Sheriff concludes fisherman’s death could have been avoided by greater familiarity with rescue equipment

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] FAI 7
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Robert Frazer

Lachlan Robertson died from the effects of immersion in water following an accident at sea on 24 June 2021 on his trawling boat. Having accepted that Mr Robertson died at the locus, the Crown sought formal findings in respect of section 26(2) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016.

The inquiry was conducted by Sheriff Robert Frazer at Fort William Sheriff Court. Mairi Graham, procurator fiscal depute, represented the Crown. Mr Robertson’s family were not legally represented but a number of them attended the inquiry.

Unable to be resuscitated

On 24 June 2024, the deceased was at sea on his vessel, Reul A’ Chuain, at the Sound of Rum, between Rum and Eigg, with two other crew members, senior deckhand AF and junior deckhand AM. As the vessel was travelling back to Mallaig, where the boat was harboured, one of its fishing nets slipped overboard. The crew attempted to pull the net back in by hand, but as they did so the boat rolled, causing AF to slip overboard. None of the crew were wearing a personal flotation device.

As Mr Robertson leant over the bulwark to assist AF, the boat rolled again, and he was thrown into the water. AM retrieved two lifebuoys from the front of the boat and threw them into the water. Mr Robertson attempted to climb onto the boat from the lifebuoy, but he fell back into the water with his legs within the lifebuoy’s ring. The buoyancy of the ring caused his upper body and head to be tipped upside down into the water.

When Mr Robertson was brought back on board by the other crew, he appeared unconscious and unresponsive. He was unable to be resuscitated by CPR and was pronounced dead at the scene. The post-mortem concluded that there were no overt signs of drowning, and that “immersion in water” more accurately described Mr Robertson’s death given the length of time he was in the water and the likely deterioration caused by exposure to the cold and stormy conditions.

An accident investigation was carried out by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, which noted that the boat was equipped with a Lazelus Lifelink recovery system stowed in the front of the boat, which was not used during the accident. Sheriff Frazer found in fact that the crew had not practised the “man overboard recovery” procedure and were also unfamiliar with the Lifelink system.

Fast-moving situation

In his decision, Sheriff Frazer described the deceased as a highly experienced seaman, and said of the crew: “Whilst the two crew members worked on the boat for relatively short periods of time both had demonstrated competence in their respective roles as senior and junior deckhand. In the case of AF he had been working at sea since leaving school and in the local fishing industry at Mallaig since 2015. In the case of AM, whilst he had only been employed by Mr Robertson for 4 months prior to the accident, it is evident from his actions on the date in question he displayed admirable common-sense and courage in dealing with an emergency of the highest degree.”

He continued: “AM is to be commended for his actions in immediately contacting the Coastguard and other shipping in the area by way of a Mayday distress call. Similarly AF is to be commended for keeping Mr Robertson afloat, securing a rope around his waist and helping to get him back on board. He and AM thereafter did all they could to try to keep Mr Robertson alive prior to the arrival of the RNLI crew members.”

On the circumstances of the accident, the sheriff said: “As stated in the MAIB accident report the crew were focussed on, firstly, retrieving the nets that had slipped from the deck and, secondly, attempting to rescue AF and Mr Robertson when they each had fallen overboard. In this very challenging and fast-moving situation it is perhaps understandable why matters deteriorated as they did. However, it is apparent that the crew were not familiar with the location of the emergency equipment that was on board nor up to date in its use.”

Noting the steps taken to improve safety at sea by various maritime bodies since the accident, he added: “I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to make any other recommendations and that the industry’s various regulatory and representative organisations, and in particular the MCA and MAIB, are best placed to understand, monitor and, if needs be, update or change the safety procedures that currently exist to protect all fishermen. I am therefore satisfied that the current measures in place, including the steps taken since this accident, adequately address the concerns that have been identified in the investigation and subsequently raised in this inquiry.”

Sheriff Frazer concluded: “What occurred on the date was a tragic accident where no blame can be attached to AM or AF, the other crew members. Indeed, they are to be commended for the admirable courage and wherewithal they displayed in the most challenging of circumstances. It is obvious that they were visibly shaken and distressed by what had happened to the skipper of their boat with whom it appears they had a very good relationship.”

Accordingly, the sheriff considered that the appropriate findings to be made were formal ones in terms of sections 26(2(a) to (d) of the 2016 Act.