Man buys speedboat “to pull women”......

[hyphen]

rscott said:

hyphen said:

rscott said:

Unsurprisingly, turns out the Daily Mail story doesn't have much of a connection to reality.

These are the solicitors defending him - https://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/response-to-the-... .
They received £30k in legal aid, not nearly £100k and 95% of the work was done before he absconded. Including the grant of leave to appeal.

The two dont add up.

The solicitors claim they did not get 100k, but papers haven't actually said they did. Papers say a total for overall crown court costs so perhaps more than net fees for the brief? And then also a seperate barrister involved. Media claim they got figures from a freedom of information request, so imagine that was from the government legal aid and a total amount??

Papers said:

"A Freedom of Information request reveals he got £50,642 towards crown court solicitors’ fees, and £42,650 went to Stephen Vullo QC, who was in contact with Shepherd throughout the trial."

Tucker's is not even mentioned from what I can see. Is there another article also in the daily mail other than that one?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6555609/Top-lawyers-slam-legal-aid-speedboat-killer-gets-100-000-legal-aid.html

But again, that only quotes the total figure including QC. The solicitors on their site are saying that they have been accused of getting 100k, however this article claims a overall legal aid bill and the other article have a breakdown. What are the solicitors replying to as I can't see it.

[JonChalk]

Thesprucegoose said:

JonChalk said:

beyond reasonable doubt.

that makes no sense, he could be arrested to identify who he is under a request, most countries have clear bilateral agreements, as well he has been convicted, so no doubt there.

the met released this statement yesterday, 'The Metropolitan Police conceded they are not yet any closer to finding Shepherd despite an international manhunt.''

Merely repeating what I've been told by someone assisting the Met - they suspect they know who's helping him and where they are, and are waiting to prove this means they know where and how he is hiding specifically, so that extradition and arrest can be processed.

edit for clarity

[BlackLabel]

rscott said:

Unsurprisingly, turns out the Daily Mail story doesn't have much of a connection to reality.

These are the solicitors defending him - https://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/response-to-the-... .
They received £30k in legal aid, not nearly £100k and 95% of the work was done before he absconded. Including the grant of leave to appeal.

The Mail took the story from the Sun. here’s the original Sun piece.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7877697/boat-killer-...

The solicitors who have responded are responding to something which hasn’t even been said - no one said they got the full £100k.

“A Freedom of Information request reveals he got £50,642 towards crown court solicitors’ fees, and £42,650 went to Stephen Vullo QC, who was in contact with Shepherd throughout the trial.”

I know it’s in the Sun but Is the above paragraph really inaccurate?

[Halb]

JonChalk said:

Without giving away exactly how I know; the police know which country he is in and which friends and family are helping him, but have yet to reach the level of proof needed to satisfy that country's extradition requirements, beyond reasonable doubt.

well that's good, hopefully the POS will be behind bars soon.

[Sa Calobra]

Family helping him will be doing so thinking she was driving at the time of the crash.

[untakenname]

I was under the impression she was driving at the time?

If it were a car they crashed then I think the sentence would be a lot more lenient.

What would the sentence be like if you let a drunk passenger drive without wearing seatbelts then hit a cow in the road (equivalent to not wearing a lifejacket and hitting log in water).

[sugerbear]

untakenname said:

I was under the impression she was driving at the time?

If it were a car they crashed then I think the sentence would be a lot more lenient.

What would the sentence be like if you let a drunk passenger drive without wearing seatbelts then hit a cow in the road (equivalent to not wearing a lifejacket and hitting log in water).

You can check out the sentencing guidelines online so come back and let us know.

I would imagine allowing someone who has never driven before and was intoxicated to drive your car at twice the speed limit (without a seatbelt) who then subsequently crashed the car and died would mean you ended up with a custodial sentence. Probably not helped by you not coming to assist your friend after the accident.

You could just as easily compare it to letting someone fly your aeroplane, comparing apples and oranges, you cannot compare driving a car with a boat / plane / train etc. Different rules apply.

(I have completed my RYA powerboat course 1/2 level and i wouldn’t be comfortable sailing a rib along a busy tidal estuary in the middle of the night.)

[turbomoped]

untakenname said:

I was under the impression she was driving at the time?

If it were a car they crashed then I think the sentence would be a lot more lenient.

What would the sentence be like if you let a drunk passenger drive without wearing seatbelts then hit a cow in the road (equivalent to not wearing a lifejacket and hitting log in water).

How do we know she was driving? I guess he told that story as she was not around to contradict it.

[NRS]

julian64 said:

Secondly I think he is right when trying to argue he had no duty of care to the victim, or at least no where near the duty of care of a captain on a commercial vessel. Trying to call him the captain of a dingy is like saying he could have married her with his authority while on the boat. Its just daft. His experience with the boat counts for very little.

I have no problem with his fate for the way he's subsequently acted but I thin the judge would be very hard pressed to apply any of the principles here to other offences, and it suggests to me the judge has very little experience of anything boat related

Not sure if it is the same in the UK, but here in Norway you need a test to drive recreational boats above a certain size/ power etc (8-15m, 25hp or more - above 15m you need a more detailed test). All theory, no practical test. However you are responsible for those on the boat, despite potentially having no practical experience, and that is made clear in the test. So your experience might be the same as your passenger, but you are still responsible for them.

[hidetheelephants]

julian64 said:

I have problems with this. Unless you have ever tried to swim in the Thames on a cold day you will not be aware that trying to rescue someone is almost impossible. Unless you hold onto something you will be swept away, and the water is so dirty you have no chance of seeing anything in it, let alone they idea he was going to duck dive and swim her to safety. I did try to swim in the Thames in January and I can tell you without a rope I would have been in serious jeopardy. The idea that he 'failed to rescue the victim' is therefore moot.

Secondly I think he is right when trying to argue he had no duty of care to the victim, or at least no where near the duty of care of a captain on a commercial vessel. Trying to call him the captain of a dingy is like saying he could have married her with his authority while on the boat. Its just daft. His experience with the boat counts for very little.

I have no problem with his fate for the way he's subsequently acted but I thin the judge would be very hard pressed to apply any of the principles here to other offences, and it suggests to me the judge has very little experience of anything boat related

Ignorance of legal duties is not a defence; the law governing who is in charge of a vessel and what their responsibilities are is, unsurprisingly given the UK's maritime past, well defined. Killing your passengers, whether you are a professional seafarer or an amateur one, will result in legal consequences; the difference between the amateur and the professional lies mostly in the professional potentially losing their qualification and therefore their livelihood.

[julian64]

hidetheelephants said:

julian64 said:

I have problems with this. Unless you have ever tried to swim in the Thames on a cold day you will not be aware that trying to rescue someone is almost impossible. Unless you hold onto something you will be swept away, and the water is so dirty you have no chance of seeing anything in it, let alone they idea he was going to duck dive and swim her to safety. I did try to swim in the Thames in January and I can tell you without a rope I would have been in serious jeopardy. The idea that he 'failed to rescue the victim' is therefore moot.

Secondly I think he is right when trying to argue he had no duty of care to the victim, or at least no where near the duty of care of a captain on a commercial vessel. Trying to call him the captain of a dingy is like saying he could have married her with his authority while on the boat. Its just daft. His experience with the boat counts for very little.

I have no problem with his fate for the way he's subsequently acted but I thin the judge would be very hard pressed to apply any of the principles here to other offences, and it suggests to me the judge has very little experience of anything boat related

Ignorance of legal duties is not a defence; the law governing who is in charge of a vessel and what their responsibilities are is, unsurprisingly given the UK's maritime past, well defined. Killing your passengers, whether you are a professional seafarer or an amateur one, will result in legal consequences; the difference between the amateur and the professional lies mostly in the professional potentially losing their qualification and therefore their livelihood.

Okay so when I was in Mauritius recently and took a peddalo out with my wife, who was In charge. The person pedalling right or left.
If someone kills themselves with a loaded gun. Is it the owner of the gun, or the person who killed themselves for picking it up who is responsible?

I only ask because you seem to have a handle on legal duties.

[NRS]

julian64 said:

Okay so when I was in Mauritius recently and took a peddalo out with my wife, who was In charge. The person pedalling right or left.
If someone kills themselves with a loaded gun. Is it the owner of the gun, or the person who killed themselves for picking it up who is responsible?

I only ask because you seem to have a handle on legal duties.

It would possibly vary with country. In Norway it'd be the person who signed for the boat, but also the boat owner (it has to be in reasonable condition, provided with right safety equipment etc).

As for the gun, the owner would be partly responsible for securing the weapon properly etc. To own a weapon you have to store it in a secure safe, that is fastened to the house in a certain way (think it needs to be attached to concrete or something).

[hidetheelephants]

julian64 said:

Okay so when I was in Mauritius recently and took a peddalo out with my wife, who was In charge. The person pedalling right or left.
If someone kills themselves with a loaded gun. Is it the owner of the gun, or the person who killed themselves for picking it up who is responsible?

I only ask because you seem to have a handle on legal duties.

I have no idea what the law is in Mauritius; in UK marine law the master is in charge of a vessel(and by corollary the safety of all persons on board) even if he/she is not at the helm. If the pedalo was in the UK the person steering might be deemed to be in charge, or it might be the person who rented it; that would be decided by the court I suspect. What guns have to do with anything is unclear.

IANAL but have an appreciation of marine law due to working on ships and enjoying mucking about in boats in my free time.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 7th January 09:01

[julian64]

NRS said:

julian64 said:

Okay so when I was in Mauritius recently and took a peddalo out with my wife, who was In charge. The person pedalling right or left.
If someone kills themselves with a loaded gun. Is it the owner of the gun, or the person who killed themselves for picking it up who is responsible?

I only ask because you seem to have a handle on legal duties.

It would possibly vary with country. In Norway it'd be the person who signed for the boat, but also the boat owner (it has to be in reasonable condition, provided with right safety equipment etc).

As for the gun, the owner would be partly responsible for securing the weapon properly etc. To own a weapon you have to store it in a secure safe, that is fastened to the house in a certain way (think it needs to be attached to concrete or something).

So not wanting to diss Norway as its an entire country. I wound suggest the person in control takes responsibility in both cases. The person steering the peddalo is responsible for its fate, and the person holding the gun is responsible for what happens next.

I think accepting to hold a gun is a transfer of responsibility if the person has capacity (over 18 and no mental infirmity).

I believe the same is true for a boat on the thames.

'Would you like to steer my speedboat?'

1) 'No I don't know what I'm doing'
2) 'Yes I'm fine with that'

One transfers control and responsibility, the other does not. Anything else is treating an adult like a child, and conferring victim status purely on the basis of who came off worst.

I would like to reiterate the guy is not without contributory guilt. He may have been encouraging her to do something she wasn't happy with, he certainly wasn't acting in a responsible manner. But I don't think we'll ever learn that as he certainly isn't going ito incriminate himself.

[NRS]

If it was just yourselves that could be affected that would be fine, but with stuff like a gun, boat etc there is the potential you can injure/ kill others too.

Put it this way - would you be happy with anyone passing the keys of their car to a random person/ someone who had no experience of driving a car etc? Of course the person should say no, but it is also in my view the responsibility of the owner/ person in charge to say "no, you don't have the experience/ competence to do this".

For example in a boat you should know the different bouy/lights and what they mean - no way a random person will know that without any training. Same goes for 2 boats on a collision course - what way should you go, who has priority? If it was only yourself that you kill then fine, but when you can kill others unrelated to the decision I think both have a responsibility, to stop anyone just handing over control of the boat to people who have no idea what they're doing. Same for a car, a plane etc.

[Halb]

The parents were on Derbyshire show just. Moving story.

[Brigand]

Halb said:

JonChalk said:

Without giving away exactly how I know; the police know which country he is in and which friends and family are helping him, but have yet to reach the level of proof needed to satisfy that country's extradition requirements, beyond reasonable doubt.

well that's good, hopefully the POS will be behind bars soon.

Unless I misheard I'm sure I heard on the radio this week that the police know he's hiding in Georgia (the country rather than the US state).

[Gecko1978]

Brigand said:

Halb said:

JonChalk said:

Without giving away exactly how I know; the police know which country he is in and which friends and family are helping him, but have yet to reach the level of proof needed to satisfy that country's extradition requirements, beyond reasonable doubt.

well that's good, hopefully the POS will be behind bars soon.

Unless I misheard I'm sure I heard on the radio this week that the police know he's hiding in Georgia (the country rather than the US state).

the solution i suspect is too look at who is funding him friends family are then go after them to lure him back. If he did it all on his own cancel his passport (illegal I know) but he can have a new one when he goes to the embassy....till then he can never come back to the uk

[anonymous-user]

Brigand said:

Unless I misheard I'm sure I heard on the radio this week that the police know he's hiding in Georgia (the country rather than the US state).

Yes it was reported by BBC. The home office says there is an agreement I'm surprised nothing has been done unless he ended up in Russia.

[yellowjack]

Gecko1978 said:

the solution i suspect is too look at who is funding him friends family are then go after them to lure him back. If he did it all on his own cancel his passport (illegal I know) but he can have a new one when he goes to the embassy....till then he can never come back to the uk

...unless he buys a cheap RIB at a French coastal town and lets himself in by the back gate...?