The organiser of a fireworks display at Taunton Rugby Club taking place near to the site of last year’s M5 pile-up that claimed seven lives, including two truck drivers, has been charged with manslaughter.
In a joint statement issued by Avon and Somerset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) it was revealed that Geoffrey Counsell, 50, had been charged with seven counts of manslaughter.
Anthony and Pamela Adams, Maggie and Michael Barton, Malcolm Beacham, Terry Brice and Kye Thomas were all killed in a collision on the M5 in November 2011.
The statement continues: "Having considered the evidence in line with the code for crown prosecutors, the CPS decided there was sufficient evidence to charge Geoffrey Counsell, the provider of the fireworks display at Taunton Rugby Club on the night of the collision, with manslaughter. The charges are due to his alleged failings in the planning and operation of the display.
"It was clear from the investigation carried out by Avon and Somerset Police that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error and therefore no action will be taken against any motorists.”
The CPS said it had also considered the culpability of the rugby club but decided there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
Geoffrey Counsell, from Somerset, will appear at Bristol Magistrates’ Court on Monday November 12.
On Friday 4 November, seven people died and 51 people were injured, including several truck drivers, on the M5 near Taunton after a collision between 34 vehicles.
Although i’m no legal expert here,it appears to me that prosecuting one man for manslaughter of 7 motorists is much easier than prosecuting 34 counts of driving without due care and attention,obviously you can’t prosecute those individuals who sadly lost their lives,but they paid the ultimate price of being involved in a multiple pile up.
"It was clear from the investigation carried out by Avon and Somerset Police that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error and therefore no action will be taken against any motorists.”
^^^^^ This bit is what i really fail to understand,driving into thick smoke drifting across a motorway and not adjusting your speed accordingly as far as i know is driving without due care and attention,aren’t you supposed to treat it as fog??
I guess the trauma of being involved in such a harrowing incident is punishment enough,i can’t imagine what some of these survivors might have seen or have to live with for the rest of their lives!
obsessivecompulsive2:
Although i’m no legal expert here,it appears to me that prosecuting one man for manslaughter of 7 motorists is much easier than prosecuting 34 counts of driving without due care and attention,obviously you can’t prosecute those individuals who sadly lost their lives,but they paid the ultimate price of being involved in a multiple pile up.
"It was clear from the investigation carried out by Avon and Somerset Police that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error and therefore no action will be taken against any motorists.”
^^^^^ This bit is what i really fail to understand,driving into thick smoke drifting across a motorway and not adjusting your speed accordingly as far as i know is driving without due care and attention,aren’t you supposed to treat it as fog??
I guess the trauma of being involved in such a harrowing incident is punishment enough,i can’t imagine what some of these survivors might have seen or have to live with for the rest of their lives!
What amuses me about this thick smoke was that they didn’t have a bonfire, only a static firework display run by a professional company.
It often gets foggy in November. I hope this is thrown out of court and the rugby club get damages
There’s probably no way that the prosecution could prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt though because there are too many variables and the fact is no one should be driving at a speed at which they can’t stop within the distance which they can see to be clear in front.Although that’s going to be difficult in a cloud of combined smoke and fog which suddenly rolls across the road.
Sadly these days there’s no such thing as an accident any more Vern, there’s always someone to blame.
The old bill around here have stopped calling car crashes RTAs, because that stands for road traffic accidents.
They now call them RTCs, road traffic collisions.
With the American litigation culture we seem to have adopted, it won’t be long until every individual needs personal liability insurance.
As has been said earlier theres no such thing as an acident any more someone has to be blamed weather its an rta or an accident at work it comes from living in a claims culture years ago if you sliped over in the yard you stood up called yourself an arse and got on with your job now your encouraged to claim damages thats what the worlds come to unfortunatley
Display fireworks create a large amount of smoke…which you don’t normally see in the dark.
A professional firework display organiser should be aware of this, and the potential danger it posed to traffic on the motorway.
A driver approaching a thick bank of smoke at motorway speeds in the dark would not be aware of it until he was unable to see. I suspect that any driver that may have been negligent in this accident has already paid for it with his life.
DHL have openly adopted the culture. if you cut your finger and require a plaster it means filling in an accident form and doing a drugs and alcohol test. i slashed my own hand a while back doing a repair on a trailer and had to hide it while i nipped to the toilet to clean myself up. not worth the hassle of letting anyone see an injury that i did myself
admittedly their procedures are a bit nuts at times. a van took the side repeater off my unit a few months ago while i was assisting an engineer to repair my tail lift. he admitted liability and the shop manager contacted the relevant people to sort it out (iceland van driver, iceland truck) and i got a drugs and alcohol test 2 days later
The point is, at night on an unlit road you cannot see the smoke until it is reflecting your headlamps back at you.
Have you ever driven at night and encountered a stream of dense smoke?
It would seem not.
Lucky you.
And yes, if the smoke had been coming from a burning building then the person who had set the building alight would be facing charges at least as serious as manslaughter.
If you set an illegal fire, and someone dies as a result, then you’ll find ‘murder’ on the charge sheet as well as ‘arson’.
GasGas:
The point is, at night on an unlit road you cannot see the smoke until it is reflecting your headlamps back at you.
Have you ever driven at night and encountered a stream of dense smoke?
It would seem not.
Lucky you.
And yes, if the smoke had been coming from a burning building then the person who had set the building alight would be facing charges at least as serious as manslaughter.
If you set an illegal fire, and someone dies as a result, then you’ll find ‘murder’ on the charge sheet as well as ‘arson’.
^ This.
Obviously not many night trunkers on here then.Rolling fog banks and smoke at night need main beam headlighths to see it in time and to get rid of the speed down to a safe level.
Postby GasGas » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:26 pm
The point is, at night on an unlit road you cannot see the smoke until it is reflecting your headlamps back at you.
Have you ever driven at night and encountered a stream of dense smoke?
It would seem not.
Lucky you.
After 32 years as a NIGHT trunk driver there is litterally nothing new in smoke closing down carriageways, most of it from fields set on fire, the volume of which is still no excuse , and yes I have seen and been there in it.
Then you’d know that there’s no way that you’d see a fog bank or thick dense smoke ahead in time to do something about it unless you’ve got main beam headlights on.But even that won’t be much help if it’s clear one second and then you’re suddenly enveveloped in smoke and fog rolling across the road a few seconds later.
bjd:
As has been said earlier theres no such thing as an acident any more someone has to be blamed weather its an rta or an accident at work it comes from living in a claims culture years ago if you sliped over in the yard you stood up called yourself an arse and got on with your job now your encouraged to claim damages thats what the worlds come to unfortunatley
I think it boils down to people not having to accept reaponsibility for their own safety. That claims advert where the bloke says “I was given the wrong ladder” and he was supposed to have fell and injured himself - I always end up shouting at the TV “well you shouldn’t have gone up it you [zb]!”
In this case people died which is obviously sad, but in a way I do feel sorry for the organiser who obviously didnt set out that day to kill people.
bazza123:
In this case people died which is obviously sad, but in a way I do feel sorry for the organiser who obviously didnt set out that day to kill people.
Without the facts and the expert advice its difficult for us to have a fair debate about it. We dont know whether he carried out a proper risk assessment, could he have used fireworks that produce less smoke, was it a case of him trying to cut back on costs that led to this? Negligence must have been proved otherwise he wouldnt of gone to prison.
bazza123:
In this case people died which is obviously sad, but in a way I do feel sorry for the organiser who obviously didnt set out that day to kill people.
Without the facts and the expert advice its difficult for us to have a fair debate about it. We dont know whether he carried out a proper risk assessment, could he have used fireworks that produce less smoke, was it a case of him trying to cut back on costs that led to this? Negligence must have been proved otherwise he wouldnt of gone to prison.
He hasn’t gone to prison yet, he’s only been charged to appear before magistrates.
Mind you, this stories a bit old now.
Truth is, as has been said, there is no such thing as an accident (unless its a polac). It was an unfortunate incident but it occured for various reasons, the majority of which “could” be down to the actions or non-actions of one individual.
