233063
231507

Canada  

Not guilty in rail disaster

UPDATE: 1:10 p.m.

One of the most closely watched Canadian trials in recent years ended Friday with the acquittal of three former railway employees who were charged with criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people in the Lac-Megantic tragedy.

The jurors reached the verdict on their ninth day of deliberations.

Tom Harding, Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre were charged with criminal negligence in the 2013 tragedy that killed 47 people when a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded.

"Mr. Harding is too moved by the situation to give a coherent expression of what he feels inside," Thomas Walsh, one of his lawyers, told reporters after the verdicts were handed down. "But I know he feels terribly relieved and terribly thankful to the system, the jury system, and this jury in particular."

Crown prosecutor Veronique Beauchamp said it is too early to say whether there will be an appeal.

"You'll understand it is not necessarily the decision we were expecting, but we respect the verdicts that were handed down and, especially, the work the jurors put in," Beauchamp said.

"Criminal negligence causing death is one of the Criminal Code provisions that is difficult to prove."

Harding was the train's engineer, Labrie the traffic controller and Demaitre the manager of train operations.

All three accused could have been found guilty of criminal negligence causing death, while jurors had the option of convicting Harding on one of two other charges: dangerous operation of railway equipment or dangerous operation of railway equipment causing death.

Walsh said the verdict was proof that the institution of trial before jury is an important one in a democratic system.

He said he still believes the trial should never have taken place.

"I think it was more proper that there be some kind of a public inquiry to find out and determine all of the circumstances that led to this tragedy — and not just the role one or two people might have played," Walsh added.

He said Harding is still facing other accusations, which are coming up later this month.

"Those are the ones we always felt were more appropriate for the sitauation and those are the accusations of non-conformity with the rules, something we have always admitted."


UPDATE: 11:38 a.m.

The three men charged in the Lac-Megantic railway disaster have all been found not guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people.

The jurors reached the verdict on their ninth day of deliberations today.

Tom Harding, Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre were charged with criminal negligence in the 2013 tragedy that killed 47 people when a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded.


ORIGINAL: 11 a.m.

Jurors at the trial of three men charged with criminal negligence causing death in the Lac-Megantic railway disaster asked the judge for certain clarifications on Friday.

Thirty minutes into Day 9 of its deliberations, the jury sent Quebec Superior Court Justice Gaetan Dumas an envelope.

The eight men and four women were seeking clarification on the concept of "marked difference" — the comparison between the actions of the three accused and the actions of colleagues if they had faced the same circumstances.

Dumas is discussing the matter with lawyers before addressing the jury.

There had been no word from the jurors since Tuesday, when they told Dumas they were at an impasse.

The jurors are deciding the fate of Tom Harding, Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre, who are charged in connection with the July 2013 tragedy in which 47 people were killed when a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded.

Harding was the train's engineer, Labrie the traffic controller and Demaitre the manager of train operations.

All three can be found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people, while jurors have the option of convicting Harding on one of two other charges: dangerous operation of railway equipment or dangerous operation of railway equipment causing death.

In his instructions to the jury on Jan. 10, Dumas explained some elements of criminal law, such as the fact the three accused were not required to prove they are innocent. In fact, he said, they had nothing to prove.

It was up to the prosecution, he continued, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the behaviour of the three men — by their actions or omissions — constituted a marked and important departure from what a reasonable person would have done under the same circumstances.

In order for the three men to be guilty, Dumas said, the accused must have omitted to do something they were required to do, thus showing a reckless disregard for the life of others.



More Canada News