[Article] Bus Éireann fined 2 million euro

mike65

Bus Éireann, Meath County Council and Keltank Ltd have been fined a total of €2.2m over the Navan bus crash.

Five schoolgirls were killed when their bus crashed near Kentstown, Co Meath, in 2005.

Bus Éireann was fined €2m and Meath County Council and Keltank were each fined €100,000.


Bus Éireann, Meath County Council and Keltank Ltd have pleaded guilty to various charges in relation to the crash.

In passing sentence, Judge Pat McCarten expressed his deepest sympathy to the families of the five girls who died and to those injured in the tragedy.

He said that there was an exhaustive investigation by the gardaí and the health and safety authority and he hoped the lessons had been learned as a result of this tragedy.

Judge McCarten said that it is an accident that should not have happened as it was entirely avoidable.

He said: 'Had the ABS been working none of this would have happened and Bus Éireann must take huge criticism for the absence of the ABS on the bus.'

The Judge also highlighted the fact that ABS is still not a legal requirement on vehicles in Ireland.

Earlier today, the director of the garage that serviced the school bus expressed the company's deep regret and remorse for the deficient ABS system in the vehicle.

Sonya Kelly, the company secretary of Keltank Ltd, broke down in tears at the end of her evidence during a sentencing session at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

The court also heard evidence from Martin Nolan, the Chief Operating Officer with Bus Éireann. He told Judge Pat McCarten that immediately after the accident the company did a 'root and branch' review of its systems including bringing in outside experts.

All the recommendations have been implemented, he said. As part of that every year at least 5% of all buses used by the company are checked at random to make sure they comply to the highest standards.

Mr Nolan said the ABS was working on the vast majority of buses and the problems 'seem to be isolated to one part of the country'.

He also apologised to the families of the five girls who died and those injured as a result of his company's failure. 'My company deeply regrets that their bus was involved in this tragic accident and are very concerned that it did not meet the safety standards we expect of ourselves,' Mr Nolan said.

Light removed

However, the Chief Operating Officer was unable to answer a question posed by Judge McCarten as to how it was that the company provided Keltank - which serviced the bus prior to the accident - with a driver's dashboard panel which already had the ABS warning light removed.

He also accepted a point made by Brendan Grehan, counsel for the DPP, that it was 'hardly a co-incidence' that 25 out of 55 buses tested at the Broadstone Depot in Dublin did not have functioning ABS.

In his closing submission, Derek Kenneally, counsel for Keltank Ltd, said the company fully accepted its responsibility in the tragic accident.

It was not a case, he insisted, of malpractice but of inadvertent failure which had its source in ignorance about the ABS system. He also pointed out that the bus had a road worthiness certificate and passed its Department of the Environment tests as well.

Shane Murphy, counsel for Bus Éireann, pointed out that this was a 'complex tragedy' which arose from many factors. He pointed out the many changes the company had introduced and that technical experts had agreed that the normal brakes on the bus were in very good working order.

Counsel for Meath County Council said it also accepted its responsibility in relation to the accident. However, he said it was guilty of relatively minor offences which were due to 'communications deficiencies' and not due to deliberate attempts to breach the legislation.

Mike

godtabh

It doesnt say CIE once in the article.

Its more to do with Bus Éireann.

The company who serviced the bus how come they didnt get find as much?

mike65

I'm Old Skool. Title changed.

Mike.

amacachi

Wrong date on a warrant somewhere along the line I think.

dsane1

Just wondering how come no named person is responsible ,seems strange or is that normal ?

L1011

"fined" not "find" for the title.

Amazed at how much BE got fined compared to the other parties - well not Meath CC but Keltank. Had the other defendant not been let off on a technicality I wonder what the fines would have been.

angelfire9

dsane1 wrote: »

Just wondering how come no named person is responsible ,seems strange or is that normal ?

pretty normal for a corporate entity, a company is a "legal person" in its own right hence no need to name specific people in Bus Eireann or Keltank Ltd

shltter

angelfire9 wrote: »

pretty normal for a corporate entity, a company is a "legal person" in its own right hence no need to name specific people in Bus Eireann or Keltank Ltd

However if the driver had been responsible through his actions he would have been held criminally responsible and would in all likelyhood been looking at a long prison sentence. If the Driver had been responsible he would not be protected by the "legal person" of the corporate entity.

Here someone through their actions caused the death of these 5 girls yet no one is personally liable. Someone ( or more than one) in BE decided for whatever reason to disable the ABS probably as a money saver that decision led to the death of 5 girls yet apparently they are not criminally responsible for that decision.

So BE is fined 2 million so what the people who made that decision should be charged with manslaughter IMO. People should be responsible for their actions and not be allowed to hide behind corporate entities

dsane1

Without getting bogged down in technicalities ,no one can be jailed ? The only option open to the courts is a fine ?

markpb

shltter wrote: »

So BE is fined 2 million so what the people who made that decision should be charged with manslaughter IMO. People should be responsible for their actions and not be allowed to hide behind corporate entities

People can be charged with corporate manslaughter (Corporate Manslaughter Bill, 2001)as a result of their actions in work. I'm genuinely surprised BE were fined instead of a manslaughter charge taken against them - the state fining a semi-state is the most ridiculous thing ever, it's an accounting procedure and nothing else.

Finding the people in all three companies and charging them personally would have a much better effect. I presume BE will have to check and repair the ABS on all the buses which, considering they now have €2m less to spend, means other services will be cut.

dsane1

Is it possible the dpp will challenge this ruling on leniency grounds?

shltter

markpb wrote: »

People can be charged with corporate manslaughter (Corporate Manslaughter Bill, 2001)as a result of their actions in work. I'm genuinely surprised BE were fined instead of a manslaughter charge taken against them - the state fining a semi-state is the most ridiculous thing ever, it's an accounting procedure and nothing else.

Finding the people in all three companies and charging them personally would have a much better effect. I presume BE will have to check and repair the ABS on all the buses which, considering they now have €2m less to spend, means other services will be cut.

I agree 100% I can see no deterrent affect on BE or any other company from taking similar actions in the future especially a semi state company which will never be force out of business by such fines.

I presume a large fine for a small family business like keltak is a big hit that they could not afford to take too often but a fine for a semi state company is a nonsense.

The deterrent for a driver is that they know they willl be held personally responsible for their actions largely it works can you imagine how people would drive if the deterrent was that their employer would be fined

shltter

dsane1 wrote: »

Is it possible the dpp will challenge this ruling on leniency grounds?

Honestly I don't think it matters whether the fine is 2 million or 20 million the explanation I would like is why only companies and the council were charged and not the individuals involved.

angelfire9

shltter wrote: »

The deterrent for a driver is that they know they willl be held personally responsible for their actions largely it works can you imagine how people would drive if the deterrent was that their employer would be fined

Am i not right in thinking that the driver was cleared of all charges?

dsane1

My gut feeling says this wont go away too easily .

Poxyshamrock

haha I thought this was gonna be about some Bus Eireann bus driver finding €2m at the back of the bus or something :pac:

shltter

angelfire9 wrote: »

Am i not right in thinking that the driver was cleared of all charges?

In this case the driver was exonerated from blame and was never charged with anything

My point however is that IF the driver is at fault or believed to be at fault s/he will face personal criminal prosecution and not be protected by the corporate legal entity. That is as it should be people should be held responsible for their actions but in this case people are not being held personally responsible for their actions the corporate entity is held responsible in which case particularly in the case of a semi state where is the deterrent from people doing the same thing again.

Ham'nd'egger

shltter wrote: »

In this case the driver was exonerated from blame and was never charged with anything

My point however is that IF the driver is at fault or believed to be at fault s/he will face personal criminal prosecution and not be protected by the corporate legal entity. That is as it should be people should be held responsible for their actions but in this case people are not being held personally responsible for their actions the corporate entity is held responsible in which case particularly in the case of a semi state where is the deterrent from people doing the same thing again.

I would presume that the issue to determine the relevant charges would be if the action of disconnection of ABS was the action that actually caused the deaths. As there was other circumstances involved in the accident, it may be argued that it is not the sole cause of death though we can agree that it is probable that if ABS was enabled, they (The 5 victims) would be almost certainly still be alive. Nobody would have disabled the ABS with the intention to kill, be it pre-meditated or otherwise, though there is no doubt that it was the wrong thing to do. With the best respect to his office, the DPP is far better qualified in coming to decisions such as this, Sh1tter, so we need to respect his call, if not agree with same.

shltter

Hamndegger wrote: »

I would presume that the issue to determine the relevant charges would be if the action of disconnection of ABS was the action that actually caused the deaths. As there was other circumstances involved in the accident, it may be argued that it is not the sole cause of death though we can agree that it is probable that if ABS was enabled, they (The 5 victims) would be almost certainly still be alive. Nobody would have disabled the ABS with the intention to kill, be it pre-meditated or otherwise, though there is no doubt that it was the wrong thing to do. With the best respect to his office, the DPP is far better qualified in coming to decisions such as this, Sh1tter, so we need to respect his call, if not agree with same.

I suggest you read the judgement today Judge Macartan specifically said if the ABS had been working on the day the girls would in his opinion still be alive.

So the judge having seen the evidence seems to be of the opinion that the decision to disable to ABS is the primary cause of the death of these girls.


I dont accept that we have to respect the decisions of the DPP and pretend like we don't think that the DPP made the wrong decision
Unfortunately all too often it seems that decisions are made by the DPP in the interest of saving money or other issues rather than the interest of justice.


BTW I never suggested that the ABS was disabled with the pre meditated intention to kill if I thought that I would have suggested a murder charge. I suggest you read up on the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Victor

shltter wrote: »

So the judge having seen the evidence seems to be of the opinion that the decision to disable to ABS is the primary cause of the death of these girls.

I haven't seen the judgment, but I think it was a matter of the ABS had a fault and the bulb from the warning light was removed.

shltter

Victor wrote: »

I haven't seen the judgment, but I think it was a matter of the ABS had a fault and the bulb from the warning light was removed.

No the ABS had been disconnected and the cables had been tied up out of the way
The bulb had been removed so as not to alert the driver to a problem with the ABS


Thats my whole point this was a deliberate decision on someones part the cable did not get disconnected and tied up out of the way by accident and the bulb was not removed from the dash by accident this was a deliberate act and a deliberate decision to proceed with this action. And I am not trying to scapegoat a mechanic because the decision to do this was at a much higher level than that.


http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbmhididkf/

Gda Tucker told Mr Grehan that he would describe the defect in the ABS system as "dangerous" and added that cable ties had been used to "tidy up loose cables" that would have been hanging down because they were disconnected.

Tipsy Mac

The state taking €2 million from the state is a disgrace, what a rubbish punishement, someone uptop in Bus Eireann should at a minimum lose their job.

Whats worse is almost half the fleet that were inspected had similar ABS faults, it's criminal that these buses are still allowed carry people around.

BrianD

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

The state taking €2 million from the state is a disgrace, what a rubbish punishement, someone uptop in Bus Eireann should at a minimum lose their job.

Whats worse is almost half the fleet that were inspected had similar ABS faults, it's criminal that these buses are still allowed carry people around.

I am actually surprised that all companies were fined. ABS is not a legal requirement so once normal brakes are functioning it is the extent of road worthiness that is required by law. The ABS wasn't faulty - it was disconnected and "out of the loop". I am not even sure if doing this in an offence. HAving said that I do recall reading somewhere that if a feature is fitted over and above the legal requirement it should be functioning but how this stands in law I am unsure.

I don't think that issue should stop at the door of Bus Eireann (or their contractors). The bus was technically roadworthy (bar the ABS not being in operation). It should go right to the door of the current government who are quite happy to underfund the school bus system so that a insufficient number of and end-of-life busses have to be used by kids. I am unsurprised that ABS have to be disconnected so that these crocks can be kept going and that the lack of seat belts went on for so long. The State should bear the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that children are conveyed safely via the school bus system.

Ham'nd'egger

shltter wrote: »

I suggest you read the judgement today Judge Macartan specifically said if the ABS had been working on the day the girls would in his opinion still be alive.

So the judge having seen the evidence seems to be of the opinion that the decision to disable to ABS is the primary cause of the death of these girls.


I dont accept that we have to respect the decisions of the DPP and pretend like we don't think that the DPP made the wrong decision
Unfortunately all too often it seems that decisions are made by the DPP in the interest of saving money or other issues rather than the interest of justice.


BTW I never suggested that the ABS was disabled with the pre meditated intention to kill if I thought that I would have suggested a murder charge. I suggest you read up on the difference between manslaughter and murder.

The lack of ABS was not what caused deaths; the crash caused the deaths. It sounds like I am taking the piss out of you in saying that but lack of ABS was not the reason for the crash; there were other factors at hand. Unless the DPP felt that the case was solid enough to succeed based on the evidence available, it will not proceed with charges on the basis of false hopes and as I said, his office is better versed in Law than you or I would be.

shltter

Hamndegger wrote: »

The lack of ABS was not what caused deaths; the crash caused the deaths. It sounds like I am taking the piss out of you in saying that but lack of ABS was not the reason for the crash; there were other factors at hand. Unless the DPP felt that the case was solid enough to succeed based on the evidence available, it will not proceed with charges on the basis of false hopes and as I said, his office is better versed in Law than you or I would be.

I suggest you read the judgment and the evidence of the experts who conducted tests a similar vehicle

Without ABS on the surface the back of the vehicle wobbled and swung out in the accident it swung all the way around.
With ABS the vehicle did not deviate from its path

The judge said that he is convinced if ABS was working then the driver would have brought the bus to a controlled stop.

The primary cause of the deaths and what made an incident into a major accident was the disconnection of the ABS system.

This is why BE was fined 2 million and why the council was only fined 100,000 the judge stated that although the council had failed follow correct procedures it did not contribute to the accident and if they had followed correct procedures on the day it would not in all likelyhood have affected the outcome.

shltter

BrianD wrote: »

I am actually surprised that all companies were fined. ABS is not a legal requirement so once normal brakes are functioning it is the extent of road worthiness that is required by law. The ABS wasn't faulty - it was disconnected and "out of the loop". I am not even sure if doing this in an offence. HAving said that I do recall reading somewhere that if a feature is fitted over and above the legal requirement it should be functioning but how this stands in law I am unsure.

I don't think that issue should stop at the door of Bus Eireann (or their contractors). The bus was technically roadworthy (bar the ABS not being in operation). It should go right to the door of the current government who are quite happy to underfund the school bus system so that a insufficient number of and end-of-life busses have to be used by kids. I am unsurprised that ABS have to be disconnected so that these crocks can be kept going and that the lack of seat belts went on for so long. The State should bear the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that children are conveyed safely via the school bus system.

Once fitted it is required to be maintained BE did not maintain the ABS

The witnesses said if ABS is fitted it must be working to pass a DOE test to be judged roadworthy

Victor

http://www.buseireann.ie/news.php?id=632&month=Jun

Bus Éireann Statement

The Navan school bus accident of May 23rd 2005 profoundly shocked and saddened the country and in particular the local community in County Meath where the tragedy occurred. For the families and friends of the victims, it caused immeasurable pain and grief. Bus Éireann is keenly aware that what they have lost through the accident can never be restored.

Today, Bus Éireann Chief Operating Officer Martin Nolan expressed the sorrow felt by the company and its employees. “I know I speak for every member of staff in re-iterating our condolences to the bereaved families and to all who have been hurt by this tragedy. We greatly regret that a Bus Éireann vehicle was involved in such a tragic accident.”

“The safety of schoolchildren, and all customers, is the organisation’s highest priority. The company remains committed to constantly improving safety to ensure that the people in our care are carried as securely as possible.”

He concluded: “However, we are acutely aware that nothing will diminish the pain of those bereaved by the tragedy at Kentstown. Our thoughts will remain with them forever.
Friday, 6th June, 2008

http://www.buseireann.ie/news.php?id=633&month=Jun

Bus Éireann fact sheet in relation to the Kentstown school bus accident

Introduction
Bus Éireann bought the bus involved in the accident with ABS fitted for the safety of our customers and employees.

The ABS should have been maintained at all times and the bus should not have been sent on the road without all systems on the vehicle working properly.

We accept responsibility for that and we are also very sorry for it.

In hindsight our systems were not robust enough to detect when work on ABS was not being carried out properly.

We have assured the court that we have taken corrective measures to ensure that the checks and balances are there now. We have brought in international experts to review our systems and procedures and we have followed their recommendations.

2. Bus Éireann Management Structure.
2.1 The Management Structure of the company has been consolidated into five regions with strengthened management teams in each region. Previously it consisted of nine areas.
2.2 Regional Engineers have been appointed reporting to a new position of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer.

3. Fleet Maintenance Policy & Procedures
3.1 Safety of operation is the overriding principle governing all operating and maintenance procedures.
3.2 Servicing of all vehicles is based on a mileage/time factor. In addition to the normal maintenance schedule which takes place every 10/12 weeks, buses are now also required to be inspected every 5/6 weeks.
3.3 14 additional mechanics have been engaged – an increase of over 8%
3.4 All maintenance contractors are now required to supply certified documentation to Bus Éireann in support of all maintenance work performed.
3.6 External auditors are now engaged to carry out maintenance inspections on a minimum sample of 5% of the fleet annually. This applies both to the Bus Éireann-owned fleet and to vehicles operated by contractors on behalf of Bus Éireann. This minimum sample level is subject to ongoing review and can be increased if found necessary.
3.7 BÉ engaged the services of internationally renowned consultants to review the maintenance system and all of their wide-ranging recommendations have been implemented. Further reviews are ongoing.
3.8 An ABS Register was implemented in all garages, including those of maintenance contractors, to monitor and record the checking and repairing of ABS as necessary.
3.9 Diagnostic equipment in garages has been upgraded as required.
3.10 HSA recommendations were implemented and all information requested by HSA was provided.

4 Staff Training
4.1 Bus Éireann has strengthened the Training function by the appointment of a full-time Head of Training at senior management level.
4.2 It is Bus Éireann policy that all drivers undergo regular training and attendance on training courses is compulsory. Every driver is issued with a Driver Manual.
4.3 In respect of all new vehicles delivered since the last quarter of 2007, a Bus Manual is provided for each individual vehicle, securely fitted as part of the bus equipment. This system is being progressively extended to all other vehicles in the fleet.
4.4 Driver training is delivered at local level by Training Inspectors who are professionally qualified driving instructors.
4.5 All Bus Éireann drivers are trained to the standard of the Advanced Driving Test of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
4.6 It is Bus Éireann policy that all engineering staff undertake regular training.
4.7 Maintenance manuals for all vehicle types are available in all garages and access to this material has been enhanced through development of IT systems.
4.8 Training for all engineering staff includes: new vehicle type training, refresher training and modular training courses as specified.
4.9 Maintenance Staff receive extensive training, including new vehicle familiarisation, regular general refresher courses and now also receive specialised training in vehicle inspection techniques.

5 School Transport Scheme
5.1 The scheme was established in 1967 as a specialised “stand alone” transport system for school children who might otherwise have difficulty in attending school regularly.
5.2 CIE – and Bus Éireann since 1987 – has administered the scheme on behalf of the Department of Education & Science.
5.3 Approximately 135,000 children are provided with school transport every day, utilising over 3,800 vehicles. In 2006 school children travelling under the provisions of the scheme made over 42 million individual journeys on buses travelling over 82 million kilometres.
5.4 Safety awareness programmes for children travelling on school buses have been an integral part of the school transport scheme for many years.
5.5 All school buses are now fitted with seat belts and every child now has an individual seat.
5.6 Contractors’ vehicles used on school bus services are now subject to random inspection by BÉ engineers and also to external audit.

6 Court Proceedings
6.1 In opening the case the Prosecution Counsel listed eight factors contributing to the accident, in no order of significance.
6.1.1 Weather conditions
6.1.2 Road Works in progress
6.1.3 Siting of temporary traffic lights
6.1.4 Road surface
6.1.5 Speed of the bus
6.1.6 Condition of the bus
6.1.7 Number of passengers on the bus
6.1.8 No seat belts fitted on the bus
6.2 The foregoing conditions were accepted by the Court.

shltter

Victor wrote: »

In hindsight our systems were not robust enough to detect when work on ABS was not being carried out properly.

That is not true and it is an attempt to pass the buck

A decision was made by BE to not service the ABS on these vehicles the sensors were disconnected and the bulbs removed from the dash

Someone made a a decision to do that and it should be possible by reviewing the maintenance record of that bus to find out when it was done or at least when the ABS was last serviced. My guess is that when the bus moved from normal service to school service the ABS was disconnected as it reduced the maintenance costs.
On inspection it was found that a large number of these vehicles were in the same position in fact the bus BE supplied to the gardai to reconstruct the accident had its ABS disconnected.

It is not a coincidence that all these ABS systems were disconnected nor that the outside company with the contract to service these vehicles did not know there was ABS and if it had would not have been able to service the ABS anyway.

I accept that the Dept of Education and the Government as a whole also bear a huge responsibility in this as well by underfunding school transport since its inception they have forced children to travel in buses that were not fit but all that could be afforded. Perhaps it was with this in mind that no one in BE was personally held responsible and that BE pleaded guilty straight away the facts that might be drawn out in open court while an individual defended themself may have been to embarrassing for this Government to contemplate.

Far easier to let BE as an entity take the blame with some dished out to keltank and Meath CC as well than to risk a trial where the full truth about how the school transport service is funded and run.

gjim

The primary cause of the deaths and what made an incident into a major accident was the disconnection of the ABS system.

No - you're missing Ham 'n Egger's point and you're failing to understand basic logic here.

Finding that if the ABS was in operation, no one would have died is not a SUFFICIENT condition to charge and prosecute someone for causing the deaths through their actions of not maintaining the ABS.

To take an extreme example, if the students parents had not allowed them to go to school that day, they wouldn't have died either. That does NOT mean the parents could be charged for causing their deaths.

So it's perfectly reasonably for the judge to say that if the ABS had been in operation, no-one would have died without there being an implication that who-ever disabled or failed to maintain the ABS should be charged with manslaughter.

parsi

Seems strange that the Company who admitted knowing the ABS was disconnected didn't get such a hefty fine.

shltter

gjim wrote: »

No - you're missing Ham 'n Egger's point and you're failing to understand basic logic here.

Finding that if the ABS was in operation, no one would have died is not a SUFFICIENT condition to charge and prosecute someone for causing the deaths through their actions of not maintaining the ABS.

To take an extreme example, if the students parents had not allowed them to go to school that day, they wouldn't have died either. That does NOT mean the parents could be charged for causing their deaths.

So it's perfectly reasonably for the judge to say that if the ABS had been in operation, no-one would have died without there being an implication that who-ever disabled or failed to maintain the ABS should be charged with manslaughter.

Your basic logic is nonsense

The parents are under an obligation to send their children to school BE is under an obligation to maintain its vehicles it not only failed to do that it deliberately chose not to do so.
That decision to deliberately not maintain the vehicles ABS system directly led to the deaths of 5 children. (of course there are other factors but there always are in accidents but the primary cause of these childrens death was not the other factors if all the other factors existed but the ABS was working then the girls would not have died that day.

And it is not reasonable to suggest that the corporate entity of Bus Eireann is responsible but those who took the decisions within BE are some how blameless for their actions. In fact it is a nonsense and leaves us in the position where there is no real deterrent for cutting corners with safety.

I wonder would people take this attitude if this was an airline that disabled a safety feature to save money would people be happy if the people who took that decision were let off scot free while the airline was just fined. Or would the situation be different if 300 people were killed instead of 5.