Daily BrewIs drug history of officer guilty in Queen of the North ferry crash relevant?
Would being a frequent marijuana user make it more likely that an officer at the helm of a B.C. ferry when it struck an island and sank seven years ago would be negligent in his duties?
Perhaps not, but it would have underlined his willingness to bend company rules.
That is the argument Crown lawyers wanted to make in a trial against Karl Lilgert, convicted on Monday in the sinking of the Queen of the North ferry off the coast of British Columbia in 2006.
The Canadian Press reports that Lilgert was found guilty on two counts of criminal negligence causing death after the ship missed a scheduled turn and struck Gil Island before sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
[ Related: BC Ferries officer guilty in Queen of the North trial ]
Two passengers were lost at sea and declared dead following the crash.
One argument that was never made to jury members during the trial was that Lilgert was a frequent pot user who would smoke on board the boat during long cruises.
Prosecutors told a pre-trial hearing in January there were three witnesses, including Lilgert's former lover, Karen Briker, who were prepared to testify about Lilgert's marijuana use.
The Crown said those witnesses would testify Lilgert and other colleagues gathered after almost every shift at a spot on the ferry known as "Monkey Island" to smoke marijuana.
[ More Brew: B.C. Ferry captain prayed for ‘miracle’ night of fatal crash ]
Ferry staff lived on board the ship for weeks at a time, working 12-hour shifts. Even during their down-time, they are required to remain ready in case they were calling into action.
The Crown wanted to argue that Lilgert's willingness to break company rules and smoke drugs during long trips was indicative of a willingness to bend company policies — which they argues was responsible for him missing a scheduled turn and led to the collision.
A judge ruled that the information would prejudice the jury. There was no evidence he was high at the time of the crash.
A willingness to shirk rules while a boatload of passengers are in your care seems somewhat relevant to the case, but the questions of illegal drug use would have raised too many unnecessary questions. The jury still found him guilty.
Whether he was a drug user, or having sex at the time of the crash — an argument the the jury did hear — are now moot.
