250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 28, 2017 12:10 pm

Crown Says Some Babine Mill Evidence Inadmissable

Friday, January 10, 2014 @ 12:28 PM

Burns Lake, B.C.- Crown Counsel had advised   it will not pursue charges  in the January 2012 explosion and fire at the Babine Sawmill  because there is no substantial likelihood of  convictions.

Crown says there are two main reasons for that conclusion;   inadmissibility of some of the evidence gathered by investigators, and  the defence of due diligence.

Crown has concluded some of the evidence that had been gathered, would likely be tossed out of court  because of the way it had been obtained.

WorkSafe BC says  the  decision by Crown   will  not impact  any existing claims with WorkSafe,  and  advises those who have  concerns to contact their Claim manager.

WorkSafe says  while  there is no likelihood of  convictions on charges,   it may level an administrative penalty against  the mill owner.  That has yet to be decided.

Two workers died,   20 0thers were injured when the mill  exploded and   the ensuing fire levelled the facility.

The final WorkSafe  report on the  tragedy will be released next week, first to families impacted by the  blast and fire, and then to the public  later that same day.

There is no word  on when the  Crown will release it’s determination  on possible charges in the Lakeland Mill explosion  and fire  which killed two workers and injured  22 others  in April of  2012.

Comments

WCB had done their job in the first place it may have prevented this from happening. With lake lands I wonder if the same response coming crap…. WCB should be taken to task on this not only the companies just BS

Completely agree steph99. The precedence has been set with the Lake Babine Nation explosion, but lord help them if they try and use the old “evidence that had been gathered, would likely be tossed out of court because of the way it had been obtained.” excuse.

So just WHO was responsible for gathering that evidence? And by WHO’s incompetence, was that evidence improperly obtained??? In my opinion it would be it be the agency that was in charge of the investigation itself; namely Work Safe BC itself.

Looks Like a gong show to me!!!

What’s that smell?

Mill management and the workers must be blameless. It’s all somebody else’s fault.

Blaming the victims for their own deaths and injuries… stay classy there JB!

I cannot believe that there is no proof of instructions to blowdown areas for speedy clean-up to facilitate maintanice or prepare for production. I would also be surprised if there job safety instruction did not state to only to use air hoses on the equipment only. As a former clean-up leadhand for 10 plus year in a mill very similar in size I was always at odds with the bosses for this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/no-charges-in-deadly-burns-lake-sawmill-explosion-1.2492077?cmp=rss

Above link gives a little more insight into what went wrong. Heads should roll at Worksafe. Or were they just the scapegoats?

Thanks for the interesting link Dragon. Scapegoats is right, now will they make it two for two with the Lakeland Investigation?

I have heard from some of the people who use to work there, that the Saw Mill was long on production and short on safety. In other words production came first and everything else came second.

Interesting how we have heard a public response from the Sawmill owners, yet there is nothing but silence from our Liberal Government.

This is absurd. Surely everyone knew that there might be criminal charges from the outset of the investigation. This is true of virtually any fire or explosion since it may be intentionally set or may be due to criminal negligence. Either the RCMP and crown counsel should be brought in early on or Worksafe BC inspectors should be trained in the legal aspects of criminal investigation. It is understandable that rescue workers should not worry about the legalities as they have a higher priority, but once their work is done and an investigation begins, it should be treated as potentially criminal until it is clear that it is not.

Comments for this article are closed.