School trip deaths 'could have been 避けるd', say parents

The parents of two schoolgirls swept to their deaths 負かす／撃墜する a 急速な／放蕩な flowing stream while on a school trip tonight 開始する，打ち上げるd a bitter attack on the trip's organisers.

They were commenting after a 陪審／陪審員団 returned 判決s of 偶発の death on Rochelle Cauvet, 14, and 13-year-old Hannah 黒人／ボイコット, who were washed away while taking part in a "river walk" in Stainforth Beck, 近づく Settle, North Yorkshire on October 10, 2000.

In a 声明 the families said: "We wish to 表明する our 傷つける and 失望 at today's 判決s.

"Our children went away happily looking 今後 to what should have been an enjoyable and exciting time with their school friends.

"Instead the two of them were never to return. Hannah and Rochelle were swept away and 溺死するd while river walking in 背信の条件s without proper 監督 and with 極小の safety 器具／備品.

"Anyone with any ありふれた sense at all would never have gone 近づく the river."

They said the 悲劇, 証言，証人／目撃するd by other schoolchildren, could have been 避けるd if the trip's organisers had paid attention to the 危険s.

"We will never 許す those responsible," they 追加するd.

The 陪審／陪審員団 of three men and seven women at Harrogate 治安判事s 法廷，裁判所 heard 14 days of 証拠, 含むing 目撃者 accounts from pupils and teachers caught up in the 悲劇.

After they 記録，記録的な／記録するd their 判決s, Assistant North Yorkshire 検死官 John Sleightholme 発表するd that he would be 接触するing 物陰／風下d education 当局 and the Health and Safety (n)役員／(a)執行力のある to call for 活動／戦闘 to 妨げる類似の悲劇s ever happening again.

The trip was part of a 居住の week planned by Royds School in Oulton, 近づく物陰／風下d.

Mr Sleightholme 結論するd his summing up this morning by telling the 陪審／陪審員団 he would only 受託する a 判決 of 偶発の death.

He said he had decided not to 申し込む／申し出 the 判決 of unlawful 殺人，大当り by 重過失 because the 事例／患者 did not 会合，会う the 基準.

"It's not abo ut 決定するing 犯罪の or civil 義務／負債. It's not about apportioning 非難する. It's a 事実調査団."

He told the 陪審／陪審員団 that in the circumstances he would only 申し込む／申し出 them the choice of one 判決 - 偶発の death.

Referring to his 決定／判定勝ち（する） not to 申し込む／申し出 the 判決 of unlawful 殺人，大当り by 重過失, he said it was not a 事例／患者 where those 伴う／関わるd were indifferent to the obvious 危険 or had foresight of 危険 or 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がるd a 危険 and showed a high degree of 怠慢，過失.

"Emotions and feelings have to be put on one 味方する. I know that by doing so I may disappoint the 期待s of the family."

The 検死官 said that the 鮮明度／定義 of 偶発の death may seem unsatisfactory to the parents considering the enormity of the 悲劇.

But he 追加するd: "I am going to make suggestions to 確かな団体／死体s 含むing the education 当局 and Health and Safety (n)役員／(a)執行力のある製図／抽選 their attention to 確かな事柄s, where I believe they should look at their 手続きs and what has occurred here, take 公式文書，認める and take 確かな活動／戦闘s."

At one point, the 陪審／陪審員団 broke off from its 審議s to ask the 検死官 four questions.

The first question was why the 証拠 had 焦点（を合わせる）d on one area, ie education, the LEA, teachers and up to the point Andrew Miller (one of the teachers 伴う／関わるd in the 悲劇) had tried, and failed, to 救助（する） one of the girls.

The second question was why it was only asked to consider one 判決, 偶発の death.

The 賠審員s also asked the 検死官 what would happen if they did not all agree.

Finally, the 陪審／陪審員団 asked why more was not done to help 救助（する） the girls and what were the 救助（する）手続きs in this type of 事故.

After answering the questions, 検死官 John Sleightholme told the 陪審／陪審員団 it was not under any 圧力 and should take as long as it needed.