Inquiry Under The Fatal Accident And Inquiries (scotland) Act 1976 Into The Sudden Deaths Of Mhair Samantha Convy And Laura Catherine Linda Stewart
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff A.C. Normand |
| Court | Fatal Accident Determinations (Scotland - United Kingdom) |
| Date | 14 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | (provocation/prodrome |
| Published date | 19 November 2014 |
2014FAIGLA
Under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976
Determination
by
Sheriff Andrew Christie Normand, Sheriff of Glasgow and Strathkelvin
in the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths of
Mhairi Samantha Convy and Laura Catherine Linda Stewart
Glasgow, 14 November 2014
The Sheriff, having heard evidence and having resumed consideration of the cause, finds and determines that
-
In terms of section 6(1)(a) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976:
Mhairi Samantha Convy, whose date of birth was 4 January 1992, and who resided at 4 Lennox Road, Lennoxtown, died at the Royal Infirmary, Glasgow at 11.25 a.m. on 17 December 2010.
Laura Catherine Linda Stewart, whose date of birth was 10 November 1990, and who resided at 26 Woodhead Grove, Cumbernauld died at the Royal Infirmary, Glasgow at 11.30 a.m. on 17 December 2010.
An accident resulting in the deaths of Mhairi Samantha Convy and Laura Catherine Linda Stewart occurred at about 10.56 a.m. on 17 December 2010 on North Hanover Street at Killermont Street, Glasgow, when Mhairi Samantha Convy and Laura Catherine Linda Stewart were struck by motor vehicle registered number H18HEX.
-
In terms of section 6(1)(b) of the Act:
The cause of the death of Mhairi Samantha Convy was:
1a Head and chest injuries
due to
1b Road Accident (pedestrian)
The cause of the death of Laura Catherine Linda Stewart was:
1a Chest and abdominal injuries
due to
1b Road Accident (pedestrian)
The cause of the accident resulting in the deaths of Mhairi Samantha Convy and Laura Catherine Linda Stewart was the loss of control of the motor vehicle registered number H18HEX by its driver, William Payne, while driving said vehicle on North Hanover Street, Glasgow, as a result of which the said vehicle mounted the pavement on North Hanover Street at Killermont Street, Glasgow and collided with Mhairi Samantha Convy and Laura Catherine Linda Stewart. The loss of control of the vehicle was caused by a vasovagal episode which caused William Payne to lose consciousness temporarily and rendered him unable to control the movement and direction of the vehicle.
-
In terms of section 6(1)(c) of the Act:
The deaths resulted from an accident. The reasonable precautions whereby the accident resulting in the deaths might have been avoided were:
- For William Payne to have notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) about his blackouts after his loss of consciousness on 5 June 2009, which was the fourth occasion on which he had suffered an episode or episodes of blackout in the period since 25 December 2007.
- For William Payne to have attended the appointment made for him with a Consultant at Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow on 17 September 2009 for further examination about blackouts, or to have made and attended a rescheduled appointment if he was unable to attend that appointment.
- For William Payne at a medical examination on 2 July 2010 in connection with an application for renewal of his Group 2 (HGV) driving licence to have disclosed and provided accurate and complete information about his history of blackouts to the medical practitioner who examined him and in the driving licence renewal application form.
- For the Consultant who saw William Payne at Stobhill Hospital on 13 January 2009 at a follow-up consultation after Mr Payne’s admission to Stobhill Hospital on 6 October 2008 as a result of episodes of loss of consciousness that day, to have arranged for further, appropriate tests to be carried out in relation to Mr Payne’s episodes of loss of consciousness, and to have advised Mr Payne not to drive and to notify DVLA of his blackouts.
-
For the General Practitioner at William Payne’s GP practice at Possilpark Health Centre, who wrote a jury excusal letter for William Payne on 3 July 2009 and saw William Payne on 10 July 2009, to have advised William Payne not to drive and to notify DVLA of his blackouts, pending his further consultation with the Consultant at Stobhill Hospital to whom the GP referred him.
-
In terms of section 6(1)(d) of the Act:
There is no determination about defects in any system of working which contributed to the deaths or any accident resulting in the death.
- In terms of section 6(1)(e):
There are no other facts which are relevant to the circumstances of the death.
Andrew C Normand
NOTE
Contents:
Page -
4 - Representation at the Inquiry
5 - Part 1. General Legal Framework
8 - Part 2. Particular Legal Issues
11 - Part 3. The Proceedings
12 – Part 4. Witnesses
12 - Part 5. The Quality and Adequacy of the Evidence
13 - Part 6. The Young Women into whose deaths the Inquiry was held
14 - Part 7. Summary of Evidence
17 - Part 8. Section 6(1)(a)
18 - Part 9. Section 6(1)(b)
24 - Part 10. Section 6(1)(c) (with list of topics)
88 - Part 11. Section 6(1)(d)
88 - Part 12. Section 6(1)(e)
Annexes:
Page 96 Annex 1 List of Witnesses
98 Annex 2 List of Authorities
Representation at the Inquiry:
For the Crown: James Graham, Senior Procurator Fiscal Depute
For the family of Mhairi Samantha Convy and the family of Laura Catherine Linda Stewart: Dorothy R Bain Q.C.
For the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: Hugh J Olson, Advocate
For William Payne: Brian J Fitzpatrick, Solicitor
For Dr Alistair Ireland and Dr Stephen Cleland: Laura V M Ceresa, Solicitor
For Dr Petra Sambale, Dr Claire Keatley, Dr Natasha Cox, Dr Katie Padgham: James Stewart, Solicitor
For Glasgow City Council: Catherine Dowdalls, QC
Understandably the deaths of the two young women, Mhairi Convy and Laura Stewart, has had a profound effect on their families. The love, respect and loyalty of the families was demonstrated by the attendance of family members throughout the court hearings. The family members conducted themselves throughout with composure, patience, and dignity and I pay tribute to them in that regard. I expressed the condolences of the court to the Convy and Stewart families at the Inquiry and I repeat here that expression of sympathy on the tragic and immensely sad loss of their much-loved daughters, Mhairi and Laura.
Part 1. General Legal Framework
1.1 This was an Inquiry held under section 1(1)(b) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, on the ground, stated in the Application of the Procurator Fiscal, that “it appears to the Lord Advocate to be expedient in the public interest that an inquiry under the said Act should be held into the circumstances of said death”. Section 1(1)(b) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 provides for the holding of an inquiry under the Act where “it appears to the Lord Advocate to be expedient in the public interest…that an inquiry under this Act should be held into the circumstances of the death on the ground that it was sudden, suspicious or unexplained, or has occurred in circumstances such as to give rise to serious public concern.”
1.2 Fatal Accident Inquiries, and the procedure to be followed in the conduct of such Inquiries, are governed by the provisions of the 1976 Act and the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Procedure (Scotland) Rules 1977 made under section 7(1) of the Act.
1.3 Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the rules of evidence and procedure are to be “as nearly as possible those applicable in an ordinary civil cause brought before the sheriff sitting alone” (section 4(7) of the Act). The normal civil standard of proof (the balance of probabilities) applies (section 4(7)) and corroboration is not required (section 6(2)). Hearsay evidence is admissible (section 2(1) of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988), as is affidavit evidence (Rule 10 of the 1977 Rules), and evidence may be agreed by joint Minute of Agreement.
1.4 The purpose of an Inquiry held in terms of the 1976 Act is for the Sheriff to make a determination setting out the following circumstances of the death, so far as they have been established to his satisfaction:
(a) where and when the death and any accident resulting in the death took place;
(b) the cause or causes of such death and any accident resulting in the death;
(c) the reasonable precautions, if any, whereby the death and any accident resulting in the death may have been avoided;
(d) the defects, if any, in any system of working which contributed to the death or any accident resulting in the death;
(e) any other facts which are relevant to the circumstances of the death
- all in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act.
1.5 The Court proceeds on the basis of evidence placed before it by the Procurator Fiscal and any other party if so advised. Any determination by the sheriff must be based on the evidence presented at the Inquiry and is limited to the matters defined in Section 6(1) of the Act.
1.6 As has been stated in many Fatal Accident Inquiry (“FAI”) Determinations, consideration of Section 6(1)(c) involves an exercise of retrospective consideration of matters with the benefit of hindsight and on the basis of the information and evidence available at the time of the Inquiry. (See for example, Sheriff Principal Lockhart’s Determination in the “Rosepark Inquiry”, 20 April 2011 [at para. 7], in which he referred to his Determination in the Newton rail crash Inquiry in 1993.) A finding under sub-paragraph (c) requires not a probability but a “real and lively possibility” that the death might have been avoided by the reasonable precaution (Carmichael, Sudden Deaths and Fatal Accident Inquiries 3rd Ed at para. 5-75, using Sheriff Kearney’s expression in his Determination in the FAI in relation to the death of James McAlpine, issued on 17 January 1986.) It is not necessary for the court to be satisfied that the precaution would in fact have avoided the accident or death, only that it might have done, but the court must, as well as being satisfied that the precaution might have prevented the accident or death, be satisfied that...
To continue reading
Request your trial