Training fatality after Instructor held student down - Stoney Cove, UK

[wetb4igetinthewater]

OFF TOPIC ALERT!!!!

Actually, I don't believe he was acquitted. He just wasn't convicted.

From Acquittal vs. Not Guilty Verdict: What Are the Differences?

Essentially, a verdict of not guilty is an acquittal.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I feel for this instructor, and am glad he wasn't re-tried. Instructors can't be expected to diagnose medical issues. It seems reasonable to me that the instructor may not have decided it was likely a medical issue until it was too late.

IPE/IPO scares the heck out of me, and I think about it not infrequently. As I understand it, there's absolutely nothing that can be done except get to the surface immediately--something that is not always possible.

 

[boulderjohn]

OFF TOPIC ALERT!!!!

From Acquittal vs. Not Guilty Verdict: What Are the Differences?

Essentially, a verdict of not guilty is an acquittal.

Right, but the jury did not find that. That was a judge's decision after the prosecution said it would not refile the case.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Right, but the jury did not find that. That was a judge's decision after the prosecution said it would not refile the case.

Doesn't a jury have to have a unanimous decision for guilty? If one rules not guilty, isn't that exactly a not guilty decision? I'm no lawyer and fortunately don't have experience with the judicial system (other than traffic/parking infractions).

This part stood out to me: "After a jury at Leicester Crown Court had failed to reach a majority verdict on 30 March, the CPS told High Court Judge Mr Justice Pepperall of its decision, and that it would be producing no new evidence. Agreeing that this was the correct decision, the judge recorded a not guilty verdict."

We are likely splitting hairs. It is not my purpose to be a contrarian, just understand the system a little more.

 

[Wibble]

Doesn't a jury have to have a unanimous decision for guilty? If one rules not guilty, isn't that exactly a not guilty decision? I'm no lawyer and fortunately don't have experience with the judicial system (other than traffic/parking infractions).

This part stood out to me: "After a jury at Leicester Crown Court had failed to reach a majority verdict on 30 March, the CPS told High Court Judge Mr Justice Pepperall of its decision, and that it would be producing no new evidence. Agreeing that this was the correct decision, the judge recorded a not guilty verdict."

We are likely splitting hairs. It is not my purpose to be a contrarian, just understand the system a little more.

A UK criminal trial has 12 jurors. They are expected to return a unanimous verdict from all 12. If this cannot be achieved and with the guidance of the judge, a majority verdict of 10 jurors is acceptable.

As this wasn't the case "failed to meet a majority verdict" because the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt"; the prosecution failed to meet that standard of proof and the case is closed.

Unless significant new evidence comes to light, that's it, the case is finished.

 

[TerryC]

My feelings here are with the instructor.
The student lied on his medical form.
The student had cocaine in his system.
How did the case even get as far as a prosecution????

 

[Jonn]

The cocaine was very naughty but I don’t see the relevance. Not disclosing diagnosed hypertension was worse but there’s plenty of unhealthier divers around. Sounds like this was another “fatality while scuba diving” instead of a scuba fatality, sort of like a heart attack or stroke.
Your buddy is not a doctor. He can’t help even if he IS a doctor! If you have any sort of medical emergency or loose consciousness for any reason while underwater, you’re just dead. It’s the price of admission to the hobby.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Right, but the jury did not find that. That was a judge's decision after the prosecution said it would not refile the case.


After reading it carefully, I am having a hard time identifying what the instructor did wrong.

The same in the USA where a bench trial is held and judge issues the decision as there is no jury. Judges can also order a jury to acquit in a directed decision. So all we should ever accept is that the instructor is innocent of the crime he was accused of. The judge is a good arbiter of the law and when the prosecution does not refile a case the instructor would still have people thinking he may have been guilty.
The judge issuing his not guilty verdict removes that doubt. It seems to me you also came to the same conclusion as the judge.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

Not guilty =/= innocent.

OMMOHY

 

[Jonn]

Not guilty =/= innocent.

OMMOHY

So if “not guilty” isn’t quite good enough for you, what IS innocent? Do you expect the judge to exclaim how awesome a guy this defendant is, and how he’s a totally great diver who did everything right, and how the prosecution was dumb for even going this far? IANAL but I don’t think judges work like that. “Not guilty” seems to be as innocent as it ever gets.