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.
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.
Seen this with more than one sport/activity, when you take it from one environment to another the boundary conditions can change a lot. And your internal risk assessment (even without paperwork) should change. Unless you've got no clue.
She pleaded guilty to the sup offences, so presumably the sentence was reduced accordingly?
Correct the manslaughter sentences were reduced from 15 years. IF she has any basis for appeal it’s possibly that 15 yrs after trial would have been excessive, the guidelines suggest 12, but are for a single death. The judge did explain what she would have done for a single death and that totality would be too high if that was multiplied by 4. But given the HSE offence was also scaled back for totality if the manslaughter was slightly excessive, the HSE part may be increased and get you back to the same sort of area anyway.
but that would have made it murder. Clearly it wasn’t, but that doesn’t mean her attitude to safety and her personal perspective on what she could and should do to protect others doesn’t need realigning with societal expectations.I meant a deliberate act ie acting with intent to harm
if you punch someone in the chest they fall and hit their head and die is it not manslaughter?
Blair peach and his thin skull?
irrelevant really however.
the gross negligence here was horrendous
Genuine question - those that are claiming custodial sentence is excessive, would you still be claiming that if it were a driver driving into a group ride and killing 4 cyclists?
It all depends - the forseability of the consequence is a factor as well as the intent.if you punch someone in the chest they fall and hit their head and die is it not manslaughter?
Blair peach and his thin skull?
Yes and I'm surprised that people think a suspended sentence would have sufficed for such egregious safety arrogance. I'm sure if the equivalent on the road (say car license used for minibus of paying passengers, no seatbelts, frosted windscreen which an employee suggested clearing, accidentally turning the wrong way down the motorway?) would have people arguing it didn't merit immediate custody. Or in mountainbike terms - if someone in Fort William with a Bikeability training qualification takes a bunch of beginners to the top of the downhill track, no helments or body armour on an icy day in the dark and says just let gravity do its job!the gross negligence here was horrendous
"Genuine question - those that are claiming custodial sentence is excessive, would you still be claiming that if it were a driver driving into a group ride and killing 4 cyclists?"
This reminded me of this rafting accident where a guy I had worked with and a girl were drowned in a rafting accident. I was involved in the riverbank search and (while not into watersports so unqualified) I was astounded when I saw how big the spate was that they had been rafting. I don't remember if there was ever a full FAI but newspaper reports stated
"TWO guides with the party of white-water rafters involved in a capsize on the river Orchy on Tuesday were not qualified by the sport's
governing body to be in charge of a such a trip, it appeared last night.A police sergeant and a girl of 17 died in the swollen Argyll river. Seven others aboard survived.
The Scottish Rafting Association said the two inguides, Mr Brian Boyleand Mr Douglas Hill, were qualified only to trainee raft guide level after a five-day training course in October."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12680699.death-raft-guides-were-not-qualified/
Sometimes you can only, in retrspect, wonder at the recklessness. A guy I knew who was a diver, but not an instructor, borrowed diving gear and took two friends diving. Both got into difficulty at the same time. One drowned. Again. I have no diving experience, but I thought the rule for diving was 1 to 1.
Edit. Found a report of the FAI.
"The pair only had the basic Scottish Rafting Association trainee guide certificates and were not qualified to be in charge of a river rafting expedition.
They did not have a support vessel and experienced rafters told the FAI they would not have gone out on those conditions.
The sheriff said the deaths could have been prevented if back-up had been provided.
He ruled that the two instructors had a grave and serious disregard for the safety of those in their charge and were not qualified for the task. He said the rafting party should never have left the river bank. "
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/RAFT+TRAGEDY+COP+IN+CLAIM+FOR+pounds+50%2C000.-a060275275
Ah yes, that Orchy incident....
I had just passed my driving test that month. After a hair raising descent of parts of the Loch Katrine to Glasgow Mains water infrastructure in my kids rubber dinghy we decided that something bigger was in order.
We headed north and spotted the Orchy in fat spate through the trees so parked up and jumped on.
Cue one broken paddle and a hair raising descent of Big Rock. We did it a few more times but luckily didn't do a full river trip.
When I got home I heard about the accident and deaths on Easan Dubh.... and have been grateful ever since that Big Rock is the rapid you can see from the road, not Easan Dubh.
Legally, everybody has a duty of care, but the extent of that duty varies enormously. It's higher if you're working commercially, if you're leading, or if your training and experience means that you should be aware of the risks. As a firearms officer, RNLI crew and partly trained paddleboarder, she had lots of training in risk assessment. She must have known that the activity was dangerous, but went ahead anyway - that's the definition of gross negligence.
In 1993 four teenagers on a kayak trip drowned in Lyme Bay. The decisions made by their instructor contributed to that, but she wasn't prosecuted. She had very little training or experience and had been sent to take the trip by the owner of the business, without a proper briefing and with inadequate equipment. He went to jail, even though he wasn't even there when the deaths occurred, because he was ultimately responsible for the situation.
Nerys Lloyd was not just the instructor on the day but also the sole director and majority owner of the business, so carried all the responsibility.
"Genuine question - those that are claiming custodial sentence is excessive, would you still be claiming that if it were a driver driving into a group ride and killing 4 cyclists?"
yes.
I don't think it achieves anything
a year maybe. 10. excessive.
I don't think it achieves anything
a year maybe. 10. excessive.
And what's that based on? 20 years spent studying law, Having extensive knowledge of the circumstances that led to this tragedy, being briefed in all the information and speaking with the protagonists and those related to them? Listening to both the prosecution and defence for several days? Having had many years experience in sentencing and the effects such sentences have on the accused and wider society?
Or a funny feeling in your big toe that something just isn't right?
They don't just pull these sentences out of thin air because some families are crying in court and something really needs to be done you know.
Remember David Rebellin, the truck driver who killed him fled, washed his truck to remove evidence. He had previously been done for a non-fatal hit and run and separately drunk driving. He got............ 4 years. I know who I'd rather be protected from between an incompetant stand up paddle instructor and a drunken multiple hit and run driver..
I don't think it achieves anything
a year maybe. 10. excessive.
And what's that based on? 20 years spent studying law, Having extensive knowledge of the circumstances that led to this tragedy, being briefed in all the information and speaking with the protagonists and those related to them? Listening to both the prosecution and defence for several days? Having had many years experience in sentencing and the effects such sentences have on the accused and wider society?
Or a funny feeling in your big toe that something just isn't right?
They don't just pull these sentences out of thin air because some families are crying in court and something really needs to be done you know.
from working in prisons and seeing what a waste of time and money it was.
I was asked my opinion and gave it. I seec10 years doing absolutely nothing that a year would not
She must have known that the activity was dangerous
Just as a bit of context (as a Pembs local and ex multi-activity instructor for 25 years); where they launched is a very flat and easy bit of river. In those conditions you would move downstream relatively quickly but not 'white water' speeds. The river then straightens and widens as you go through the Riverside shopping area of Haverfordwest. At this point there aren't many eddies and the signage of the weir ahead wasn't very good.
The 2 'guides' had viewed the river from a bridge near the Riverside, on a previous visit, and had been able to see the weir but it was high tide at that time. From their view point it would not have looked like a serious obstacle. They never viewed the weir from downstream or at low tide when the water drops about 10 foot over the weir.
So, to go back to my quote, they had NO idea how dangerous the activity was in that location. No pre-visit of the site and no qualifications to lead on moving water. And incorrect kit and poor paperwork. Negligence upon negligence.
Are you trying to compare two different incidents in two different jurisdictions to find comparative justice?Remember David Rebellin, the truck driver who killed him fled, washed his truck to remove evidence. He had previously been done for a non-fatal hit and run and separately drunk driving. He got............ 4 years. I know who I'd rather be protected from between an incompetant stand up paddle instructor and a drunken multiple hit and run driver..
from working in prisons and seeing what a waste of time and money it was
While I don't totally agree with TJ on this, it is the case that we have one of the highest rates of custodial sentences in Europe and one of the highest rates of repeat offending. Probably a separate thread really, but our approach to criminal justice is not working
In 1993 four teenagers on a kayak trip drowned in Lyme Bay. The decisions made by their instructor contributed to that, but she wasn't prosecuted.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act was made in 2007. IIRC Lyme Bay's outcome was that the director was found guilty of manslaughter as he could be found personally responsible. Haverfordwest is different - it's corporate manslaughter.
It's been a while since I was trained on this, so apologies if I'm a bit out on it.
No she was held personally accountable not her Ltd Co (which she wound up), and accordingly prosecuted directly for Mansluaghter. The reason for creating corpotate manslaugher was in organisations it was often difficult to identify specific individuals who were the controlling minds. As some director, majority shareholder, and having pushed forward with this plan when her employee questioned it there was never really any room for doubt that she was personally on the hook. The "downside" on Corporate Manslaughter is the company not the individual is convicted and so individuals can avoid direct consequences on them.In 1993 four teenagers on a kayak trip drowned in Lyme Bay. The decisions made by their instructor contributed to that, but she wasn't prosecuted.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act was made in 2007. IIRC Lyme Bay's outcome was that the director was found guilty of manslaughter as he could be found personally responsible. Haverfordwest is different - it's corporate manslaughter.
It's been a while since I was trained on this, so apologies if I'm a bit out on it.
I think it is intersting comparing with 'accidents' due to professional incompetance anywhere. That's why I find it disproportionate in this case.
Another comparision, I only used the Davide Rebellin example because this is a bike forum.
https://planetski.eu/blog/mountain-guide-in-court-after-fatal-avalanche/
While I don't totally agree with TJ on this, it is the case that we have one of the highest rates of custodial sentences in Europe and one of the highest rates of repeat offending. Probably a separate thread really, but our approach to criminal justice is not workingfrom working in prisons and seeing what a waste of time and money it was
I don't disagree, but the judge can't change the system so can only apply the rules that exist (within the range of her discretion). She went towards the top of her discretion - so she certainly wasn't convinced that this was pointless. Community justice in the UK is not some magical solution that works consistently well either - she's not a classic recidivist criminal who with support to get their life in order might be reformed. Short (<12 month) prison sentences are known to be particularly poor so banging her up for a year (which in reality would be 4-6 months inside) achieves nothing at all.
The real question to me is should someone be more actively policing these sort of operations - it seems unlikely to me that she's the only person with a side hustle which is cutting corners? I doubt that a typical HSE inspector or LA EHO is equipped enough to even understand this sort of operation and so falls back to looking at paperwork.
But your article tells us nothing about the mistakes the mountain guide made (nor the driver in Rebellin's case). It's impossible to compare the culpability without knowing what that did v. should have done and things like the level of risk their clients could expect. The closest analogy is probably the Lyme bay incident 30 yrs ago - that got one of the directors a couple of years in jail, but he wasn't actually on the trip at the time and expectations in outdoor education safety have moved on a bit since then. Perhaps if his whatapps history proved who said what he'd have got longer! That incident triggered an overhaul of adventurous activity licensing for young people.I think it is intersting comparing with 'accidents' due to professional incompetance anywhere. That's why I find it disproportionate in this case.
Another comparision, I only used the Davide Rebellin example because this is a bike forum.
https://planetski.eu/blog/mountain-guide-in-court-after-fatal-avalanche/
An incident at Glenriding Beck 20 yrs ago is also well known in the outdoor education world, and I think it only resulted in a 1yr sentence - why the disparity? I suspect because the instructor there (who pled guilty) was not the owner of the business and others could or should have done more to avoid it too.
A 21 yr old who was drinking got 3 yrs (after a guilty plea) by crashing a RIB and killing a passenger - but that was not a commercial transaction and passenger would have been aware he had been drinking.
The sentencing guideline was published in 2018 - it suggests sentences between 1 and 18 years depending on the seriousness. Its possible to go less or indeed up to life in prison.
Have you read the actual sentencing remarks (and or the MAIB report) because really this isn't a case of she was a bit naive or got unlucky - it was entirely preventable and quite predictable that it would go badly.
I did read through the sentencing remarks. That's why I chose the avalanche comparison. Avalanche risk 4 is similar to a river in spate. I've done both, I'm not disputing the incompetance and negligence aspects but I'd want intent to justify 10 years.
I've accompanied school groups down rivers, just accompanied, those responsible were paid guides on both occasions. I've also done adventure races with river descents that were "exciting", ironically an obligatory training session we had to do before I'd qualify as dangerous rather than exciting. They are situations in which a guide can make a situation safer but is not an absolute guarantee of safety. There will always be a risk as the parents signing the authorisation or the clients hiring the guide know. You feel confident the guide will not deliberately put you at unnecessary risk but risk is inherant to the situation, and even the best sometimes make mistakes/errors of judgement. I don't feel the sentencing remarks take the lack of intent or nature of the activity into account.
they had NO idea how dangerous the activity was in that location.
Point taken about the relatively benign start and previous view of the weir. There was, however, a discussion about a route to avoid it so there must have been some thought that it might be dangerous. The flow upstream of the weir was presumably fast enough to create a realisation that the water was no longer appropriate for the group? There's a photo of her going down the chute in the centre of the weir, at which point the danger would be obvious, so there can't have been any system for stopping the group.
I did read through the sentencing remarks. That's why I chose the avalanche comparison. Avalanche risk 4 is similar to a river in spate. I've done both, I'm not disputing the incompetance and negligence aspects but I'd want intent to justify 10 years.
Avalanche risk is rated 1-5, its hard to imagine that if the water flow at the weir was rated 1-5 it wouldn't have been 5.
Were some of the skiers in the mountain guide's group wearing ordinary clothes? because some of her customers were not wearing wetsuits.
What would the equivalent of using ankle leashes be when they are well-known as an entrapment hazard?
Did one of his staff suggest that it maybe wasn't a good idea and provide an alternative route?
Did that staff member question if you had checked the latest conditions rather than what they were last time he visited months before?
Was there no risk assessment performed?
Had it been promoted to beginners looking to build confidence? Had he assessed the group/individual competence/experience against the conditions/challenges?
Had he calmed participants anxieties in a whatsapp group saying it would be easy?
Were his qualifications innappropriate for the trip?
Had he provided no safety briefing?
Had he not explained any plan for assessing and crossing the most dangerous feature of the trip (or even that it needed crossed)?
Because I would say that potentially any one of those points might have been the basis for a prosecution (some more likely to succeed than others) and had it been any one of those things then a suspended sentence would have been appropriate, but when multiple factors are combined immediate custody was innevitable because whilst they don't amount to intent to cause harm they clearly show a complete disregard for safety rather than a wrong judgement call.
When they are all combined and added aggravations of the inconsistent explanations / blaming others I can't see how it could possibly be at the lowest end of the scale.
I've accompanied.... ....They are situations in which a guide can make a situation safer but is not an absolute guarantee of safety.I don't think the case would have made it to court if the trip had been an experienced group who understood the risks and adventure and just got caught out, even if some of the guides' actions were a bit questionable.
but that is precisely one of the criticisms here - rather than have them sign a "consent" form or "disclaimer" (which legally might be worthless in the event of a claim) this was promoted as a beginners trip, easy, confidence building. When people questioned if they had the experience they were not talked through the risks they were told it will be fine.There will always be a risk as the parents signing the authorisation or the clients hiring the guide know.
I don't think you are understanding the difference between an error of judgement and a systemic total disregard for the risks. We all make errors of judgement - we don't make dozens of them on the same trip - if each error merits 1 yr she got about the right sentence!You feel confident the guide will not deliberately put you at unnecessary risk but risk is inherant to the situation, and even the best sometimes make mistakes/errors of judgement. I don't feel the sentencing remarks take the lack of intent or nature of the activity into account.
The "downside" on Corporate Manslaughter is the company not the individual is convicted and so individuals can avoid direct consequences on them.
are you quite sure about that? There's generally no double jeopardy problem when the body corporate is prosecuted for corporate manslaughter and individuals are prosecuted for their personal acts or omissions. I flicked through the act quite quickly now and didn't notice any special provisions on this.
In this case, it obviously would have been futile to prosecute the body corporate when it had no money and no activity (although I have seen a couple of other moronic prosecutions of bodies corporate in similar positions) as well as the individual. But if hypothetically the company had been Tui or something, it would have been a good idea to prosecute them as well as the guide (if there were evidence etc).
At a corporate level you'd have a set of policies/procedures.
If someone was following those, the fault would fall on the company
If they weren't being followed, that that would fall on the individual.
Unfortunately this case, either of the above were implemented and it was the same person in both roles.
There will always be a risk as the parents signing the authorisation or the clients hiring the guide know. You feel confident the guide will not deliberately put you at unnecessary risk but risk is inherant to the situation, and even the best sometimes make mistakes/errors of judgement.
1) there is an inherent (ie bare minimum) level of risk that cannot be mitigated to zero from most activities in life. That is true. That doesn't mean that ANY level of risk is acceptable. The guide in this case failed to adequately mitigate the risk involved in the activity. She had a duty to do that. It is not wildly unlikely or unpredictable that a beginner falling in a weir could he seriously injured or killed.
2) it appears as if the guide failed to exercise any judgement at all...
The level of risk from an activity needs to be proportionate to the skillset of the participants.
If its a beginners group (lets say level 1) then all risk should be kept to a minimum. The only risks they should have been taking were general risk around slips/trips/falls and most of that risk could have been mitigated by wetsuits/lifejackets/helmets (although not cool)
If its an advanced group (lets say level 5) and you're asking people to run grade 5 rapids, you cant move that risk to zero. But you can take "reasonable precautions" to reduce those risks as much as possible. eg. recce the trip, assess peoples skillset before allowing them on that section.
Avalanche risk 4 is similar to a river in spate.
It wasnt just a river in spate but also including a high risk weir. So the avalanche example would be more like "today we are going to pretend to be attacking an enemy position at the bottom of this steep slope. I have planted a bunch of explosive charges which will go off at random as we head down. Any questions?"
They are situations in which a guide can make a situation safer but is not an absolute guarantee of safety.
Yes weird crap can always happen but the job of the guide/lead is to try and minimise those. For another weir example Horseshoe falls at Llangollen in low water is fun to run even for relative novices (maybe not for sups though. no idea how they handle drops) but as soon as the water levels rise it becomes rather dangerous since the shape and size make it really difficult to escape or to help.
I have done it a few times now, once I did it one day on a guided course and it was great fun but the following day, after some truly biblical rain, if the coach had suggested it not only would my answer have been "**** no" but I would have probably put in a complaint about their dangerous incompetence.
