Chief Coroner to Head Up Babine Sawmill Deaths Inquest
Prince George, B.C. – The Chief Coroner in B.C., Lisa Lapointe, has announced she will be heading up the inquest into the Babine Forest products sawmill explosion.
In a release issued today, Lapointe says she wants to address concerns that significant and important questions about the blast would remain unanswered because of the Crown’s decision not to approve criminal charges.
“I want to assure the families of the two workers who died, the many others who were seriously injured and everyone who was impacted by the events of Jan. 20, 2012, that the Coroner's Inquest ordered into the
deaths of Mr. Luggi and Mr. Charlie will thoroughly review all aspects of this tragedy. In particular, the inquest will review policies, practices and responsibilities related to the mill operation and worker safety, and will allow an opportunity for a full and frank review of the mill's operation and of all of the events leading to the tragedy.”
She says she is confident a coroner’s inquest “is the best venue to address the many concerns and questions raised about how and why the explosion happened and what can be done to prevent a similar event in the future.”
A Coroner's Inquest is an open, transparent, fact-finding hearing designed to thoroughly review all of the circumstances surrounding a death. Subpoenaed witnesses must testify and address all questions put to them.
The Provincial Government has been under pressure to hold an independent inquiry into the explosion of January 2012, but Lapointe says the inquest should answer all the questions about that tragic night "The normal rules of evidence do not apply in order to ensure a full accounting of the facts. This is true public accountability”.
"The inquest jury has the opportunity to make recommendations not only to prevent future deaths under similar circumstances but also indeed about any matter arising out of the inquest. As per the authorities of the Coroners Act, efforts will be made to ensure that all or part of the jury is composed of people familiar with the type of work the deceased were doing.”
"Given the profile of this tragedy and the fact that the issues to be reviewed are of significant provincial interest, I have decided to preside over this inquest. I plan to set a date and location very soon and hope it can be scheduled for this fall.”
Comments
Well my sense of humor went out the window as soon as I read this news article.
“Most deaths reported to Coroners do not require an inquest. Through their inquiries, a Coroner will decide whether a death is due to natural or unnatural causes. If a death may be due to unnatural causes, an inquest must be held by law. An inquest is an inquiry held in public by a Coroner, sometimes with a jury. Evidence is taken from witnesses who can assist in answering questions for the Coronerâs enquiry, namely:-
The identity of the deceased;
Where, when and how death occurred.
At the conclusion of the inquest, the Coroner will read out a formal verdict in which the answer to each of these questions is recorded. While the Coroner or jury may make a general recommendation designed to prevent similar deaths, “they do not decide whose fault it was or whether there was a criminal offence”.”
I will ask the obvious question here: Why has it taken more than two years to decide to hold a coroner’s inquest?
Since when does a coroner’s inquest become politically motivated?
Hmm… found out a coroner’s inquest cannot be held until court proceedings have been completed, which they have, just over two months ago.
You are right, a Coroner’s inquest cannot be held while there are court proceedings on the same matter underway.
The intent to hold an inquest into this case was announced in January, shortly after news the Crown would not approve charges.
What has changed , is that initially, Coroner Chico Newell was to be the presiding Coroner, but now, the Chief Coroner Lisa Lapointe will be the presiding Coroner.
-Elaine Macdonald
Doesn’t sound politically motivated at all to me. Sounds like someone that takes the responsibility of their position very seriously and that is a good thing IMO.
People 1’s point is very valid. Yes the court proceedings had to be waited upon, but I can imagine quite easily that a phone call from on high was made and went something like this, “hey, Lisa girl, this thing is really a can of worms thanks to renewed public pressure and media attention, better take over and cool things off. For us.”
Yes, politics are alive and rampant.
“British Columbiaâs Public Inquiry Act enables the Lt.-Gov.- in-Council to establish commissions of inquiry to inquire into and report on any matter considered in the public interest.
The act provides for two types of commissions:
Study commissions are designed to examine, research and provide advice on issues of public policy. Study commissions can retain the services of expert witnesses and advisors and hold consultations and public meetings. They can receive oral or written submissions.
Hearing commissions are designed to undertake investigations into matters in the public interest and may make findings of misconduct. Hearing commissioners are authorized to hold hearings, receive submissions and hear evidence under oath or affirmation. They can compel testimony and the production of information.
The Lt.-Gov.-in-Council may designate a commission as one or both types, as appropriate for the inquiryâs purpose or intent.” ~ Ministry of Justice website
I believe the families of the victims, and the surviving victims themselves, want a “hearing commission” where findings of misconduct can be made. As mentioned in my earlier comment, a coroner’s inquest does not decide who is at fault, or whether there was a criminal offence.
“She says she is confident a coronerâs inquest âis the best venue to address the many concerns and questions raised about how and why the explosion happened and what can be done to prevent a similar event in the future.â
Yeah, âbest venueâ for this government, its incompetent investigative agency, and of course the employers!
The prosecution could not press charges because of the lack of “admissible” evidence. We will never know if someone, or some party, was guilty of criminal negligence, because while there was plenty of evidence, it could not be considered because of WorkSafeBC incompetence!
Talk about “justice denied”! If criminal charges cannot be laid, can we not at least find out if “misconducts” were involved in the deaths of our family members?
No, can’t be pointing fingers at anyone in two accidents that were both totally PREVENTABLE, isn’t that right Christy???
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-honourable-christy-clark-call-for-an-independent-inquiry-into-fatal-babine-forest-products-sawmill-explosion
Comments for this article are closed.