Electrician and QS on trial for death of woman

[rompling]

I Know its been posted about before but it seems the trial has begun ....
Very sad
Emma Shaw electrocuted 'because electrician was UNQUALIFIED' | Mail Online

 

[derek]

Interesting that the coroner was planning on writing to "NICEIC and other relevant bodies to ask them if anything can be done to curb the practice of electricians signing safety certificates based solely on information reported to them by others". I wonder if the committee that Mr Skelton went to address were aware of this particular case.

 

[D Skelton]

I wonder if the committee that Mr Skelton went to address were aware of this particular case.

Yes, they were, and that's why they told us very clearly at the beginning of the session that any ongoing court cases were not to be mentioned. They were specifically referring to this very court case.

 

[tazz]

This was a good debate, earlier today skipping around the case, and getting into preventive measures. I think Mr Skeltons comments need to be taken on board, as speculation and hearsay can be a dangerous game

 

[southsea1201]

As news becomes available we should discuss this. It will be interesting to hear the defence when they have their turn

 

[Gavin A]

Damaging a trial is technically contempt of court mate.



No, read the article again!

It only revelas what exactly has been said in court, which is now public knowledge. It does not speculate and it does not offer an opinion!

Offering an opinion can potentially interfere with legal proceedings, especially when members of a jury are influenced by that opinion, and in such cases a trial will be brought to an end on that basis and there will be no sentencing.

In other words, the two fellas walk if the court find out that the jury have been influenced by anything other than facts presented in court.

We should not be discussing this

the counter argument to this being that for a juror to see this thread they'd have to have search for the case on google, which itself would be illegal and they'd be the ones being prosecuted for contempt.

This isn't a newspaper, it's a specialist forum that these jurors would be extremely unlikely to stumble across accidentally, which is where the sub judice laws come from.

 

[D Skelton]

the counter argument to this being that for a juror to see this thread they'd have to have search for the case on google, which itself would be illegal and they'd be the ones being prosecuted for contempt.

This isn't a newspaper, it's a specialist forum that these jurors would be extremely unlikely to stumble across accidentally, which is where the sub judice laws come from.

What about one of the juror's family members?

"Oh, guess what, you know that court case you're on, look what I found today!"

Ok, it's unlikely, but I still stand by what I say, and that is that speculation is best reserved for when the jury have reached a verdict.

 

[Gavin A]

What about one of the juror's family members?

"Oh, guess what, you know that court case you're on, look what I found today!"

Ok, it's unlikely, but I still stand by what I say, and that is that speculation is best reserved for when the jury have reached a verdict.

Then the relative would be guilty of attempting to influence a juror.

This fear of subjudice on the web really acts to prevent vital discussions from taking place on the wider issues that the case has brought up, mainly due to a lack of real legal precedent on the specifics of internet forums as opposed to national newspapers.

You can't expect a juror not to watch the news, listen to the radio, read a newspaper. You can reasonably expect them not to directly search for information about the case on google, or for anyone else to directly tell them about a discussion they've read about the case, as both of these actions would themselves be illegal.

That's my take on it anyway. Better to discuss it now, rather than not discuss it at all because it's out of the news by the time the trial eventually ends. Best not to make any assumptions about guilt mind, as that could result in lible action if it turned out they were found not guilty.

 

[Badged01]

I'm no legal eagle and its been a while since I delved into this subject but as I understood it you can voice your "opinion" under free speech on just about anything in the UK --- some areas pertaining to gender, sexuality and race you may want to tread carefully around, although feel free to saying anything about a white, male, hetrosexual!. If its not your "opinion" and you are claiming it as "fact", then beware of the potential of libel laws. (Don't even think it becomes contemp of court unless you are attempting to effect/alter the judicial proceedings in some way.)

The issue raised by Mr Skelton I believe is that if lots of "opinions" are aired (normally thro' newspapers, TV and the like) and the judge believes this has effected the defendent getting a fair trial then he can dismiss, order a re-trial, advise the jury etc. Nothing happens to those with their "opinions" but the case can be brought to a premature close and the defendant 'released'!

All the above of course is purely my own opinion of things .....

 

[D Skelton]

The issue raised by Mr Skelton I believe is that if lots of "opinions" are aired (normally thro' newspapers, TV and the like) and the judge believes this has effected the defendent getting a fair trial then he can dismiss, order a re-trial, advise the jury etc. Nothing happens to those with their "opinions" but the case can be brought to a premature close and the defendant 'released'!

Precisely my point!

It ain't about what the jurors hear, it's about what the judge thinks they might have heard.

The main thing is that these two guys need to get a fair trial, wild speculation, guesswork and fact manipulation does not help anyone. No one on here knows the full extent of what happened, so why talk about it. All will be concluded by then end of next week, why not wait till then to fill yer boots with gossip.

 

[NickD]

This isn't a newspaper, it's a specialist forum that these jurors would be extremely unlikely to stumble across accidentally, which is where the sub judice laws come from.

Is it even a jury trial?

Part of the point of jury selection is to ensure people haven't been influenced by what they may have read outside the courtroom and most certainly they should not be looking at stuff like this discussion during the trial, that's contempt. A juror got jailed not that long back for doing independent research by social media during a trial.

 

[NickD]

To say someone was tragically killed and i quote "because" of the guy who did the inspection is madness is it not? He didn't cause anyone death, might have failed to spot a fault maybe, but even that is impossible to know or prove...So who's to say this fella didn't do his testing when the screw wasn't quite making a short, but it later did short and killed the poor woman..? Amazed it got to court, surely a lawyer would destroy the claim as totally unprovable, and it wouldn't even see the light of day? Very worrying precedent for our work if you can be accountable after an EICR for tragic incidents out of your control.

Bear in mind they are not being prosecuted for causing the death, charge is not manslaughter or anything similar. They are being prosecuted for breach of the Health & Safety At Work Act, i.e. something illegal that they did whilst working.

It has been openly reported in the media that an experience inspector has described the testing the first accused did as, quote, "farcical".

 

[southsea1201]

Personally I think the HSE are going to have to go some to win this case. If the metal stud wasn't grounded surely the IR test would prove nothing. Presumably the metal was screwed to floorboards and joists and side timbers.

 

[Hawkmoon]

We should not be discussing this

If we wish to raise opinions and debate then there is no legal reason I can see why we cant? And as my caveat, all posts in this thread have been my opinion with no basis of fact as to actual event or persons![/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing with your opinion in particular, in fact I haven't even read it, but you are correct, you can air an opinon, but that doesn't stop anyone else taking that opinion from you and airing it as fact.

Some people don't know how damaging talking about trails can be.

Just last year there was a pedo on trail up north somewhere who walked free because he'd already been given trial by media!

In my opinion we should stick to discussing this after the trial has finished, until then, much of what is discussed will be heresay, potentially damaging to a fair trial and of no use to anyone whatsoever.[/QUOTE]




Agree totally on all you are saying, ironically this sentence reveals that you believed this guy to be guilty even before his trial (something you could not possibly know) - we all make assumptions based on the media and/or gossip

 

[steve.b]

The_Wanderer i.e. doesn't it state a "competent person"..

In the new reg's (2015) it states "electrically skilled persons, competent in such
work".

 

[Andrewr3]

Did the circuit in question require rcd at the time of installation as it looks like it was less than 50mm deep, if so the installer is primarily to blame. Incidents like this are exactly why rcd protection is required.

What he said above. It's a recently built flat, it could have been a dedicated circuit for the immersion, but still needs RCD because the cable was less than 50mm deep. Maybe the cable was supposed to be more than 50mm deep, or maybe it should have been protected with an earthed tube but that was left out by the installer. Anyway, rather than speculate I am also thninking about this from a wider perspective. It has made me think again before offering advise to customers on older installations (compliant to previous Regulations) without RCDs. I vaguely recall on a post in this forum where electricians were accused of simply touting for business when suggesting old cartridge or rewireable CUs ought to be replaced for CUs with RCD protection. As someone else here mentioned here RCDs may not be total mitigation of the risk, but they certainly reduce it significantly.

BTW I once noticed in a Social housing a picture hung directly above a wall thermostat. I carefully removed the picture and discovered the nail holding it up was live! No RCD either.