You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A waiver does not override the duty of care.
It only confirms that some activities have risk, and that the participant acknowledges that.
We already have legislation in place, unlike when Lyme Bay happened.
Indeed, and I still wouldn’t be surprised to see more coming out of this
Another rhetoric question- does having someone to blame make the grief any easier/better?
No.
Having been very closely involved in a club run fatality, the subsequent investigation, including my inquest evidence (testimony and video) exonerated the club of all liability. Regardless, riders are made aware that they participate at their own risk, although as an organised club, there is some duty of care (that was exercised appropriately).
It is utterly tragic, and clearly someone very experienced also met their death trying to assist. That must give some indication of the severity.
And this:
We take on risks – it is daily life. What we need to do is find that balance, and that includes learning from everyones past experience, but even then we would not want (And could not have) all risks removed from life.
A waiver does not override the duty of care.
Covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act iirc, you cannot contract out of liability for injury or death.
Indeed, and I still wouldn’t be surprised to see more coming out of this
Having met a good few AALS inspectors, know others at HSE, and work closely with various OEAP & SAPOE folk, the industry will be calling for full facts and a balanced approach.
In my opinion we (at a policy and legal level) do strike a good balance at present. It is usually press and poorly-informed public who clamour for more paperwork. Because paper work is seen as a way of being safer. The reality however is it does not.
Waivers are ineffective, and particularly so if there's a death, because the people who might sue are the family, and they didn't sign them.
I'm not commenting on the Haverfordwest tragedy, that's inappropriate at present, just generally on liability.
It's all down to duty of care. Your duty of care varies with how much responsibility you take, the gap between your skills and knowledge and others in the group and the level of connection. If you're paid to take responsibility, you probably have a higher duty of care than than a volunteer leader, who has a higher duty than a group member. If you have relevant qualifications or experience, so should recognise a risk, you have a higher duty of care. You can't make a guided trip in a peer trip just by calling it that. Having a duty of care doesn't necessarily mean you'll be liable for an accident, you can discharge your duty of care by acting reasonably.
Duty of care is also the basis of manslaughter by gross negligence, see here. But gross negligence implies that somebody knew there was a serious risk and deliberately ignored it, rather than just made a bad decision.
Because paper work is seen as a way of being safer. The reality however is it does not.
Absolutely. Many people think a risk assessment is a piece of paper; it's not, it's a thought process, the paper is just the evidence that you did the thinking.
Waivers are ineffective, and particularly so if there’s a death, because the people who might sue are the family, and they didn’t sign them.
Not just deaths, as per previous post on last page even a non permanent injury leading to an income protection claim and the injured party's insurance co might create the claim. And they literally don't care if you were doing something you loved and knew the risks, they want to minimise their payout.
Covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act iirc, you cannot contract out of liability for injury or death.
Isn't it that contract law can't override statute.
Which involves me supporting their claim by giving evidence ‘for’ them, ‘against’ the instructor. Doesn’t make me look good does it? I’d expect to get dog’s abuse because I knew what I’d signed up for, etc…….
I'm not sure your evidence is "for" or "against" - a witness is giving evidence of the facts; you don't get to dodge the inevitable questions about did you know the risk, did you forsee a possibility of serious injury, had you been honest about your previous experience and of course - did the instructor appear to have things set up well, provide a safety briefing, provide coaching on how to be less likely to screw it up etc. It doesn't follow that your evidence would only be useful to your insurer.
That's why I put the speechmarks. As soon as my insurer decides to contest my claim, and uses my evidence as part of that (evidence I might morally feel like I don't want to give*) then you practically become their supporter.
Of course the reality is you tell the truth exactly as it happens and the court / tribunal would decide.
* on the basis I knew what i signed up for; but your T&C's would say you have to try to minimise the losses to your insurer
That’s why I put the speechmarks. As soon as my insurer decides to contest my claim, and uses my evidence as part of that (evidence I might morally feel like I don’t want to give*) then you practically become their supporter.
Insurance is a totally different process from any legal proceedings brought as a prosecution by HSE or police.
The reason so many folk run scared of litigation is not to do with the legal process - it is crappy employer and insurance practices who are only focussed on maximum profit and/or minimising possible large pay out. It has very little to do with real life, causations or legal or moral liability.
We already have legislation in place, unlike when Lyme Bay happened.
Lyme Bay lead to the AALB? Which only applied to (unaccompanied?) <18's? It has always puzzled me that we assume that adults with absolutely no idea of adventurous activities are able to assess for themselves if an organisation is well run.
The only reason for new legislation though would be: there's clearly something wrong AND the current legislation doesn't encompass it AND new legislation makes it less likely to happen again. My guess is there will not need to be new legislation because at least 1 of those elements will be missing.
This is true. I was cautioned after an accident MTB’ing when a friend looked like they may not make it.
Being cautioned and being arrested are not the same thing though. Whilst we should not infer guilt even if the arrest results in charging (which could be months away if it ever happens), there's an implication that the case has proceeded beyond the general fact-finding and into a criminal investigation. Whilst that might be useful from a finger-pointing perspective it probably makes it harder to get to the truth and learn how to prevent it from happening again.
I don't think we're disagreeing.
I was responding to the "why do people sue for damages when they knew it was a risky activity and signed a waiver to that effect" comments on earlier pages.
And the answer is that it might not be their choice, as soon as their life / critical illness and injury / income protection insurer gets a look at it.
Pretty please could we stop referring to Lyme Bay as an event. It's not an event it's a place. And whilst it's not a problem in this case it is deeply offensive when people use the name of a place as shorthand for an atrocity or accident that happened there.
Many thanks
it is deeply offensive when people use the name of a place as shorthand for an atrocity or accident that happened there.
Mildy annoying maybe, but deeply offensive.....
You're probably right. How about we compromise with deeply annoying?
[s]Lyme Bay[/s] [b]The kayaking deaths that occurred in Lyme Bay on a led trip[/b] lead to the AALB? Which only applied to (unaccompanied?) <18’s?
Indeed - it is all under 18's in practice I understand - but AALB are employed by HSE. This has led to embedding of knowledge and approaches in HSE, as well as their last chief exec, which 'gets' outdoors, adventure, risk benefit etc.
Is AALS provided by AALB not suspended outside of England too? So OEAP and SAPOE have significant role here.
When we were investigated over our fatality, it was both the court (Sherriff and representatives), HSE and Trading Standards who were involved in the investigation. HSE simply brought in freelance workers from AALB/AALS.
I feel I am going down a warren that is important but maybe moves off what I was trying to do in this thread. I do have trust in (particularly HSE) to do a proper investigation and process of the incident - and publish learning.
Will asking leaders/companies providing adventurous activities off-site now need to licence? I don't think so - there isn't the money, there will be many who avoid it, it won't necessarily make things safer.
Isn’t it that contract law can’t override statute.
Negligence claims are civil, not statute?
Negligence claims are civil, not statute
I think it's that negligence claims are common law (tort), not statute. Civil and statute aren't mutually exclusive, claims for faulty goods are based on statute.
And whilst it’s not a problem in this case it is deeply offensive when people use the name of a place as shorthand for an atrocity or accident that happened there.
Tobruk
Dunkirk
Three mile island
Lockerbie
Chernobyl
Fukushima
The Somme
..... It really isn't.
Dunblane
Hillsborough
...
...
Pearl Harbour
...
(It's still not offensive - in fact it's not even annoying)
10 Downing Street, atrocity magnet.
10 Downing Street,
I don't know, they could have used the PIRA mortar baseplate location to name the incident
MOAB - it’s a very long time since I had to worry about AAL Regs, I knew there were changes afoot but didn’t realise they were actually underway. Certainly when first introduced some providers just switched to only taking adults or children with parents, to avoid the hassle.
When we were investigated over our fatality, it was both the court (Sherriff and representatives), HSE and Trading Standards who were involved in the investigation.
Presumably you weren’t investigated by the Sheriff? He may have presided over a fatal accident inquiry but the investigation would be by the procurator fiscal and others. Or he could have presided over a trial, either on his own or with a jury - but even more so then he wouldn’t be investigating, just making sure a fair process was followed and then decisions made on the evidence the investigators presented. Perhaps confusingly many of the PFs offices are actually in court buildings (to save them walking so much).
It's a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn't cause deaths, the most extreme suggestion in the report is a possible barrier near the weir.
It was certainly an avoidable incident but shouldn't we be able to navigate natural rivers without fear of death from manmade features?
It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths, the most extreme suggestion in the report is a possible barrier near the weir.
It was certainly an avoidable incident but shouldn’t we be able to navigate natural rivers without fear of death from manmade features?
Good point, perhaps, but you might be ignoring the fact that many weirs were built decades ago to control river flow and help prevent flooding. There is one in Chippenham where I live, that was built back in the late 60’s, early 70’s, IIRC. Chippenham has a sailing club, which was well pleased at the raised water level above the weir, but below its shallow enough to be able to walk across at times. SUP’s weren’t even thought of back then, there were a few canoes about, but it was mostly small sailboats.
Unless you’re suggesting weir and other waterway engineers used a crystal ball to try to foresee dangers like these, with the sort of watercraft in existence forty years ago, I honestly can’t think of any way weirs could have been designed to alleviate an issue nobody could have imagined would exist nearly half a century on.
shouldn’t we be able to navigate natural rivers without fear of death from manmade features?
That’s exactly the point! They’re no longer ‘natural rivers’, they’ve been engineered with man-made features.
Chippenham town centre had a lovely stone bridge with a park just upstream, the water below was shallow enough I could wade around there and catch crayfish, just the other side was an old mill, and at low water levels you could wade right across the river. After very heavy rain, the bridge would be under water, I can clearly remember a tractor and trailer being used to ferry shoppers from one side of the bridge to the other.
Then they removed the old bridge, dredged out the riverbed to about half a mile upstream of the bridge and built a new bridge and the weir about 200 metres downstream, the water below the bridge by then about fifteen feet deep. The river further down was extensively straightened to carry water quicker downstream, towards Melksham, where more work of a similar nature was carried out, including another weir, and the same was done in Bath.
It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths
Suggests you didn't read the report in full and the Synopsys isn't really reflective of the full detail.
Section 2.6 is reflective in detail.
The main problem was that the leaders didn't know how the weir behaved and interacted with the tide on the lower part of the river.
They didn't even look at the weir.
The BCU did advise on the weir but the measures taken don't appear to have been effective.
If you have a SUP ditch the ankle leash unless you are surfing and use a waist leash.
If you are approaching a significant hassard get out of river and inspect from the bank.
Please be careful on the water and stay safe.
Section 2.6 is reflective in detail.
The annex has an even more detailed review of the hazards of weirs and how to handle them to the extent its a useful document in its own right.
Related subject - I listened to this during the week, not unrelated, and thought it was refreshing that it made a sober, realistic assessment of potential dangers attached to inexperience in addition to extolling the activity. Quite rare in current media that it struck a good balance as an intro to anyone who's curious about packrafting.
https://www.theoutdoorsstation.co.uk/2022/12/no-554-packrafting-an-introduction/
Unless you’re suggesting weir and other waterway engineers used a crystal ball to try to foresee dangers like these, with the sort of watercraft in existence forty years ago, I honestly can’t think of any way weirs could have been designed to alleviate an issue nobody could have imagined would exist nearly half a century on.
I'm sorry,but this is not true. I clearly recall the weir on the Awe being a kayaker killer just less than 40 years ago. And the only reason I don't have personal knowledge going back further is because I'm not old enough and started paddling late. I'm 100% sure that people knew weirs were lethal to riverrunners long before that. The reason nobody gave a shit was that in the minds of the powers that be the kayaker shouldn't have been there and so nobody GaS.
I'm intrigued how the increase of wild swimming and SUPing is going to impact on waterway access
I’m 100% sure that people knew weirs were lethal to riverrunners long before that. The reason nobody gave a shit was that in the minds of the powers that be the kayaker shouldn’t have been there and so nobody GaS.
Sadly I agree with this.
And on the wier in question there's mention of missing risk assessment and angle blocks to aid escape.
If you have a SUP ditch the ankle leash unless you are surfing and use a waist leash.
@Bruce Why is that? (Not a SUPer but Mrs kilo is)
When a current is running, either in a river or a tidal flow then there is a real danger of the paddler snagging the leash on a branch, rock or other obstical in the water and the board going one side of the obstical whilst the paddler goes the other. It doesn't take much flow to mean that the paddler is unable to push against it and reach down to release the leash. A waist leash with an easily reached quick release tab means its much more likely the paddler can exit an emergency situation. Palm equuipment have just started producing a very good version.
@Bruce Why is that? (Not a SUPer but Mrs kilo is)
It's in one of the appendices to the report I believe. It's recommended in fast moving water as it's quicker and easier to release at waist height if you go under and the leash gets caught. The ankle ones are recommended only for slow moving waters such as lakes and they recommend you always use it on the same ankle so you automatically know where to go to release it
edit: just too slow 🙂
Thanks both.
I haven’t read the report but I agree that anyone who takes payment to lead and teach a group should have walked around the weir. A risk assessment would have identified that as a considerable hazard as such.
Moving onto the weir itself, surely the owners should put something there to stop people going over it. Appreciate it could cause issues in retention of debris when the water is high - so would need a bespoke design. There should also be something designed so if anyone would get trapped in there, a way for them to escape. What, I don’t know, but some form of steps and railings?
Let’s not just leave it as they shouldn’t be there and it was the instructors fault - with nothing being physically done to these dangerous low dams.
are they actually recommended or just tolerated? They don’t make sense in any situation IMO especially given that a lot of people don’t even have the mobility to touch their toes so how can they release themselves when tangled and/or panicked? IIRC there was a separate situation where a chap drown as he got it wrapped around a parked boat & it basically held him underwater ☹️The ankle ones are recommended only for slow moving waters
Moving onto the weir itself, surely the owners should put something there to stop people going over it. Appreciate it could cause issues in retention of debris when the water is high – so would need a bespoke design. There should also be something designed so if anyone would get trapped in there, a way for them to escape. What, I don’t know, but some form of steps and railings?
Totally impracticable and stupid idea. It would require a screen similar to our trash screens where they are for safety purposes to keep someone from going through, the screen would have to have the bars set at 6" apart no more so therefore on the main river they would constantly be blocked with weed and debris so preventing it from doing its job which is to maintain river levels. A wier/sluice have a few feet of concrete wing wall on either side then that's it. All our weirs and sluices have buoys across to prevent large pieces of debris and boats from getting stuck on them and yet it still happens.
It's utterly laughable that the authorities think that putting up signage would help. Britain is so festooned with pointless over the top warning signs that people would completely ignore them
Fair enough if we went down the Austrian route of only signing occasional things that are actually deadly then we might have a chance. But in the land of
" danger reservoirs can kill"
"Danger Hot water"
" danger this packet of nuts contains nuts"
" danger this Thermarest is not a US Coastguard approved lifesaving device"
" danger hot coffee"
" extreme danger, this is a Llandegla black route"
Etc
Etc
A risk assessment would have identified that as a considerable hazard as such.
I got the impression they were mostly sea based so didnt recognise the threats weirs pose.
Moving onto the weir itself, surely the owners should put something there to stop people going over it.
That would become a threat in its own right in the wrong conditions and also be seriously problematic for debris catching during floods. Plus it would prevent its use in safe conditions.
There are options for improving warnings although how much these beat good signs would be debatable.
The appendix does show various options mostly floating barrels with a passage gap so people who know what they are doing can keep going and hopefully others will get the hint.
There should also be something designed so if anyone would get trapped in there, a way for them to escape.
According to the report when they put the fishrun in they were asked to put in corner blocks to try and give exit points (the nasty thing about weir hydraulics is they tend to be uniform and so dont have a weak point to escape from). Sometimes ladders help although the report does suggest one problem was the paddleboards getting stuck and since it was ankle leashes the person couldnt manage to get free. Which would be problematic for any escape option.
"I got the impression they were mostly sea based so didnt recognise the threats weirs pose."
This is a huge point. I'm from a sea background, have been on and around the sea all my life surfing, windsurfing, sailing and sea kayaking - including plenty of rescue/lifesaving/powerboat courses. I've surfed (badly) plenty of big breaks and whilst I'm a rubbish surfer, i do know where to put myself to minimise danger. I've crossed oceans under sail and sea kayaked hundreds of miles.
In my 40's I started paddling inland moving water.....how hard can it be i thought and surely I know enough from my years of training on the sea to be an expert straight away...
.I knew NOTHING...couldn't pick out a dangerous weir from a safe one, couldn't judge a safe water level from an unsafe one, had no idea how rainfall would affect certain rivers to make them dangerous whilst actually making others safer.
It was incredible feeling the force of an innocous little stream and how unlike even the biggest set of waves, inland moving water can hold you down literally for ever. I basically had to relearn everything from scratch apart from maybe the hyperthermia and medical stuff.
So I'm not suprised that a fully trained RNLI guy was out of his knowledge sphere on a pretty basic weir.
The problem with ankle leashes is that in flowing water if the leash gets hooked on a bouy or something the flow prevents you from reaching the leash or your ankle. There have been fatalities.
If you use a waist leash you can always reach it.
The weir disappears when the tidal section below the weir is at high water and you can paddle safely past the weir.
As the river level drops the weir becomes more dangerous, add in that the river level was high and you have a potential disaster.
When the instructors had run that section the tide below the weir was high.
There are hundreds of weirs on rivers.
If in doubt don't go near them.
It’s a shame that there is no mention of designing weirs on rivers in a way that doesn’t cause deaths, the most extreme suggestion in the report is a possible barrier near the weir.
I agree
Good point, perhaps, but you might be ignoring the fact that many weirs were built decades ago to control river flow and help prevent flooding.
Dangerous weirs are still being built, even though there's information about how to design safer ones, and some safer ones are built, which shows that it can be done. Dangerous but redundant weirs are being left, rather than demolishing them and restoring the natural river. Similarly, some are removed, it's quite feasible.
Section 2.6 is reflective in detail.
It only discusses things that might have affected the weir in question. What's missing is a recommendation to review all weirs and risk assess them. Unless the cost of removing the risk is grossly disproportionate to the benefit, the risk must be removed. There's already a legal duty to do that (look up the ALARP principle) but weir owners need reminding.
Barriers at the top of weirs can cause a pin hazard to kayaks and canoes.
Barriers at the top of weirs can cause a pin hazard to kayaks and canoes.
Yes indeed, not to mention collection trees etc that make that worse. A clear sign that the MAIB don't understand rivers - ironic, when perhaps their main conclusion was that the trip organisers didn't understand rivers.
<div class="bbcode-quote">
The ankle ones are recommended only for slow moving waters
</div>
are they actually recommended or just tolerated?
That's just a language thing. I understood from the doc that it's is recommended that you only use them in slow moving waters rather than it is recommend that they are used in slow moving waters.
Report below.
It's not a surprise there is a prosecution going on. It seems much of the incident was predictable and avoidable to anyone with training, experience and a suitable assessment of the risks.
The important positive is that lessons can be learned
SAFETY ISSUES DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR RESULTED IN
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Four stand up paddleboarders lost their lives because they became trapped in the
hydraulic towback at Haverfordwest Town Weir, from which there was no means of
escape. [2.3]
2. The tour leaders had planned for accommodation transport and weather; however,
without a documented risk assessment and briefng of the participants, the planning
and preparation for the tour were inadequate and had overlooked both the active
food alert for the river and the risk posed by the weir. [2.4]
3. Clothing, buoyancy aid and leash wearing were inconsistent across the group and
did not follow recognised guidance that paddleboarders on fast-fowing water should
wear a suitable personal fotation device and quick release waist leash. [2.5]
4. Lack of clarity over responsibility for the Haverfordwest Town Weir resulted in the
hazards it posed to river users being inadequately mitigated. Specifcally, a weir risk
assessment had not been carried out; the efectiveness of the fllets to create ‘wash-
out’ zones had not been assessed; and the signage of the hazard was inefective
and did not conform to national guidelines. [2.6, 2.7]
5. The tour leaders were experienced paddleboarders who had undertaken training as
instructors; however, they did not have the training, experience, or qualifcations to
lead itinerant tours, and their pre-tour planning and reconnaissance did not identify
the hazard posed by the weir. [2.8]
6. The tour leaders’ decisions went unchallenged by the participants because they
appeared confdent and competent. [2.8]
3.2 SAFETY ISSUES NOT DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR RESULTED IN
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Without an active national governing body for the sport of stand up paddleboarding
in the UK there is:
a. no consistent safety messaging to the sport’s participants on stand up
paddleboard safety in respect of potential risks from weirs and other hazards,
or on the wearing of appropriate safety equipment (PFDs and leashes, etc.);
and,
a. no metric for those who seek to participate in a sport in an environment where
there are multiple unregulated training providers, with inconsistent governance,
to judge the competence of those businesses ofering stand up paddleboard
training, tours or expeditions. [2.9]
That MAIB report is depressing reading. An entirely avoidable incident.
If anything the sentencing was worse! 10.5 years in total (4x Manslaughter + H&S offences).
Awful story.
I've been involved in paddlesport for years and SUP for at least a decade. Its absolutely inconceivable that any credible instructor wouldn't have known that weir on that day was a killer. Beginners (or anyone with leg leashes) had no place on that river even away from the weir on that day with the volume of water flowing and height as there were plenty of semi submerged fenceposts, sticks etc that could have become strainers to catch a leash dragging behind a board.
I can't believe she was in the RNLI - she literally broke every rule in the book, no risk assessment, no briefing, no next of kin details...but I see this literally all the time with SUP especially and SoTs as well.
If anything the sentencing was worse!
Tell us more... are you saying it was too lenient?
I read that as saying the sentencing was worse to read than the MAIB report. It was awful to hear how Paul O' Dwyer had raised concerns, Nerys dismissed them and it was Paul that died later after going back in to the weir to try and save others. Also sounds like Nerys tried to pin it on Paul after the incident.
I also can't believe she was in the RNLI and that she was in the police (although was suspended at the time for something unrelated).
If anything the sentencing was worse!
Tell us more... are you saying it was too lenient?
No - here's the judges remarks
(you can probably find a video online somewhere - I watched her deliver it). The MAIB report is a catalogue of stupidity but which you could perhaps put down to inexperienced optimism, and the MAIB were certainly happy to point out the lack of governing body clarity and well defined training expectations etc. The MAIB doesn't do "blame" although sometimes its clear what they are saying, but they seemed to share the blame between the instructors. The Judge doesn't really place blame anywhere except on Nerys Lloyd, the other instructor had made safer suggestions and she overruled.
I'm unsure from the reporting but was she being paid to lead the group or were they a bunch of friends of whom she was the most experienced, and she also worked as an instructor?
She was a commercial company running a trip advertised as for beginners. Some of the people on the trip were friends.
I also can't believe she was in the RNLI and that she was in the police (although was suspended at the time for something unrelated).
I don't think she was. I read it as she had RNLI training as a police officer.
Tragic as the consequences of the incompetence were I can't see how a custodial sentence will do society or families of the victims any good - unless they're out for revenge, which isn't really what a judicial system should be about IMO. A jail term is a cost to society that doesn't compensate the victims. Are they suspended sentences?
Its absolutely inconceivable that any credible instructor wouldn't have known that weir on that day was a killer
The impression I have got is pretty much all her background was in the sea and she didnt understand just what a dangerous environment a river and especially wiers can be.
I read it as she had RNLI training as a police officer.
The judgement says "You are also a
trained RNLI volunteer and will have been on countless health and safety courses and conducted many risk assessments at work and as with the RNLI where the thoroughness of your paperwork was noted."
I'm unsure from the reporting but was she being paid to lead the group or were they a bunch of friends of whom she was the most experienced, and she also worked as an instructor?
She set up a company to do instructing, guiding and sell equipment. She was the sole director and majority shareholder of the company. She employed the other instructor (who I think was her neighbour). His wife was on the trip. Everyone else on the trip had paid to be there - it was a “package” that involved an AirBnB and the guiding. The judge made the point that it probably barely covered its costs. (although that is presumably part of building a business/brand/reputation). She had previously taught some of them to paddleboard, others she had no real knowledge of their experience. Had she just been a friend who coordinated the WhatsApp group or was at the front etc then I’m not sure it would have got to prosecution stage, and certainly her legal advise might have been different. BUT if anyone is reading this thinking well that’s ok then my bike/kayak/sup trip would never see me in the dock as I’m not paid - I think you’ve missed the point. It was entirely possible for her to avoid the dock just by doing some really basic stuff. It is interesting that the MAIB and Judge has made quite a fuss about “Next of kin details” - whilst it is probably a proxy for running a professional operation it would have made zero difference to the risk involved. Let me ask this though - if you do ride or paddle with a loose group of friends, perhaps you have a what’s app group but don’t know each others addresses or partners details etc… would you know who to contact if someone had a bad accident?
I also can't believe she was in the RNLI and that she was in the police (although was suspended at the time for something unrelated).
I don't think she was. I read it as she had RNLI training as a police officer.
she was crew on the Port Talbot lifeboat
Jail sentences are for 3 purposes. Punishment. Deterrence and rehabilitation.
This seems increibly harsh to me. Deterence would be seeved by pretty much any sanction. There is no rehabilitation needed in this case as it was not a deliberate act.
What putting her in jail for 10 years acheives i cannot see. Suspending most of it would seem much fairer
It seems very out of line with other negligent death cases
Tragic as the consequences of the incompetence were I can't see how a custodial sentence will do society or families of the victims any good - unless they're out for revenge, which isn't really what a judicial system should be about IMO. A jail term is a cost to society that doesn't compensate the victims. Are they suspended sentences?
No they are not suspended - I’m not sure a 10yr sentence can be suspended.
the (proper) purposes of sentencing are:
- deterrence (crime reduction)
- punishment
- rehabilitation
- restitution/reparation
- protection of the public
You are quite right in that she’s likely not a major threat to the public (although I noted shes closed the business down she still seemed to be involved in other outdoor activities etc, and some people were certainly uncomfortable that she seemed to be trying to keep living normally - so perhaps some risk given she tried to pass the blame to others).
She will almost certainly do nothing useful towards restitution in a British prison, although it’s hard to see what significant benefit should could achieve in the community either. Had she spent the last three years promoting SUP safety, highlighting the dangers of weirs etc that argument would be stronger. I suspect the families desire for a harsh sentence would be different depending on her post incident attitude.
rehab it U.K. prisons is poor, she’ll almost certainly leave prison in her mid forties virtually unemployable. It’s far from impossible that she never works or makes a useful contribution to society again. Prison is expensive but so are community sentences.
BUT for manslaughter punishment and deterrence are important considerations. Inevitably families want vengeance, that’s not really what sentencing is for but society expects people who cause deaths to suffer consequences. The gravity of the screw ups were pretty high - sometimes the consequences are huge but the mistake was small, this is not one of those cases.
perhaps more importantly there needs to be a deterrant effect for other cavalier operators, not just on Paddleboards but any risky activity with guides - to give them pause for thought that if the are Grossly Negligent they will suffer real consequences not just a “behave from now on”.
The risks she took weren’t simply bad judgement calls. They were criminally stupid. She’s been inconsistent about how much of it was her fault and tried to pass the blame to others. There are sentencing guidelines in England to help judges come up with consistent sentences. She fell into the second highest category the judge spent a long time explaining why.
I'm unsure from the reporting but was she being paid to lead the group or were they a bunch of friends of whom she was the most experienced, and she also worked as an instructor?
She set up a company to do instructing, guiding and sell equipment. She was the sole director and majority shareholder of the company. She employed the other instructor (who I think was her neighbour). His wife was on the trip. Everyone else on the trip had paid to be there - it was a “package” that involved an AirBnB and the guiding. The judge made the point that it probably barely covered its costs. (although that is presumably part of building a business/brand/reputation). She had previously taught some of them to paddleboard, others she had no real knowledge of their experience. Had she just been a friend who coordinated the WhatsApp group or was at the front etc then I’m not sure it would have got to prosecution stage
I'm wondering about it from the context of a qualified instructor on a trip with friends, and friends of friends. When arranging trips one person will often pay for the accommodation, food, etc and then everyone else pays them back. A mate is an outdoor instructor so I'd not want to put him at risk if I ****ed up. I still find it odd that everyone just went along with her decisions rather than saying no.
I still find it odd that everyone just went along with her decisions rather than saying no.
Perhaps because she claimed to be an expert, everyone else deferred to her ‘experience and expertise’, and not knowing anything about the sport, or dangers associated with the environment, didn’t think to question her decisions, or when or if to say no.
You wouldn’t find me on one of those things under any circumstances, however, I live where the River Avon, (or the Bristol Avon) runs through the town, and I’m familiar enough with weirs and the possible hazards after heavy rain, so just seeing the rate of flow would mean a big ‘nope!’ from me anyway; plenty of people wouldn’t know anything about the risk situation and would probably think “ooo, this looks exciting!”
ok so this is 100% not comparable to what happened here. This was a business, there was no suggestion it was anything other than a business arrangement. That doesn’t mean someone organising a friends or f of friends trip couldn’t find themselves in hot water BUT it’s always going to be a public interest in prosecuting rogue commercial operators and may not be when friends have gone wrong. The test for gross negligence manslaughter is quite high, ordinary sensible ish adventures gone wrong won’t cross it.I'm wondering about it from the context of a qualified instructor on a trip with friends, and friends of friends. When arranging trips one person will often pay for the accommodation, food, etc and then everyone else pays them back.
I can’t see how your ****up would put him at risk. He’d only be prosecuted for his ****ups, and only then when other parts of the test were met. I know a few paddleboard and canoe instructors and none of them are at all worried about how this impacts them, because they were all horrified that anyone would have tried that trip on that day never mind the catalogue of other things she did wrong.A mate is an outdoor instructor so I'd not want to put him at risk if I ****ed up.
The objective is surely not to kill anyone on your trips! If you remember that is the priority you’ll probably be fine!
well the other instructor did try to dissuade her from going over the weir but she “insisted” as the boss. Only one of the other participants was even aware there was a weir on the route. They had signed up for an trip that was suitable for inexperienced paddlers, some were not wearing wetsuits so clearly didn’t plan to go in the water, one was not wearing a buoyancy aid, they wore ankle leashes so were either new to paddling moving water or weren’t expecting to be on moving water. Some had expressed general concerns about their experience level on a what’sapp group but been reassured they would be fine. They were all aware of a bad weather alternative plan which was not “activated”. There was no safety briefing, they just got on the boards and set off. That would surprise me but many of them had paddled together before - it might seem overkill to do it everytime. It was relaxed - playing music, singing along, then very soon after they were at a weir with no prior warning. By that point it was probably too late if you had any doubts. They had been in the care of two instructors/guides, as a novice you expect them to be telling you if you need to be careful not the other way around. The guides came from a company with a shop not a flash in the pan operation. If they were aware that she was a cop and RNLI volunteer it probably adds extra credibility to her reliability and sensibleness. If they could see her - she had made it over the weir, had she got in difficulty clearly that might have set off alarm bells. There is a well known phenomenon in outdoor activities where a sort of groupthink takes place and everyone is thinking this seems stupid, but it must just be me as one of these other people would have spoken up by now. It’s particularly common in groups with mixed experience.I still find it odd that everyone just went along with her decisions rather than saying no.
There is no rehabilitation needed in this case as it was not a deliberate act.
Actually whilst the judge was clearly she had no intention to harm anyone, I think it’s quite clear the judge did consider many of the actions were deliberate eg:
- she ignored suggestions at the planning stage to bypass the weir
- she made no attempt on the day to stop at the steps
- she didn’t provide a safety briefing or ensure that her colleagues did
- she did know the dangers of ankle leashes and ignored them
- she did know that professional planning involved proper risk assessment and chose not to bother
That’s very different from simply making a poor judgement call, or being distracted, or forgetting to do something. From the sentencing remarks it’s not at all clear to me that she actually really understood the fundamental screw up rather than just misunderstanding the weir.
I meant a deliberate act ie acting with intent to harm
I meant a deliberate act ie acting with intent to harm
Surely the deliberate act was to run an activity, as a trainer/instructor for which she was not remotely qualified.
If i went out today and plowed through a bus stop fulk of kids because i wasn't concentrating thats not deliberate but its worthy of a stretch? I can go to prison for designing something that fails and causes injury or death if i am proven to be negligent.
This is a police officer remember this is someone who did know better.
attempting to fit up the dead colleague probably didnt do her any favours at sentencing
I was a bit surprised when I first heard the sentence but her complete failure/arrogance of the risks in this case was huge.
I have a lowly BC Level 1 ride leader qualification to work with our local councils health ride group. I led one of the less experienced groups last Monday night, and after a bit of rain during the day and seeing a couple of the group struggle a bit on the hills, I was tweaking the route on the fly to make it flatter, less muddy, and still get back on schedule. It's really basic stuff. Never mind any potential liability on me and the council, I don't want anyone to get hurt and/or be put off.
This is a police officer remember this is someone who did know better.
Sacked. Received a caution for insurance fraud. Lovely sounding person.
She pleaded guilty to the sup offences, so presumably the sentence was reduced accordingly?
Anyone know if they both had zero qualifications, or their qualifications didn't cover them for moving water? i.e. did they have the Paddlesport leader qual but not the SUP white water leader qual? I've heard the were 'unqualified' but unsure if that is an oversimplification.
Anyone know if they both had zero qualifications, or their qualifications didn't cover them for moving water? i.e. did they have the Paddlesport leader qual but not the SUP white water leader qual? I've heard the were 'unqualified' but unsure if that is an oversimplification.
Yes they had a qual but not an appropriate qual. I don’t think it was Paddlesport leader (which is BCU?) but was sup specific and intended for teaching newbies in sheltered water.