WilDDog Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Now that it`s over what should happen to the Solway Harvester ? i have my view but will wait and see what others think before posting . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it should go back to were it was retrieved, to it's original resting place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideways Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 My personal opinion is to take it to ramsey shipyard, cut it up, wiegh in the scrap, and give the proceeds to the family`s of the lost crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 Who actually owns the wreck? The insurance company? The receiver of wrecks?? I suppose whoever does own it will have the say over what happens to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 The collapse of the case raises some questions: Why did the trial go so far down the line ? Why did it go to trial ? What was the attorney general's role ? Is it time for the CPS to be used ? What lessons will the police learn from this ? http://www.manxradio.com/readItem.aspx?stI...52&stCT=General Quote from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4559931.stm "As a matter of law there is no evidence by reference a jury could conclude that the defendant's conduct departed in any way from what was to be expected and certainly it could not be determined as criminal" - Acting Deemster Andrew Moran The court's time has been wasted. Other cases have been delayed and over £1m has been spent. It's sad for the relatives that they wont get the answers they so yearn for, but when any criminal case collapses in court then it is an embarassment for the prosecution, police and other lawyers. Especially so in this high profile case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 It does sound as if an inquest or some form of judicial investigation would have been fairer and given the families the answers they crave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 It does sound as if an inquest or some form of judicial investigation would have been fairer and given the families the answers they crave. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought there had been inquests - and lots of expert reports. It was pretty clearer what was wrong with the boat from those reports (which would have formed the basis for the prosecution) but the criminal trial would have been examining Gidney's culpability for those defects. "Investigating" isn't what a criminal trial should be about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The collapse of the case raises some questions: Why did the trial go so far down the line ? Why did it go to trial ? What was the attorney general's role ? Is it time for the CPS to be used ? What lessons will the police learn from this ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The case was overseen from the start by UK QC's expert in the field and the decision to prosecute was not the decision of the Police. There was a case to answer as shown by the fact that the case survived a challenge at committal stage and went on to a full trial. The Police and and in particular the Expert's investigation was one of the most comprehensive and skilled the Isle of Man has ever seen. As Ian says, it all rested on proving that Mr. Gidney knew of the problems, was totally to blame, and that he had a guilty knowledge of what went on. Not an easy task. Especially as all the witnesses to what actually happened are unfortunately dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mama Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Just reading back through the original reports at the time . It was a herculean task. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/624813.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The case was overseen from the start by UK QC's expert in the field and the decision to prosecute was not the decision of the Police. I know that the police dont decide to prosecute. Thats the job of the Attorney General or in the UK the CPS. There was a case to answer as shown by the fact that the case survived a challenge at committal stage and went on to a full trial. Clearly the outcome of the trial shows there want a case to answer. If he had been found not guilty by a jury after hearing defence evidence then thats one thing but if a judge directs the jury to find a not guilty verdict based on there being no case to answer then thats another matter entirley. The police have spoken of lessons to be learnt. They dont do that when a jury finds someone not guilty based on evidence. But they have in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.