Court Summary - at a glance
Date of offence:
4 November 2014
Plea:
Guilty
Decision:
Convicted
Final decision date:
Fine imposed:
$0
Safety lessons learned:
- Ensure that a briefing is provided in a language the participants can understand, if this is not possible then the provider should refuse to allow the dive;
- Carry out a safety review test;
- Ensure a documented dive safety log is in place for each diving course with appropriate coordinates and current weather and tide information;
- Confirm each diving course with the Coast Guard;
- Provide high visibility dive equipment;
- Ensure participants use correctly fitting dive equipment; and
- Provide appropriate and direct supervision.
Defendant name:
Cathedral Cove Dive Limited
Industry:
Arts and recreation
Date of offence:
4 November 2014
Facts in brief:
The victim participated in a PADI Discover Scuba Diving Course provided and run by the Defendants in open water near Hahei Beach.
The victim rented scuba equipment from the Defendants which included a buoyancy compensator device (BCD) that was too large. The victim was Taiwanese and was unable to understand English, the training and instruction she received was provided in English only.
The victim (a person with no diving training or experience) was not adequately supervised while wearing the scuba equipment in the water. The victim swam out of an enclosed bay area exhausted their air supply and drowned. The ill-fitting BCD contributed to the victim’s death, making it more difficult to lift their head out of the water when the air supply had been exhausted.
When it became apparent that the victim was missing the overall process to search for her and call for emergency assistance was too slow. The Defendants also failed to provide emergency services with accurate coordinates of the dive site.
The victim rented scuba equipment from the Defendants which included a buoyancy compensator device (BCD) that was too large. The victim was Taiwanese and was unable to understand English, the training and instruction she received was provided in English only.
The victim (a person with no diving training or experience) was not adequately supervised while wearing the scuba equipment in the water. The victim swam out of an enclosed bay area exhausted their air supply and drowned. The ill-fitting BCD contributed to the victim’s death, making it more difficult to lift their head out of the water when the air supply had been exhausted.
When it became apparent that the victim was missing the overall process to search for her and call for emergency assistance was too slow. The Defendants also failed to provide emergency services with accurate coordinates of the dive site.
Related prosecutions:
Offence section:
• Sections 15 and 50(1)(a) of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
• Sections 18A(1)(b) and 50(1)(a) of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
• Regulation 49 of the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 and section 50(1)(c) of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
• Sections 18A(1)(b) and 50(1)(a) of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
• Regulation 49 of the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 and section 50(1)(c) of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Date(s) charged:
1 May 2015
Court:
Hamilton - District Court
Plea:
Guilty
Final decision date:
Decision:
Convicted
Fine imposed:
$0
Maximum fine available:
$250,000
Reparation:
$70,000 (both Defendants jointly and severally liable)
Related Documents:
Last updated