Question Accountability situation Malta

[Cheizz]

I am researching a possible dive trip to Malta in 2024. Given the recent court cases and fall-out thereof concerning accountability for dive buddy injuries etc. - has this had any impact on divers in booking trips at Maltese dive operators? Would you guys have real worries about diving there? Any Maltese industry insiders that could shine a light on this?

 

[ontdiver]

I am guessing that this concerns the 2014 diving accident involving "Stephen Martin accused of ‘involuntary homicide’ over deaths of his girlfriend and another man, which a UK inquest found were accidental" Scuba enthusiast fights extradition to Malta over dive deaths

"Maltese prosecutors are seeking to hold Martin, an IT manager from London, responsible for the deaths of Larissa Hooley, 48, and Nigel Haines, 59, because he was the diver with the most experience on the expedition in question.

The tragic sequence of events began on 7 June 2014 when Martin, Hooley, Haines and two others – Jeremy Coster and Alan Crantson – entered waters known as the Blue Hole off the island of Gozo, just off Malta. All were members of the Brighton branch of the British Sub-Aqua Club (BSAC).

They were swimming along a submerged cliff 10 to 15 metres below the surface when, 20 minutes into the dive, Hooley veered off and began descending rapidly, leaving a jagged lines of bubbles.

Her friends followed, flashing torches in an attempt to elicit a response. She did not reply. By the time they reached her, Hooley had sunk to a depth of 35 metres. Coster and Haines brought her up in a 90-second ascent.

When Hooley surfaced her respirator was out of her mouth, she had turned a bluish colour and was unresponsive. Martin pulled her up on to land with difficulty; the water had become choppy. Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation failed.

Amid frantic attempts to save Hooley, Haines slipped back into the water. Crantson called a passing boat to help find Haines. His lungs had been damaged on the way up with Hooley, and he also died."

As noted in the Guardian article: "Martin’s predicament is deterring British divers from travelling to Malta. “People are refusing to go out there because what happened to me could potentially happen to them,” Martin said. “It’s hitting the Maltese diving economy. If they convict me and put me in jail, then everyone will feel at risk.”"

There are no shortage of criminal cases where the motives for prosecution are less than clear. Personally, I would not risk diving in Malta until the case is concluded. But one is prompted to wonder whether this could happen in other countries as well. I think the answer is yes.

 

[Cheizz]

Recently, a higher court threw the original verdict out. Has THAT at least put the Maltese diving industry at ease? Or dive tourists?

 

[noserider]

I do not think many dive tourists have been put off, it is estimated that there are over 180,000 divers visiting a year

 

[Searcaigh]

@Cheizz

Are you referring to this case Maltese soldier dies in diving incident off Mġarr ix-Xini

 

[Cheizz]

I believe there were two cases, one of which had the verdict thrown out recently because the 'expert witness' was a doctor and not a diver. Here's the one I was referring to: More on Malta verdict

 

[Searcaigh]

Here's the one I was referring to: More on Malta verdict

Yes I believe that's the same case just a different thread.

 

[SlugLife]

There are two cases: (1) Stephen Martian and (2) Castillo. Both were charged. Castillo was actually convicted, but later that was overturned.

Here's the issue I see: The fact that either of them was charged in the first place is a GIGANTIC RED FLAG. Perhaps in the end neither are in jail with a conviction , but both:

1) had to deal with massive stress from the case and
2) had legal costs that I'm sure were significant.
3) had serious risks, of serious consequences.

"But you'll probably win!" Ok? Where is a Malta supreme court saying this case shouldn't have been brought in the first place, and should have instantly been thrown out? Where is the legislative changes that make unambiguous that these cases shouldn't be brought? It's like lawsuits. Even if you have a 95% chance of winning a lawsuit being brought against you, the punishment is the lawsuit and legal process itself.

Even setting aside manslaughter charges, the fact that the courts even considered the plausibility that the surviving buddy may have been obligated to successfully rescue their buddy and make no mistakes, means that in theory, civil lawsuits against you would have some strong potential. Furthermore, courts and juries often side with grieving families, regardless of what the law actually says.

 

[SlugLife]

I believe there were two cases, one of which had the verdict thrown out recently because the 'expert witness' was a doctor and not a diver. Here's the one I was referring to: More on Malta verdict

Yes, that was part of why the conviction was thrown out. Reading between the lines, I did get a few hints of "if the situation was a little different, this appeals court might have changed their mind." Perhaps their decision was meant to be "diplomatic" towards the prosecutor and judge/magistrate that issued the ruling. However, as a diver, that doesn't drive confidence.

One of the main reasons Castillo's case was ACTUALLY overturned, was due to the court of public opinion. In other words, the attention it got from the dive community and various news organizations. Lots of articles, online discussions, organizations, etc all saying "this is bonkers and not how dive-buddies is supposed to work."

 

[Cheizz]

So are you saying I should be worried about the Maltese courts and District Attorney for launching these lawsuits (1) and the fact that the courts can be influenced so easily by public opinion (2)?

Is anything in the works - amendments of law for instance - to mitigate this? Does anyone know?