Suspended Sentence??

[Poppy]

https://hmcoastguard.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/suspended-sentence-for-suffolk-man.html

"

Suspended sentence for Suffolk man following serious vessel collision in August 2016

A Suffolk man has been sentenced to nine months in prison, suspended for 12 months following a serious vessel collision.

Nicholas Barrett of Oulton Broad, was sentenced at Ipswich Crown Court today (1^st September) in connection with a collision between his Rigid Inflatable Boat (RIB) and a moored vessel, resulting in life-changing injuries to his partner and serious injuries to one of his young daughters.

Mr Barrett, who pleaded guilty for operating an unsafe vessel, contrary to section 100 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, was prosecuted by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency following a joint investigation with the Broads Authority.  

On the night of 25 August 2016, Mr Barrett’s RIB crashed into a wooden motor cruiser on Oulton Broad. Mr Barrett, together with his partner and their two young daughters aged 10 and 8, were travelling at high speed across the Broad without lights when it struck the other vessel. The impact was of such force that a hole was punched into the wooden motor cruiser, which propelled the owner out of his bunk. Barrett’s partner and one of the daughters were thrown into the water. One of the RIB’s tubes was punctured and it was only sheer luck that neither vessel sank.

The owner of the moored cruiser immediately came on deck with a torch and saw Mr Barrett’s partner submerged under water. His quick actions, locating Mr Barratt’s partner, allowed Mr Barratt to pull her from the water into the RIB. Mr Barrett’s partner suffered multiple fractures to the skull and body and as a result was detained in hospital for several days alongside one of their daughters who had sustained a severe cut to her forehead and leg. Mr Barrett and his other daughter also sustained injuries.

Suffolk Police, Suffolk Fire & Rescue Service East of England Ambulance Service and Lowestoft and Southwold Coastguard Rescue Teams attended the scene to meet the injured parties, who had been brought ashore by a brave local resident, who had rowed to the scene in darkness in his rowing boat after witnessing the collision. It was clear to emergency services that some of the injuries were extremely serious and required immediate hospital treatment. Mr Barrett, who was breathalysed on scene at 53mgs, was aggressive to emergency staff, questioning the need for their involvement and the need for his family to attend hospital. He continued this behaviour at hospital and was required to leave.

In sentencing, Judge Devaux at Ipswich Crown Court commented on the breathalyser reading of Mr Barrett. He also referred to what he said was the apparent culture of drinking on boats and the consequential risks.

In recognising Mr Barrett’s early plea of guilty, he was sentenced to a total of  nine months imprisonment – suspended for 12 months, 15 days rehabilitation activity, 120 hours unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay costs of £15,000 and £140 victim surcharge.

Lucy Burchnall, Head of Ranger Services for the Broads Authority, said: ‘The investigation highlighted the flagrant disregard for the safe operation of the RIB and breached a number of Broads Authority byelaws.  This case is a good example of cooperation between organisations to bring forward this prosecution.

 

 

Jeremy Smart, Head of the MCA Enforcement Unit, said; ‘From the very onset, Mr Barrett has shown a callous disregard for his actions, refusing to cooperate with our investigations and declining to be interviewed. This case highlights the enormous risks associated with, what can only be described as, reckless behaviour and a total disregard for safety of not only himself, but his partner and children. The dangers of travelling at speed at night over unlit water without lights are obvious. There is no room for complacency, especially when you are responsible for the lives of others, particularly children. The risks were compounded in this case by the fact Barrett had been drinking. This case could very easily have had a tragic outcome. The MCA’s MGN 538 provides sound advice for keeping safe on pleasure vessels and we would urge all owners and skippers to make themselves familiar with its content.’ "

Lucky man - what more can be said ?

[ranworthbreeze]

No matter what the courts have thrown at Mr Barrett in the way of fines or the suspended sentence will be nothing compared to the guilt that he must be feeling with regards to his family .

Regards

Alan

[Poppy]

5 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

No matter what the courts have thrown at Mr Barrett in the way of fines or the suspended sentence will be nothing compared to the guilt that he must be feeling with regards to his family .

Regards

Alan

I wonder. This person  was not taking any due care for himself, his family or others it is a fact that even after the event he was aggressive to the first responders and hospital staff.

Once 'sober' and in the days and weeks following when many would then see the gravity of their actions, feel remorse and guilty he did not -Refusing to speak with investigators.

[ChrisB]

I hope for his families sake that he does not take that attitude with his Probation Officer supervising his suspended sentence and community service or he could still find himself in deep trouble. Too many people consider a suspended sentence and community service as "Getting Off" in reality it is far from it.

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

30 minutes ago, Poppy said:

I wonder. This person  was not taking any due care for himself, his family or others it is a fact that even after the event he was aggressive to the first responders and hospital staff.

Once 'sober' and in the days and weeks following when many would then see the gravity of their actions, feel remorse and guilty he did not -Refusing to speak with investigators.

Whilst I'm inclined to agree with Alan, it's when you read the report and see that he blew 53mgs which is approx. 1.5 times the drink drive limit that my sympathies change. 1.5 times the drink drive limit is not good if your about to get into a car, or for that matter drive a boat, but it's hardly paralytic. Which means that he's aggression and wanting to refuse any help in the first instance was more about him trying to cover up the incident and play it down, rather than putting the victims first.

Hopefully by now he has considered his actions and feels guilt at what he has put his family through, but personally I still feel the judicial sentence is light and doesn't send a clear enough message to others.

[JennyMorgan]

For the record Nick Barrett had not been drinking whilst helming his boat, he had in fact been drinking in the local yacht club, it being 'regatta week', not that that's an excuse. Nick and his family are still together. Nick's reported manner is not the Nick that I know so that was something of a surprise. 

 

 

[BroadAmbition]

And what of the damage to the moored craft? 

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

Nick should have known better, plain and simple. It be will interesting to see if the Authority now prosecutes or if anything else develops. 

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/news/man-sentenced-following-boat-crash-on-oulton-broad-which-left-partner-with-fractured-skull-after-she-was-thrown-into-the-water-1-5178122

[Guest]

 what about the moored craft ?? Surely that really immaterial considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by his partner and a small child ! As far as I'm concerned a wooden boat is the very last thing to worry about and I trust its owner believes the same , as for the way sentence , kick off with the probation service and its back this square one ie court no ifs or buts its that simple , his sentence is basically an alternative to a custodial one nothing else and shouldn't be viewed as an easy opinion , this person was very very lucky to be not handed down a much  greater sentence than any court can give .

Im not repeat not defended his actions as his conduct was appalling as reported especially to the emergency services purely there to help both him and his family , that's inexcusable as is not cooperating with investigation .

Obviously people will see this as a light sentence , I don't , I see it as an alternative to prison and more so a very big reminder to both the offender and to a lot of river user's that push the boundary's both on private and hire craft .

[Vaughan]

9 hours ago, MorningSwan said:

identified at the time by only the noise of its approach, no proof but by the jeers and shouting when I turned on a spotlight

I don't wish to enter this discussion as none of us were there and we only know what we have read in the papers but I do wish to respond to the above, for safety's sake.

Please, if you hear a boat coming up the river at night, whether or not you think it ought not to be there, never shine a spotlight at it, as a form of protest. All you will do is destroy the helmsman's night vision and may thus, yourself, cause an accident.

[Poppy]

10 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

For the record Nick Barrett had not been drinking whilst helming his boat, he had in fact been drinking in the local yacht club, it being 'regatta week', not that that's an excuse. Nick and his family are still together. Nick's reported manner is not the Nick that I know so that was something of a surprise. 

 

 

There IS no excuse. This behaviour is not uncommon at some regattas unfortunately, so more of a case for an immediate custodial sntence 'to encourage the others' !

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

7 hours ago, Ricardo said:

 what about the moored craft ?? Surely that really immaterial considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by his partner and a small child ! As far as I'm concerned a wooden boat is the very last thing to worry about and I trust its owner believes the same , as for the way sentence , kick off with the probation service and its back this square one ie court no ifs or buts its that simple , his sentence is basically an alternative to a custodial one nothing else and shouldn't be viewed as an easy opinion , this person was very very lucky to be not handed down a much  greater sentence than any court can give .

Im not repeat not defended his actions as his conduct was appalling as reported especially to the emergency services purely there to help both him and his family , that's inexcusable as is not cooperating with investigation .

Obviously people will see this as a light sentence , I don't , I see it as an alternative to prison and more so a very big reminder to both the offender and to a lot of river user's that push the boundary's both on private and hire craft .

I don't think anyone is suggesting that materials things are more important than human life, even the owner of the moored craft, who was presumably in shock himself, came on deck and helped to locate Mr Barratt's partner, however it must be remembered that he was an innocent victim himself. The report gives an update on the innocent victims on board the RIB, it's not unreasonable to enquire about other innocent victims and their property.

Going off at a slight tangent, my car insurance policy small print says that if I cause an accident and fail a breath test or get convicted for drink driving then the policy will only honour its commitments to third parties to the fullest extent required by law, but would effectively refuse to pay me anything for the damage to my own car, but in addition would then pursue me for any money it has had to pay out to third parties as a result of my actions. Effectively the fully comprehensive section of the insurance becomes null and void if I'm over the limit, and they reserve the right to recover as much of their costs as possible from me. This is becoming more and more common place in car insurance policies. I wonder how long before the marine insurance industry start to take a similar stance?

Whilst I would never condone drinking and helming to extreme limits, I do hope the above incident doesn't cause an over reaction and the instigation of more legislation.

[ChrisB]

7 minutes ago, KingfishersTime said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that materials things are more important than human life, even the owner of the moored craft, who was presumably in shock himself, came on deck and helped to locate Mr Barratt's partner, however it must be remembered that he was an innocent victim himself. The report gives an update on the innocent victims on board the RIB, it's not unreasonable to enquire about other innocent victims and their property.

Going off at a slight tangent, my car insurance policy small print says that if I cause an accident and fail a breath test or get convicted for drink driving then the policy will only honour its commitments to third parties to the fullest extent required by law, but would effectively refuse to pay me anything for the damage to my own car, but in addition would then pursue me for any money it has had to pay out to third parties as a result of my actions. Effectively the fully comprehensive section of the insurance becomes null and void if I'm over the limit, and they reserve the right to recover as much of their costs as possible from me. This is becoming more and more common place in car insurance policies. I wonder how long before the marine insurance industry start to take a similar stance?

Whilst I would never condone drinking and helming to extreme limits, I do hope the above incident doesn't cause an over reaction and the instigation of more legislation.

I think it will find it's way in. In this case the helm was found to be totally at fault. The way is now open for his partner and injured daughter to persue him throught the courts for very substantial damages, not to punish the chap but to provide any aids, cosmetic surgery, and anything else that will go some way to returning their lives to how it was before this dreadful event. And the costs will fall on his insurer.

[JennyMorgan]

I wasn't there, but I wasn't far away, near enough to hear it all. Indeed I , along with others, made statements to the authorities. The investigation was thorough, door knocking every house in the vicinity for example. My immediate neighbour's son was the 'brave person' who rowed out to the casualties. The court costs were hardly light! The actual Coast Guard report is here:

https://hmcoastguard.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/suspended-sentence-for-suffolk-man.html

Vaughan's comment re searchlights is apt. If I had my way I would have a blanket ban on spotlights, searchlights and headlights on all Broads boats. Granted that it was probably ignorance but having encountered a sports cruiser with headlights after the fireworks at Oulton Broad on Bank Holiday Monday I am tempted to refer to the owner as being 'a clown with headlights'!

[Poppy]

This comment from another Internet forum (not one dedicated to The Broads) where this is being discused ,

"Driving a RIB on the Broads confirms his lowlife status."

[ChrisB]

I could see myself if I lived on Oulton with a very powerful Rib to use for going to Southwold, Woodbridge etc. When we were in Poole and I had the Berwick and the Black Hawk with a 90hp it was the speed that it could get us back "In" that made many more days out possible.

[smellyloo]

Fortunately in this country we have professional learned people deciding the fate of those found guilty.

They have the benefit of reviewing evidence, first hand witness to the accused in dock and personal witness testimonies.

Taking all into consideration they come to a judgement regarding a suitable sentence.

Whilst we all have our "uninformed" opinions as to what sentence would have been appropriate I am glad to leave it up to the professionals to decide.

[MauriceMynah]

Thank you Smellyloo, (I wanted to give you both a "like" and a "thanks" for that post but the system doesn't permit that.

Whilst I was reading this thread I kept feeling that there was an explanation missing, more or less the one Smellyloo has just given.

There are four sides to a court case. Firstly the prosecution side, Their job is to paint as black a picture as they can using the facts as they know them. Second is the defence, who are there to minimise the defendant's  actions as best they can. Thirdly you have the judge, who listens to both sides works out what really happened and sentences accordingly, And  finally you have the reporter who has to write as good a story as he can.

Our courts are wonderful (far more often than not) and the judges normally get it pretty well spot on. The press less so. This is why trial by forum can become untasteful The information we are given is from the press plus snippets of rumour with a final pinch of facts from those who actually know something first hand.

Will this man feel guilty for years to come? Not our business. That's between him and his conscience.

Did the judge send out the right/wrong message  with that sentence? wrong question. It's the message the press sends out that we read.

The law of this land has been enforced, and the punishment given. That's the way I see it. 

[marshman]

Sound sound words from the last two posters!

[JennyMorgan]

At the end of the day Nick will have to look at his partner & child for the rest of his life. 

Locking him up would have gained nothing, just depriving his family of their father and partner.

The Coastguard report is clear, and fair in my opinion. For once the press coverage has not been far off the mark.

The original news of the crash was published on this forum and it was only right that the outcome was therefore made equally public.

Whatever our opinions nothing is going to change.

The family remains intact, all credit to them both.

 

 

[dnks34]

The term trial by forum that is often banded about is just a barrier to discussion in my opinion.

Without discussion why bother! 

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

The term trial by forum that is often banded about is just a barrier to discussion in my opinion.

Without discussion why bother! 

 

Can't agree with that , this is a situation that has already been decided on by the law of the land , nothing can be changed by any forum , discussion is one thing , trial by forums is completely different .

[MauriceMynah]

I can see how that often may appear to be the case Dnks34, and I will admit that sometimes it can be so, but in cases where the actions of an individual are the subject, then it can turn into a verbal lynch mob either for that individual or for the judge.

I have seen both here and at the other place, screams for blood followed by some small extenuating revelation causing those same people to shout for mercy to be shown. ( I exaggerate for illustration ).

If the EDP for example had a reputation for good journalism, accuracy and balance, then perhaps we could take the "facts" given and judge accordingly, but it doesn't, and we shouldn't.

Lets take the "Whooops... why try it" as another example. and lets further say that there was a rope wrapped round the boats prop. Finally we shall say that the skipper of that boat joins this forum, posting a timeline of what happened.....

"I was approaching the bridge and as soon as I could read the depth indicator, I went astern to turn round. Sadly a clumsily stowed rope had fallen in and became entangled in the prop. That's why we hit the bridge."

Now just imagine all the back peddling and embarrassed coughing that would go on. That wasn't a debate, that was trial by forum. It was wrong and it was unpleasant. We did not, nor do not, know all the facts yet the skipper of that boat was roundly condemned.

In my opinion, that is the difference between Trial by Forum, and discussion/debate.

Finally I also remember the discussion  that followed some youtube footage of someone in an inflatable racing about then falling in and the inflatable charging about in-manned and out of control. The discussion there was that the guy was a total prat, but we had seen sufficient footage to make that judgment, and whilst that too had rounded condemnation from all parties, it was not without supportive evidence.

I hope that makes my usage of the term Trial by forum clear to you.

[Poppy]

5 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Thank you Smellyloo, (I wanted to give you both a "like" and a "thanks" for that post but the system doesn't permit that.

Whilst I was reading this thread I kept feeling that there was an explanation missing, more or less the one Smellyloo has just given.

There are four sides to a court case. Firstly the prosecution side, Their job is to paint as black a picture as they can using the facts as they know them. Second is the defence, who are there to minimise the defendant's  actions as best they can. Thirdly you have the judge, who listens to both sides works out what really happened and sentences accordingly, And  finally you have the reporter who has to write as good a story as he can.

Our courts are wonderful (far more often than not) and the judges normally get it pretty well spot on. The press less so. This is why trial by forum can become untasteful The information we are given is from the press plus snippets of rumour with a final pinch of facts from those who actually know something first hand.

Will this man feel guilty for years to come? Not our business. That's between him and his conscience.

Did the judge send out the right/wrong message  with that sentence? wrong question. It's the message the press sends out that we read.

The law of this land has been enforced, and the punishment given. That's the way I see it. 

The original post was the entire text from the Coastguard - the Maritime & Coastguard Agency in fact - who were involved on the night and in all of the subsequent enquiry and investigation. I'm unable to identify anything from a 'reporter' on this thread.....