MAIB interim report on Seadogz fatality

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by beamishken

I think the point is everyone commenting doesnt agree that justice has been served in this instance & those charged got off with causing death & Injuries very lightly. I agree with pikey & the others & cant understand why you think justice has been served. I'd wager the victims dont think like you do

Sent from my SM-G950F using RIB Net mobile app

Agree victims don’t agree and clearly wanted more . As for justice yes justice has been done under present laws , a full 6 week trial took place with 12 members of jury making decisions based on evidence not media updates.

[beamishken]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

As for justice yes justice has been done under present laws

I doubt many folk share those sentiments! Its wouldn't be the first & wont be the last time a jury made the wrong decision.



Sent from my SM-G950F using RIB Net mobile app

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by beamishken

I doubt many folk share those sentiments! Its wouldn't be the first & wont be the last time a jury made the wrong decision.



Sent from my SM-G950F using RIB Net mobile app

Hopefully the families involved will have the strength, courage, determination & resources to bring civil proceedings against the culprits.

[beamishken]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Hopefully the families involved will have the strength, courage, determination & resources to bring civil proceedings against the culprits.

[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G950F using RIB Net mobile app

[Voodoo]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Hopefully the families involved will have the strength, courage, determination & resources to bring civil proceedings against the culprits.

Absolutely.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

No winners and industry will suffer fall out . We expect many more changes still.
Majority of industry changed the next day. Few operate anything near this old operation now and suspect if they do it won’t last much longer

Does that suggest that this sort of practice was quite common? I had assumed (having not really been involved with the thrill ride world) that the rest of the industry would have been “we don’t operate like that so nothing to change”?

In which case:

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

For me, this sad case illustrates everything that’s wrong with the thrill ride industry, by definition it’s irresponsible.

Is probably right. People do pay to go on “race” car type experiences (but not on public roads!) but not usually with a minibus full of folk.

What more changes do you expect that operators have not already voluntarily made (and if they are for safety why have the not)?

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

If this had happened on the roads, the perpetrators would be facing life for causing death by dangerous driving.

(It wouldn’t be life as sentencing powers don’t change retrospectively). I think your assumption is flawed:
1. If the jury didn’t convict of manslaughter there’s no certainty they would have convicted of death by dangerous driving (if on the roads).
2. Even when juries do convict of death by dangerous driving it is very unusual for the sentence to be anywhere near the top end of the range. Judges deal with some of the worst people in society, it’s difficult for them to see that error of someone who is not fundamentally evil in the same way as a rapist, drug dealer, murderer etc.
3. Suspended sentences for death by dangerous/careless driving are not uncommon. Analysis of why, probably needs more space than I have time to type - but politicians and media like a headline grabbing prison sentence to show tough on crime, but our jails are overflowing, largely not that good at preventing reoffending and the same media have wrongly portrayed them as holiday camps so a poor deterrent. In driving offences, often the real punishment is the disqualification - there isn’t anything similar for boats AFAIK and it wouldn’t cause the same daily inconvenience anyway.

Like dangerous driving - if you actually want to make boating safer, you actually need to police and prosecute people who drive badly but get lucky rather than throw the book at people when it is too late.

I don’t think we need the new legislation C2 is keen to see (legislation often provides hiding places, or routes for technical compliance that are stupid), but harbour authorities could do with stepping up and managing risks in their area better and taking action for minor issues rather than waiting until MCA/CPS do it for the tragedies.

Originally Posted by Iankristy

. Sentence is a pathetic deterrent and will only result in the insurance industry shitt¥#g itself when insuring seafari style businesses.

Sentence is always a poor stick for deterring people from unintended consequences of our actions, people are shit at judging their own competence and always believe it would never happen to them.

Insurers should be concerned, and should be paying more attention to what operators do. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. If you can’t differentiate your operating activities from Seadogz in the eyes of the underwriters perhaps it is time to seriously review how your business operates because if the underwriters perceive you are one cock up away from fatality you should probably be concerned too.

Originally Posted by spartacus

Potentially the family can seek a private prosecution. In all honesty it shouldn't be this difficult to seek justice.

There is no scope for a private prosecution. The state pursued a prosecution and got its verdict. That is “justice”. What you mean is the retribution. The families (and there were injured parties too) will be able to sue for civil damages. I doubt such a case will get to court - the insurer will settle. No amount of money will bring back their daughter.

Originally Posted by Matt

We all know he is privately both thinking "What a travesty for the family" while also thinking "phew, I may still have a business left". He just can't say that.

I don’t think a manslaughter conviction would have made any difference to the industry in general. It may even have made “owners” happier that the blame would rest with the skipper rather than with them - even if they are the ones promoting the business as being thrill ride so effectively encourage the helm to seek thrills.

[Iankristy]

Originally Posted by Poly

Does that suggest that this sort of practice was quite common? I had assumed (having not really been involved with the thrill ride world) that the rest of the industry would have been “we don’t operate like that so nothing to change”?

In which case:


Is probably right. People do pay to go on “race” car type experiences (but not on public roads!) but not usually with a minibus full of folk.

What more changes do you expect that operators have not already voluntarily made (and if they are for safety why have the not)?



(It wouldn’t be life as sentencing powers don’t change retrospectively). I think your assumption is flawed:
1. If the jury didn’t convict of manslaughter there’s no certainty they would have convicted of death by dangerous driving (if on the roads).
2. Even when juries do convict of death by dangerous driving it is very unusual for the sentence to be anywhere near the top end of the range. Judges deal with some of the worst people in society, it’s difficult for them to see that error of someone who is not fundamentally evil in the same way as a rapist, drug dealer, murderer etc.
3. Suspended sentences for death by dangerous/careless driving are not uncommon. Analysis of why, probably needs more space than I have time to type - but politicians and media like a headline grabbing prison sentence to show tough on crime, but our jails are overflowing, largely not that good at preventing reoffending and the same media have wrongly portrayed them as holiday camps so a poor deterrent. In driving offences, often the real punishment is the disqualification - there isn’t anything similar for boats AFAIK and it wouldn’t cause the same daily inconvenience anyway.

Like dangerous driving - if you actually want to make boating safer, you actually need to police and prosecute people who drive badly but get lucky rather than throw the book at people when it is too late.

I don’t think we need the new legislation C2 is keen to see (legislation often provides hiding places, or routes for technical compliance that are stupid), but harbour authorities could do with stepping up and managing risks in their area better and taking action for minor issues rather than waiting until MCA/CPS do it for the tragedies.




Sentence is always a poor stick for deterring people from unintended consequences of our actions, people are shit at judging their own competence and always believe it would never happen to them.

Insurers should be concerned, and should be paying more attention to what operators do. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. If you can’t differentiate your operating activities from Seadogz in the eyes of the underwriters perhaps it is time to seriously review how your business operates because if the underwriters perceive you are one cock up away from fatality you should probably be concerned too.



There is no scope for a private prosecution. The state pursued a prosecution and got its verdict. That is “justice”. What you mean is the retribution. The families (and there were injured parties too) will be able to sue for civil damages. I doubt such a case will get to court - the insurer will settle. No amount of money will bring back their daughter.


I don’t think a manslaughter conviction would have made any difference to the industry in general. It may even have made “owners” happier that the blame would rest with the skipper rather than with them - even if they are the ones promoting the business as being thrill ride so effectively encourage the helm to seek thrills.

Agree with a lot of that. Re insurers wasn’t suggesting that underwriters shouldn’t access actual risk. That’s definitely a good thing and part of the safety net. It’s more the all boat trips lazily being tarred with the same brush that concerns me. We use the same high powered ribs but That style of trip is inherently risky. Jumping wakes, speed near obstacles, all pretty obviously to be avoided and anyone who follows the ‘High speed craft and experience rides’ Voluntary Code of practice would do so. Not just for collision but avoiding back injury and distress. Last serious incident I know of was round the coast from me two boats wake jumping collided resulting in a life changing injury. Policing of this outwith underwriters and local Harbourmaster is lacking. How to police that more effectively? MCA secret shoppers? More rigorous training/ certification? A specific qualification for high speed passenger vessels? Voluntary code gains mandatory legal status?
I do think there should have been a stronger sentence for both skipper and company. There are many responsible operators out there who wouldn’t end up in that situation.

[paintman]

The Judge will advise the jury in his/her summing up of what needs to have been proved by the prosecution 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in respect of each offence.

An offence will have a definition of what is required - 'points to prove' for want of a better description - in the relevant Act.
If any part of that is missing then it is unlikely the CPS would put it before the court as the verdict will be Not Guilty.
It isn't unusual for a Judge to direct a jury to acquit if the Judge considers there is insufficient evidence.

Judges must follow the guidelines of the Sentencing Council.
If they impose high sentences that fall outside those guidelines then, on appeal by the defence, the higher courts will substitute what they consider to be the appropriate sentence.

Equally, if the prosecution consider the sentence to be unduly lenient then they can appeal & a higher sentence might be imposed.

The penalties - fine or term of imprisonment - for each offence is laid down in the Act of Parliament for that offence. There will be a maximum. Some are fine only.
Sometimes a Judge will express their annoyance that they can't pass as stiff a sentence as they would like.

Can be very frustrating for the victims & the Police - we did frequently wonder what some Judges were playing at & why we'd bothered.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Poly

Does that suggest that this sort of practice was quite common? I had assumed (having not really been involved with the thrill ride world) that the rest of the industry would have been “we don’t operate like that so nothing to change”?

In which case:


Is probably right. People do pay to go on “race” car type experiences (but not on public roads!) but not usually with a minibus full of folk.

What more changes do you expect that operators have not already voluntarily made (and if they are for safety why have the not)?



(It wouldn’t be life as sentencing powers don’t change retrospectively). I think your assumption is flawed:
1. If the jury didn’t convict of manslaughter there’s no certainty they would have convicted of death by dangerous driving (if on the roads).
2. Even when juries do convict of death by dangerous driving it is very unusual for the sentence to be anywhere near the top end of the range. Judges deal with some of the worst people in society, it’s difficult for them to see that error of someone who is not fundamentally evil in the same way as a rapist, drug dealer, murderer etc.
3. Suspended sentences for death by dangerous/careless driving are not uncommon. Analysis of why, probably needs more space than I have time to type - but politicians and media like a headline grabbing prison sentence to show tough on crime, but our jails are overflowing, largely not that good at preventing reoffending and the same media have wrongly portrayed them as holiday camps so a poor deterrent. In driving offences, often the real punishment is the disqualification - there isn’t anything similar for boats AFAIK and it wouldn’t cause the same daily inconvenience anyway.

Like dangerous driving - if you actually want to make boating safer, you actually need to police and prosecute people who drive badly but get lucky rather than throw the book at people when it is too late.

I don’t think we need the new legislation C2 is keen to see (legislation often provides hiding places, or routes for technical compliance that are stupid), but harbour authorities could do with stepping up and managing risks in their area better and taking action for minor issues rather than waiting until MCA/CPS do it for the tragedies.




Sentence is always a poor stick for deterring people from unintended consequences of our actions, people are shit at judging their own competence and always believe it would never happen to them.

Insurers should be concerned, and should be paying more attention to what operators do. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. If you can’t differentiate your operating activities from Seadogz in the eyes of the underwriters perhaps it is time to seriously review how your business operates because if the underwriters perceive you are one cock up away from fatality you should probably be concerned too.



There is no scope for a private prosecution. The state pursued a prosecution and got its verdict. That is “justice”. What you mean is the retribution. The families (and there were injured parties too) will be able to sue for civil damages. I doubt such a case will get to court - the insurer will settle. No amount of money will bring back their daughter.


I don’t think a manslaughter conviction would have made any difference to the industry in general. It may even have made “owners” happier that the blame would rest with the skipper rather than with them - even if they are the ones promoting the business as being thrill ride so effectively encourage the helm to seek thrills.

Can’t argue with any of that.
Re. Death by dangerous driving. I was just illustrating the point that if this had happened on the roads. I.e. a person had charged a group of people to be put in some form of transport & driven recklessly around the roads, at excessive speeds, whilst not looking where he was going, resulting in a fatal crash. That person would be looking at a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, which could result in a life sentence. The only difference I can see in this case is that the crash happened on the sea rather than the highway. The result was just as tragic, but the offence was treated differently.
Obviously I wasn’t in court, so I don’t know the whole facts.
The culprits is this case HAVE been convicted of lesser offences, so the jury accepted that they failed in their duties. Possibly this is yet another case of poor performance by the CPS, and a clever defence barrister confusing the jury.

Every one of us on here knows that the skipper is ultimately responsible for the safety of boat/crew/passengers/other sea users. That is an inescapable fact.

There was one man in command of that boat that day, the skipper Michael Lawrence, he was at the controls. He failed to keep a proper lookout & maintain a safe speed. Presumably had he kept a proper lookout, he wouldn’t have crashed into the buoy at excessive speed. In the absence of a mechanical defect in the boat, or any other external influence, I simply cannot grasp how the skipper was cleared.
If the skipper wasn’t responsible for the death of the poor girl, who was?

[C2 RIBS]

Sorry trying to multi quote for Poly I have failed- so cut and paste

"Does that suggest that this sort of practice was quite common? I had assumed (having not really been involved with the thrill ride world) that the rest of the industry would have been “we don’t operate like that so nothing to change”?"

From my knowledge of the charter and trip industry this operation was one a very few number offering "thrill rides". The insurance industry will not cover any new operations that are similar and wont insure many who buy high performance RIBS or offer similar rides

[C2 RIBS]

Second Part-

((It wouldn’t be life as sentencing powers don’t change retrospectively). I think your assumption is flawed:
1. If the jury didn’t convict of manslaughter there’s no certainty they would have convicted of death by dangerous driving (if on the roads).
2. Even when juries do convict of death by dangerous driving it is very unusual for the sentence to be anywhere near the top end of the range. Judges deal with some of the worst people in society, it’s difficult for them to see that error of someone who is not fundamentally evil in the same way as a rapist, drug dealer, murderer etc.
3. Suspended sentences for death by dangerous/careless driving are not uncommon. Analysis of why, probably needs more space than I have time to type - but politicians and media like a headline grabbing prison sentence to show tough on crime, but our jails are overflowing, largely not that good at preventing reoffending and the same media have wrongly portrayed them as holiday camps so a poor deterrent. In driving offences, often the real punishment is the disqualification - there isn’t anything similar for boats AFAIK and it wouldn’t cause the same daily inconvenience anyway.

Like dangerous driving - if you actually want to make boating safer, you actually need to police and prosecute people who drive badly but get lucky rather than throw the book at people when it is too late.

I don’t think we need the new legislation C2 is keen to see (legislation often provides hiding places, or routes for technical compliance that are stupid), but harbour authorities could do with stepping up and managing risks in their area better and taking action for minor issues rather than waiting until MCA/CPS do it for the tragedies."

I sat through the court case with the judge giving route to verdict instructions which was a six point directive and I ticked off some areas I could see a Jury saying Yes, The larger proportion I suspected No and therefore under Judges direction the not guilty finding was to be expected for Manslaughter.
At sentence the Prosecution and defence teams laid out the ruling they considered to be factual for a sentence and the judge then stated what parts he accepted as relevant and then laid out clearly why he made his decisions before he passed sentence. When one hears these in detail I can understand these sentences. One cannot relate to any other legislation like the road traffic act as it is not relevant and no counsel or Judge referred to Road Traffic Law sentences as a reference

The issue of legislation is already ongoing and has been for years.There is a gaping hole in legislation. The MCA has industry representatives reviewing the guidance doc MGN 280 at present to introduce legislation under Sport and pleasure code, today I received the next round of papers to review. The MCA (i.e The transport department) decided after Cheeki Rafiki tragedy in Mid Atlantic in 2014 that their guidance notes had to be brought forward to become legal docs and they plan to complete by 20224- I am unsure if they will achieve that as has to go to parliament and I doubt any time will be allotted.

I expect Harbour authorities receiving instruction from MCA to start to enforce local by laws as MCA have few powers if vessels are not at sea. Hence the recent law change on PWC to include them as vessels.

[Poly]

C2 - I don't think PD is suggesting they should have been prosecuted under the RTA or that the judge should have drawn any comparisons. I think he's probably more aligned to you than you both think - that the legislation is currently inadequate.

Yes if I got a minibus, supercharged it and started haring it round the streets as a thrill ride and killed someone I'd expect to spend a long time inside. But I'd not expect to get that far before I was shut down. But I could go to my local race track and rent a formula ford, or sit next to a racing driver in a touring car and get the bejesus scared out of me. I don't have a fundamental problem with the equivalent on the water so long as everyone understands that its a proper thrill ride / risk experience not a wildlife tour.

IanK - I don't think it will be too hard to convince an underwriter that you are not doing thrills if you don't (in which case do you need a boat that can?) or for some tracking data (and robust processes for "retraining" those who exceed the agreed limits).

[Iankristy]

Originally Posted by Poly

C2 - I don't think PD is suggesting they should have been prosecuted under the RTA or that the judge should have drawn any comparisons. I think he's probably more aligned to you than you both think - that the legislation is currently inadequate.

Yes if I got a minibus, supercharged it and started haring it round the streets as a thrill ride and killed someone I'd expect to spend a long time inside. But I'd not expect to get that far before I was shut down. But I could go to my local race track and rent a formula ford, or sit next to a racing driver in a touring car and get the bejesus scared out of me. I don't have a fundamental problem with the equivalent on the water so long as everyone understands that its a proper thrill ride / risk experience not a wildlife tour.

IanK - I don't think it will be too hard to convince an underwriter that you are not doing thrills if you don't (in which case do you need a boat that can?) or for some tracking data (and robust processes for "retraining" those who exceed the agreed limits).

Might be a bit harder than you think but yes AIS helps, max speed permitted, following code of conduct does to be fair. As for the boats you need power to push 12 folk about. Mebbe not twin 300’s but twin 200’s or single 300 isn’t excessive. You want to work at low RPM for economy anyway. Most will still do 40knts if you wanted to though. The thrill of being out in the water on a ‘fast’ boat is definitely part of the experience though. 25knts in safe areas in the right conditions ticks that box for most though. Much beyond that your buying lottery tickets imho.
It wasn’t the boat it was the business plan that failed here, wake jumping ferry’s and driving at Buoys. Matter of time before it fell apart.

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by Iankristy

Might be a bit harder than you think but yes AIS helps, max speed permitted, following code of conduct does to be fair. As for the boats you need power to push 12 folk about. Mebbe not twin 300’s but twin 200’s or single 300 isn’t excessive. You want to work at low RPM for economy anyway. Most will still do 40knts if you wanted to though. The thrill of being out in the water on a ‘fast’ boat is definitely part of the experience though. 25knts in safe areas in the right conditions ticks that box for most though. Much beyond that your buying lottery tickets imho.
It wasn’t the boat it was the business plan that failed here, wake jumping ferry’s and driving at Buoys. Matter of time before it fell apart.

Singing from the same sheet. Majority of us introduced trackers before insurance insisted. Speeds limited by them and in all our sops and assessments. Different operations for majority of us

[Lee argyle]

https://marineindustrynews.co.uk/dis...xkCswK7u-n3jn0

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Lee argyle

https://marineindustrynews.co.uk/dis...xkCswK7u-n3jn0

Exactly! And that says it all.

[beamishken]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Exactly! And that says it all.

I think you said it all when you said "Travesty"
It seems the only person who disagrees is C2 & whilst he claims his business is different he's still targeting what could be described as "troublesome" clients in advertising "stag & hens". It seems a strange market to target for something as unpredictable as fast boat rides imho.
Our insurers for a holiday cottage specifically state we cannot rent to stag & hens, I wonder why[emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-G950F using RIB Net mobile app

[spartacus]

Originally Posted by spartacus
Potentially the family can seek a private prosecution. In all honesty it shouldn't be this difficult to seek justice.

Originally Posted by poly
There is no scope for a private prosecution. The state pursued a prosecution and got its verdict. That is “justice”. What you mean is the retribution. The families (and there were injured parties too) will be able to sue for civil damages. I doubt such a case will get to court - the insurer will settle. No amount of money will bring back their daughter.

Yes, sue for civil damages. It’s just the sheer desperation of the whole thing. I know money won’t change the situation for the family or indeed the court’s verdict, but for others that we’re seriously injured, they’re dealing with this every day.

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by beamishken

I think you said it all when you said "Travesty"
It seems the only person who disagrees is C2 & whilst he claims his business is different he's still targeting what could be described as "troublesome" clients in advertising "stag & hens". It seems a strange market to target for something as unpredictable as fast boat rides imho.
Our insurers for a holiday cottage specifically state we cannot rent to stag & hens, I wonder why[emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-G950F using RIB Net mobile app

I only disagree in the fact I listened to the case and know facts from Judge , counsel and witnesses. This is not a happy case for anyone involved I can see beyond headlines and see. the bigger picture. I was there in a professional capacity and also spent an afternoon in the witness box covering rules, regs, risks etc, I was also there to learn from others and feed back to our industry so we hopefully never see another event like this. Jury decided and I don't challenge what they decided on the evidence presented to them, I also do not challenge the Judge who knows the law and sentencing guidelines.

As for my business targeting stag and hens you say,, As you looked you will see this is also a small proportion of operations, majority being families, corporates and film events, The parties are generally the best behaved as they plan a day out before they go out on the #iss in the evening. Insurers have declined some who have Stag and hens, it is about how you operate that allows insurance to say what their risk of cover is.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

I only disagree in the fact I listened to the case and know facts from Judge , counsel and witnesses. This is not a happy case for anyone involved I can see beyond headlines and see. the bigger picture. I was there in a professional capacity and also spent an afternoon in the witness box covering rules, regs, risks etc, I was also there to learn from others and feed back to our industry so we hopefully never see another event like this. Jury decided and I don't challenge what they decided on the evidence presented to them, I also do not challenge the Judge who knows the law and sentencing guidelines.

OK, I think we all know what everyone's position is on this. So moving on. In the interests of protecting the industry & its customers. Where (if any) would you like to see any changes to legislation & regulation happening? Would you support a tightening of the rules, and a change to the sentencing if when some thing like this happens again? Or in your opinion, should things remain "as is"?