminal proceedings.
Those in B.A. fleet management saw fit to approve the F/O to operate in conditions that he was not qualified for. That decision was based on commercial grounds, however I have no doubt that those who made that decision on the day felt that their decision would not erode safety standards significantly. Whether in fact that decision was a truly contributary factor I don't think we will ever now know.
In my previous post I was attempting to draw some sort of parallel between legal action against one individual and the lack of it against other individuals or the company in this case.
I'm certainly no expert on the law, but from what I know about the incident it seems to me that no individual, be it the Captain, F/O, F/E or member of fleet management was guilty of gross negligence. The fact that a Judge, Jury and appeal court found that to be the case with the Captain does not necessarily mean he was in fact guilty (just that the legal process at the time found him to be so)- I could point you to many cases in history (some quite recent) where it would appear that the legal process was flawed, and that may be also be the case here.
Regards
Exeng
I do not believe that proceedings should have been brought against British Airways for their unintended contributions to this incident, however nor do I believe it was correct to single out the Captain for criminal proceedings.
Those in B.A. fleet management saw fit to approve the F/O to operate in conditions that he was not qualified for. That decision was based on commercial grounds, however I have no doubt that those who made that decision on the day felt that their decision would not erode safety standards significantly. Whether in fact that decision was a truly contributary factor I don't think we will ever now know.
In my previous post I was attempting to draw some sort of parallel between legal action against one individual and the lack of it against other individuals or the company in this case.
I'm certainly no expert on the law, but from what I know about the incident it seems to me that no individual, be it the Captain, F/O, F/E or member of fleet management was guilty of gross negligence. The fact that a Judge, Jury and appeal court found that to be the case with the Captain does not necessarily mean he was in fact guilty (just that the legal process at the time found him to be so)- I could point you to many cases in history (some quite recent) where it would appear that the legal process was flawed, and that may be also be the case here.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The_Cutest_of_Borg
He pleaded not guilty and the case was heard at Isleworth Crown Court. Yes there was a jury (as there is in all cases where there is a not guilty plea at Crown Court). He was found guilty by the jury, and sentenced by the Judge.
exeng
He was charged with, as I recall Endangering the Safety of the Aircraft.
I can see your point, however the jury who had access to all of the facts and had no axe to grind one way or the other found him guilty. There was no appeal as I recall, therefore everyone must have been satisfied that the jury understood the issues which they had to decide upon. In view of the charge they would have been looking at evidence of what HE did or did not do which led the aircraft to be placed in danger. I didn't hear that evidence, just read about it at the time, gross negligence may have been part of that, without access to the court records I don't know.
I don't know why BA were not prosecuted, there may well have been no evidence to do so on, it may be because although they were in the wrong, there was no offence as such to prosecute with. Thats doesn't help answer your question, sorry.
Sorry to be blunt about this, but there is no other way of putting it, yes he was guilty, because a jury have found him to be. There has been and wont be an appeal now, and so that finding stands. The evidence in his defence was aired at the time of the trial, the jury found against him.
I accept that there are miscarriges of justice, and it may be that this is one of them. Of course it equally may not, and unless I can find some more info about it, then I can't comment further.
He pleaded not guilty and the case was heard at Isleworth Crown Court. Yes there was a jury (as there is in all cases where there is a not guilty plea at Crown Court). He was found guilty by the jury, and sentenced by the Judge.
exeng
He was charged with, as I recall Endangering the Safety of the Aircraft.
I can see your point, however the jury who had access to all of the facts and had no axe to grind one way or the other found him guilty. There was no appeal as I recall, therefore everyone must have been satisfied that the jury understood the issues which they had to decide upon. In view of the charge they would have been looking at evidence of what HE did or did not do which led the aircraft to be placed in danger. I didn't hear that evidence, just read about it at the time, gross negligence may have been part of that, without access to the court records I don't know.
I don't know why BA were not prosecuted, there may well have been no evidence to do so on, it may be because although they were in the wrong, there was no offence as such to prosecute with. Thats doesn't help answer your question, sorry.
Sorry to be blunt about this, but there is no other way of putting it, yes he was guilty, because a jury have found him to be. There has been and wont be an appeal now, and so that finding stands. The evidence in his defence was aired at the time of the trial, the jury found against him.
I accept that there are miscarriges of justice, and it may be that this is one of them. Of course it equally may not, and unless I can find some more info about it, then I can't comment further.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly, this incident was reported extensively in Flight International.
As I remember, the autopilots were engaged rather late, and as a result the aircraft did not obtain autoland track properly, as was the case with an RAF TriStar some years later.
The operating manuals for most aircraft capable of automatic approach/landing maneuvers are quite specific in the proper sequence of events to achieve the desired action, so I can well see the reason for the Crown Court's decision.
IE: fly in by the book, or pay the consequences.
As I remember, the autopilots were engaged rather late, and as a result the aircraft did not obtain autoland track properly, as was the case with an RAF TriStar some years later.
The operating manuals for most aircraft capable of automatic approach/landing maneuvers are quite specific in the proper sequence of events to achieve the desired action, so I can well see the reason for the Crown Court's decision.
IE: fly in by the book, or pay the consequences.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD:
Well Italy is the country where prosecutors have indulged in preposterously protracted criminal cases concering deaths in motor racing - Ronnie Peterson and Ayrton Senna come to mind - if they will prosecute to that extent in cases involving an activity in which a significant element of danger is acceptable, God help any poor pilots who come to their attention!
(digression: I'll never forget the day Senna died; I was at Bruntingthorpe - we had Lightning and Vulcan doing high-speed taxiing for the public - and trying to follow the race on a tiny LCD portable TV. Couldn't see bugger all, but the shock and grief in Murray Walkers voice as they worked on Senna told me what the score was... )
R1
In this legal enviroment (Italian) it is quite normal to negate anything related to safety unless advised by a lawyer.
(digression: I'll never forget the day Senna died; I was at Bruntingthorpe - we had Lightning and Vulcan doing high-speed taxiing for the public - and trying to follow the race on a tiny LCD portable TV. Couldn't see bugger all, but the shock and grief in Murray Walkers voice as they worked on Senna told me what the score was... )
R1
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester
Age: 79
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prosecuting a COMPANY has proved to be very problematic in English law. The prosecution have to be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a "controlling mind" of the company knew of the problem which, for example, led to an accident. The "Herald of Free Enterprise" prosecution failed on this basis.
Companies have now covered their backs quite well by having a Safety Management System etc.
Much easier to "pin" the individual - consultant surgeon / anaesthetist, ship's captain, aircraft pilot in command etc. etc.
The present government appears to have put changes to the law relating to "Corporate Manslaughter" on the back burner. This is basically because they have come to realise that either H.M. Government or even individual Ministers might be liable. Wouldn't want that - now would they?
Companies have now covered their backs quite well by having a Safety Management System etc.
Much easier to "pin" the individual - consultant surgeon / anaesthetist, ship's captain, aircraft pilot in command etc. etc.
The present government appears to have put changes to the law relating to "Corporate Manslaughter" on the back burner. This is basically because they have come to realise that either H.M. Government or even individual Ministers might be liable. Wouldn't want that - now would they?
The cost of charging people with offences outside their immediate, direct and knowledgable control will simply be met by the public in the form of higher insurance costs, iIncreased compliance costs, and perhaps an increase in "unexplained" accidents.
You cannot legislate "safety" because you cannot legislate for the elimination of all risk.
You cannot legislate "safety" because you cannot legislate for the elimination of all risk.