On August 3, 2007, a 14-year-old cadet called Kaylee McIntosh died under an upturned assault craft in the Loch Carnan area at the north end of South Uist.
In March 2008 a marine accident investigation branch (MAIB) report was published, followed by a fatal accident inquiry (FAI) in August 2008 resulting in a determination by the sheriff in May 2009. In November 2012 an army cadet force officer who had pleaded guilty to health and safety charges was fined.
With the amount of evidence produced for the FAI, and the availability of the MAIB report, why did Crown counsel instruct an FAI instead of, in the first instance, a prosecution, as would normally happen? An FAI is based on civil standards of proof and can lead to a determination and comments which expose a potential accused to adverse prejudicial headlines, in advance of a criminal prosecution, as happened in this case.
Given that the FAI did take place first, why did it then take three years and six months for criminal proceedings to be concluded?
The Kathryn Jane sank off Skye in 2004. The MAIB produced a report in 2005. It took seven years for an FAI to be held in 2011.
A trawler called Brothers sank in June 2006. An MAIB report was produced by January 2007. Four years later an FAI was held in 2011.
Given the formation of a specialist health and safety division within the Crown Office And Procurator Fiscal Service, in October 2008, what has been their involvement in and contribution to expediting such cases?
How could it be thought appropriate or acceptable for such overall delays to take place, especially given the benefit of the MAIB reports in each case? Indeed, why do the courts accept them without strong adverse comment? Such delays ought to be deemed totally unacceptable except in the rarest of highly technical cases, which none of these cases qualifies as. These delays are grossly unfair to all parties, and reflect little serious regard for the next of kin and the effect on all who have to revisit the traumas of these tragic events years later.
GR Craig,
South Broadmyre,
Premnay, Insch,
Aberdeenshire.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article