The trial for a fatal boating accident on Lake Constance took a surprising turn on Tuesday. As reported by ORF and others, the 26-year-old defendant from Vorarlberg may no longer have to answer for gross negligence manslaughter, but for conditional premeditated murder. And then before an Austrian jury court.
According to reports, the judge at Feldkirch Regional Court yesterday handed down a judgement of lack of jurisdiction after the man insisted on his version of events. The public prosecutor and the defence have asked for time to reflect. The judgement is not yet legally binding.
The accident in October
On 11 October last year, a serious collision occurred three kilometres off Fußach in the district of Bregenz between a motorboat and a sailing boat. The 26-year-old was travelling on his motorboat with three other people. According to an expert report, the boat collided at high speed with the sailing boat of a German couple.
The 57-year-old female sailor from the district of Günzburg was seriously injured and fell into the water. Despite immediate first aid and resuscitation measures, she died at the scene of the accident. Her husband was able to save himself by jumping into the water and suffered several bruises and a severe shock. The sailing boat was completely destroyed in the collision. We had reported on the accident.
Contradictory representations in court
In court, the defendant's statements and the assessments of the public prosecutor and the expert differed widely. The public prosecutor and the expert stated that the motorboat was travelling at 60 kilometres per hour. The maximum permitted speed on Lake Constance is 40 kilometres per hour.
The public prosecutor's office accused the man of not having a sufficient view of the sea. The sailor reported that he and his wife had shouted and waved, but the motorboat had continued to sail directly towards them. No one was seen on the motorboat. Shortly after the accident, the maritime police stated that the sailing boat could have been recognised in good time in the prevailing conditions. Although the accused was not under the influence of alcohol, he was travelling at an increased speed.
Defendant denies allegations
The 26-year-old admitted in court that he had caused the accident, but denied that he had been speeding. He stated that he had been travelling at 30 to 35 kilometres per hour. The accused explained that he had not seen the sailing boat, although he had been looking ahead. He had brought his motorboat into planing speed and then set course for Konstanz. He had not even seen the sailing boat during the collision.
When asked how he could have missed the sailing boat, he replied that he had no explanation. The three passengers also confirmed the defendant's account. One of the witnesses was sitting next to the defendant and stated that they had spoken to each other and made eye contact, but had also always observed the sea area. It was also a mystery to him how they could have overlooked the boat.
Expert contradicts presentation
An expert witness was unable to reconstruct the accounts of the defendant and witnesses. In his opinion, the motorboat must have been travelling at around 60 kilometres per hour. This was recognisable from the damage. The expert also explained that if someone had been at the wheel of the motorboat, it would have been visible from the sailing boat.
The judge confronted the defendant with this assessment. She noted that the weather and wind conditions had been excellent. The sailboat had a sail area of 24 square metres. The judge said that at the speed described by the defendant, he had not seen 24 square metres for six minutes, although he had been sailing straight ahead all the time. This did not convince her. She gave the defendant the opportunity to correct his statements, but he stood by his account.
Decisive turning point in the process
The judge based her judgement of lack of jurisdiction on the defendant's statements. She explained that everyone in the room had tried to reach out to him. What remained was that he had observed the lake for a period of six minutes and had sailed directly towards a sailing boat with a rigged surface without reacting. Since, in her opinion, it must be assumed that there was conditional intent, the case would have to go to a jury. There is now an initial suspicion of conditional premeditated murder.
Legal categorisation
According to Austrian law, the offence of conditional premeditated murder is fulfilled if the perpetrator does not necessarily intend the death of another person, but recognises it as a possible consequence of his actions and accepts it. If the judge's decision is upheld, the 26-year-old will have to stand trial before a jury. He could then face up to twenty years or life imprisonment. The original charge was gross negligence manslaughter, negligent bodily harm and endangering physical safety. Depending on the severity of the offence, the sentence was between three months and three years in prison.
Pascal Schürmann
Editor YACHT
