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

[Miyaru]

Guilty or innocent is just a verdict about the instructor's actions during the dive.

The problems started before the dive and can be fully contributed to the diver.

Hypertension is part of the WRSTC medical questionnaire. On the new one, it's presented even more clearly:
2. I am over 45 years of age. --> B3. I have high blood pressure.

Answering "no" to the first question can be easily determined as true or false by looking at the date of birth. And either the diver is lying or has a questionable mental state. The answer to question B3 can only be determined as true or false by using a sphygmomanometer, combined with the knowledge on how to read the results combined with the overal condition of that person ---> Doctor!

Question 3 on the form should catch the majority of problems below the age of 45: being able to walk a mile in 14 minutes.
If it were up to me, I'd verify that the moment new divers sign up. Join me for a stiff walk for the next 14 minutes and if you can't keep up, keep walking to the doctor's office.

Use of (recreational) drugs basically has the same implications in diving as it has in traffic. But, drug users will usually deny that they are addicted. Cocaine has the side effect of being over-confident, and under water overconfidence is a potential killer.

Unfortunately, the diver's contribution to his own fatality was not on trial, although it did play a role in acquitting the instructor.

 

[Wibble]

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.

The bourdon of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty. They're presumed innocent otherwise.

For a criminal trial the level is "Beyond all reasonable doubt", hence there's 12 jurors.
For a civil trial that level is "On the balance of probabilities" and there's 8 jurors.

 

[Wibble]

Guilty or innocent is just a verdict about the instructor's actions during the dive.

The problems started before the dive and can be fully contributed to the diver.

Hypertension is part of the WRSTC medical questionnaire. On the new one, it's presented even more clearly:
2. I am over 45 years of age. --> B3. I have high blood pressure.

Answering "no" to the first question can be easily determined as true or false by looking at the date of birth. And either the diver is lying or has a questionable mental state. The answer to question B3 can only be determined as true or false by using a sphygmomanometer, combined with the knowledge on how to read the results combined with the overal condition of that person ---> Doctor!

Question 3 on the form should catch the majority of problems below the age of 45: being able to walk a mile in 14 minutes.
If it were up to me, I'd verify that the moment new divers sign up. Join me for a stiff walk for the next 14 minutes and if you can't keep up, keep walking to the doctor's office.

Use of (recreational) drugs basically has the same implications in diving as it has in traffic. But, drug users will usually deny that they are addicted. Cocaine has the side effect of being over-confident, and under water overconfidence is a potential killer.

Unfortunately, the diver's contribution to his own fatality was not on trial, although it did play a role in acquitting the instructor.

Why the need for any medical tests and certifications?

The only thing that should be required is agreement that you:

• Understand the risks of diving == death
• Understand that it's entirely your choice to go diving
• Understand that it's your responsibility to not die of medical problems, especially pre-existing conditions, and if you do, it's your fault

Tired of this cover-your-arse world we live in, especially the ambulance chasers.

 

[Edward3c]

Guilty or innocent is just a verdict about the instructor's actions during the dive.

The problems started before the dive and can be fully contributed to the diver.

Hypertension is part of the WRSTC medical questionnaire. On the new one, it's presented even more clearly:
2. I am over 45 years of age. --> B3. I have high blood pressure.

Answering "no" to the first question can be easily determined as true or false by looking at the date of birth. And either the diver is lying or has a questionable mental state. The answer to question B3 can only be determined as true or false by using a sphygmomanometer, combined with the knowledge on how to read the results combined with the overal condition of that person ---> Doctor!

Question 3 on the form should catch the majority of problems below the age of 45: being able to walk a mile in 14 minutes.
If it were up to me, I'd verify that the moment new divers sign up. Join me for a stiff walk for the next 14 minutes and if you can't keep up, keep walking to the doctor's office.

Use of (recreational) drugs basically has the same implications in diving as it has in traffic. But, drug users will usually deny that they are addicted. Cocaine has the side effect of being over-confident, and under water overconfidence is a potential killer.

Unfortunately, the diver's contribution to his own fatality was not on trial, although it did play a role in acquitting the instructor.

How do you know they didn't complete this form?

 

[Miyaru]

Why the need for any medical tests and certifications?

The only thing that should be required is agreement that you:

• Understand the risks of diving == death
• Understand that it's entirely your choice to go diving
• Understand that it's your responsibility to not die of medical problems, especially pre-existing conditions, and if you do, it's your fault

Tired of this cover-your-arse world we live in, especially the ambulance chasers.

I agree. But there are different justice systems in the world, and the one that leads to litigation, trying to get large amounts of money, is the one that lead to the current liability waivers and questionnaires.

I always mention diving is optional, surfacing is mandatory in a briefing. That's an instruction, and in a course you have agreed to follow instructions. That's a tongue-in-cheek way of covering my arse, but at the other side of the scale you can find the sidewalk injury lawyers of NY.
Failure to mention genetic defects, or being in poor health is something that should never be blamed on someone else.

How do you know they didn't complete this form?

I don't.
It's a form for non-WRSTC agencies, while the defendant was a PADI instructor. So I assume the WRSTC medical questionnaire was used.

However, if it was used, the diver has / should have read "IMPORTANT – FAILURE TO DECLARE A MEDICAL CONDITION WILL INVALIDATE YOUR INSURANCE. YOU MUST DECLARE ANY MEDICAL PROBLEM PAST OR PRESENT OR ANY CHANGE IN HEALTH AS THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR FITNESS TO DIVE."
The diver failed to mention his high blood pressure and drug use.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

hmmm...

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

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.

It is binary in relation to a given criminal act. A fact, if you will. Courts don't establish "facts".

To answer your question, "innocent" means not breaking the law. Guilt is determined by the commission of a prohibited act with the appropriate culpable mental state as defined by statute.

Court decisions or findings have nothing to do with establishing guilt or innocence. Guilt or innocence just "are". Juries don't say a person is "not guilty"; they say they "find the defendant not guilty" based on evidence (or lack thereof) presented by the prosecutor and/or refuted by defense. Simply meaning the prosecutor didn't prove that (a) the law exists/behavior is prohibited, (b) the law was broken, (c) the defendant was the person that broke the law, (d) the defendant has no defense or exemption under the law, and (e) that the defendant possessed the defined culpable mental state in the preparation or commission of the offense.

A lot of "guilty" people are found "innocent" in your use of the word.

The result of a trial - or jurors' or judges' - finding has absolutely NO impact on guilt or innocence - which was determined long before any investigation, much less a trial, starts. Or finishes.

All a trial does is lay the groundwork for punishment - deserved or not is a different question.

OMMOHY

 

[Wibble]

The old adage applies: 'tis better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.

Yeah, a bit trite. The sort of thing that BoJo (our bumbling oaf posing as Prime Minister) would say.

In North Britain, aka Scotland, they have a third jury finding: "Not Proven". That means neither Not Guilty nor fully cleared. Seems a bit odd as "he looks like a villain to me" could prevent someone from clearing their name.

 

[Edward3c]

However, if it was used, the diver has / should have read "IMPORTANT – FAILURE TO DECLARE A MEDICAL CONDITION WILL INVALIDATE YOUR INSURANCE. YOU MUST DECLARE ANY MEDICAL PROBLEM PAST OR PRESENT OR ANY CHANGE IN HEALTH AS THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR FITNESS TO DIVE."
The diver failed to mention his high blood pressure and drug use.

What insurance. UK students don't take out dive insurance because all medical costs are covered under the NHS. The instructor would need to have Public and Customer insurance to comply with UK law they are ar work. The form you refer to not enforcable under UK legislation - it contravines the Fair Terms on Contracts.

 

[Miyaru]

What insurance. UK students don't take out dive insurance because all medical costs are covered under the NHS. The instructor would need to have Public and Customer insurance to comply with UK law they are ar work. The form you refer to not enforcable under UK legislation - it contravines the Fair Terms on Contracts.

Yeah so?
You were the one who posted that form, I just quoted part of it.