Emiliano Sala : - No Further Action

Emiliano Sala: No further action after manslaughter arrest


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226


Cardiff City player Emiliano Sala who died tragically in a plane cash

BBC

Wednesday 11th March 2020

A man arrested on suspicion of manslaughter over the death of footballer Emiliano Sala will face no further action.

The Argentine striker, 28, was killed in plane crash along with pilot David Ibbotson just two days after signing for Cardiff City in January 2019.

In June, Dorset Police arrested a 64-year-old man from north Yorkshire.

The force said it would "not be seeking a formal charging decision by the CPS in relation to homicide offences".

Det Insp Simon Huxter said: "We have carried out a detailed examination into the circumstances of Mr Sala's death, this has been a complex investigation involving the examination of a large amount of evidence and in liaison with a range of organisations.

"An investigation into the operation of the flight continues and this is being led by the CAA and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to make any further comment at this time."

He said Sala's family had been updated.

Sala was travelling from Nantes to Cardiff on 21 January 2019 when the plane he was travelling in lost contact with air traffic control north of Guernsey.

His body was recovered in February but the body of Mr Ibbotson, from Crowle, North Lincolnshire, has not been found.

The footballer was signed by Cardiff City for £15m, but never played for the club.

Striker Sala signed for Cardiff just two days before the fatal plane crash

His death sparked a row between the Bluebirds and his former club Nantes over whether the transfer fee should be paid.

In September, two people who accessed CCTV footage of the footballer's post-mortem test were jailed.

Three months after Sala was killed, his father Horacio Sala, 58, had a heart attack and died.

He had been critical of his son's treatment.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

Police drop Emiliano Sala manslaughter case against 64-year-old

An arrest was made in June last year following the Cardiff city striker's death

By Cathy Owen

Wednesday 11th March 2020


No further action is being taken after a man was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter over the death of Argentinian footballer Emiliano Sala.

In June, a 64-year-old man from North Yorkshire has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter by an unlawful act by Dorset Police.

On Wednesday the force said it would "not be seeking a formal charging decision by the CPS in relation to homicide offences".

The Civil Aviation Authority is still investigating the operation of the flight and it has criminal charging powers.

The striker was signed for a club-record fee of £15 million. Sala was on board a light aircraft that disappeared from radar over the Channel Islands on Monday, January 21.

His body was recovered in February but Mr Ibbotson's has not been found.

Mr Sala’s body was brought to Portland Port in Dorset in February 2019 and detectives from Dorset Police began carrying out enquiries into the circumstances of the death on behalf of HM Coroner.

They said the enquiries included investigating the circumstances in an effort to establish whether there was evidence of third party culpability as a result of Mr Sala’s death.

Detective Inspector Simon Huxter, of Dorset Police’s Major Crime Investigation Team, said: “We have carried out a detailed examination into the circumstances of Mr Sala’s death, this has been a complex investigation involving the examination of a large amount of evidence and in liaison with a range of organisations.

“We have worked closely with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) during our investigation and we are now able to confirm that Dorset Police will not be seeking a formal charging decision by the CPS in relation to homicide offences.”

As a result, a 64-year-old man from North Yorkshire who was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter by an unlawful act on Wednesday 19 June 2019, will not be the subject of further action with regard to that offence.

Detective Inspector Huxter added: “An investigation into the operation of the flight continues and this is being led by the CAA and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to make any further comment at this time.

“We have updated the family of Mr Sala and Mr Ibbotson with regard to this development and it goes without saying that our thoughts remain with them, as a result of their unimaginable loss.

“Dorset Police will continue to support the investigation being carried out by the CAA and carry out enquiries on behalf of HM Coroner as part of the inquest process in the hope that the answers that the families of both men seek are provided, which is nothing short of what they thoroughly deserve.”

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Not sure what to think of this but I am shocked that absolutely nothing has been done to punish the person.

So we have the only 2 people arrested and charged were the mortuary assistants.
What must the Sala family be thinking, shocking.

So we have the only 2 people arrested and charged were the mortuary assistants.
What must the Sala family be thinking, shocking.

I think there are still on going investigations. and possibly people will be charged with other offences { maybe even this fella } but you cant just be charging people unless the evidence supports it just because some people want someone to blame.

This is an important decision which adversely effects our case against Nantes, in my opinion.

In previous posts I have referred to the Civil Evidence Act, 1968 and suggested that when a Person is found guilty in Criminal Proceedings they are also negligent in Civil Proceedings

and if they are negligent in Civil Proceedings, Nantes (in this instance), would be Vicariously Liable for his/her actions and then become responsible for the losses we as a club sustained.

My interpretation of this is that, as said person is not guilty of a criminal offence, it follows that it will be harder to prove negligence against him/her - although not impossible - and therefore harder to place any liability on Nantes.

This is an important decision which adversely effects our case against Nantes, in my opinion.

In previous posts I have referred to the Civil Evidence Act, 1968 and suggested that when a Person is found guilty in Criminal Proceedings they are also negligent in Civil Proceedings

and if they are negligent in Civil Proceedings, Nantes (in this instance), would be Vicariously Liable for his/her actions and then become responsible for the losses we as a club sustained.

My interpretation of this is that, as said person is not guilty of a criminal offence, it follows that it will be harder to prove negligence against him/her - although not impossible - and therefore harder to place any liability on Nantes.

Paul I always thought that it is easier to get a judgement in a civil court as the burden of truth is much higher in a criminal case?

It certainly is. A criminal court = “beyond reasonable doubt”

Civil proceedings = “on the balance of probabilities”

The civil evidence act essentially says if you are guilty in criminal proceedings then you are guilty in civil proceedings - which if that had g happened would have automatically made Nantes vicariously liable

Now CCFC will have to prove that said person was negligent in civil proceedings and that is not going to be a short process

Negligence is a very misunderstood area. Just because something happens doesn’t mean someone is negligent

An example could be someone tripping over a pot hole. Some may say the council are responsible. Yes they might be. But they can only be negligent if they knew about it and did nothing.

So in this case did said person know the pilot was colour blind? Did he know he didn’t have a license?

If he didn’t there is an argument that whilst he should have made sure could he actually be negligent in law

And if he can’t be negligent then that’s Nantes if the hook

It certainly is. A criminal court = “beyond reasonable doubt”

Civil proceedings = “on the balance of probabilities”

The civil evidence act essentially says if you are guilty in criminal proceedings then you are guilty in civil proceedings - which if that had g happened would have automatically made Nantes vicariously liable

Now CCFC will have to prove that said person was negligent in civil proceedings and that is not going to be a short process

I personally think that nobody has come out of this whole sorry business with any credit at all

It certainly is. A criminal court = “beyond reasonable doubt”

Civil proceedings = “on the balance of probabilities”

The civil evidence act essentially says if you are guilty in criminal proceedings then you are guilty in civil proceedings - which if that had g happened would have automatically made Nantes vicariously liable

Now CCFC will have to prove that said person was negligent in civil proceedings and that is not going to be a short process

still a lot of dots to be joined up even if you can prove Hendersons negligence.. its not like Nantes employed him, or even someone who was directly employed by Nantes had employed/ called in a favour . and that's before you get into hire and reward/ favours or whether the transfer business had been completed or not..

In the last couple of years, apart from personal injury claims, I have been handling historic football abuse cases. I have been representing some of the former Southampton players against Bob Higgins and also some of the Crewe players against Barry Bennell.

The rules in respect to vicariously liable are very loose. You don’t have to be employed and have a specific job title by a club. All you need is to “represent the club in some capacity” - and organising a flight might be enough

In the last couple of years, apart from personal injury claims, I have been handling historic football abuse cases. I have been representing some of the former Southampton players against Bob Higgins and also some of the Crewe players against Barry Bennell.

The rules in respect to vicariously liable are very loose. You don’t have to be employed and have a specific job title by a club. All you need is to “represent the club in some capacity” - and organising a flight might be enough

but EM was our player on his own time not a Nantes player.. so represent the club { Nantes } in some capacity is a huge leap ?
and was the agent Mark in anyway involved in organising the flight ? or was it a favour by a an agents father to a player joining a club where 2 other sons play which texts seem to support...

Paul, the loose nature of vicarious liability would work against the club not for the club as it can be easily argued against. Bennell is a bad example as he did work directly for these clubs at the time of the crimes or indeed represented the club in some capacity and was in a position of trust.

That cannot be argued in the Sala case. If the transfer was complete then he was not an employee of the club (both Sala and agent). This was also not a business flight but a personal one. Players are allowed to move freely in their own personal time and Sala arranged this without Nantes knowing (not that they are required to know how their ex-players are traveling), the only club aware of the flight was Cardiff as they arranged for a Player Liaison officer to meet him on arrival.

This is an important decision which adversely effects our case against Nantes, in my opinion.

In previous posts I have referred to the Civil Evidence Act, 1968 and suggested that when a Person is found guilty in Criminal Proceedings they are also negligent in Civil Proceedings

and if they are negligent in Civil Proceedings, Nantes (in this instance), would be Vicariously Liable for his/her actions and then become responsible for the losses we as a club sustained.

My interpretation of this is that, as said person is not guilty of a criminal offence, it follows that it will be harder to prove negligence against him/her - although not impossible - and therefore harder to place any liability on Nantes.

I thought the club's case revolved around contract issues and whether or not he was a City player rather than irregularities with the actual flight.

This is an important decision which adversely effects our case against Nantes, in my opinion.

In previous posts I have referred to the Civil Evidence Act, 1968 and suggested that when a Person is found guilty in Criminal Proceedings they are also negligent in Civil Proceedings

and if they are negligent in Civil Proceedings, Nantes (in this instance), would be Vicariously Liable for his/her actions and then become responsible for the losses we as a club sustained.

My interpretation of this is that, as said person is not guilty of a criminal offence, it follows that it will be harder to prove negligence against him/her - although not impossible - and therefore harder to place any liability on Nantes.

I thought the club's case revolved around contract issues and whether or not he was a City player rather than irregularities with the actual flight.

the case going to CAS is as you say regarding the actual transfer.
but we have also separately brought a lawsuit against Nantes , claiming that those responsible for organising the flight were doing so on behalf of Nantes..

Folk who think this bloke is off the hook are being a bit premature imho. Personally, if he has done as suggested and gave a flight to another pilot with or without knowing that said pilot should not have taken the flight, I hope it dwells on his conscious daily.


RIP both.

Folk who think this bloke is off the hook are being a bit premature imho. Personally, if he has done as suggested and gave a flight to another pilot with or without knowing that said pilot should not have taken the flight, I hope it dwells on his conscious daily.


RIP both.

Totally concur with you, Steve Zodiak