Jury in Australia acquits a welder but convicts his boss for the tragedy that claimed four lives
An executive at an Australian boatbuilding company has been convicted of manslaughter in connection with the 2002 sinking of the racing yacht Excalibur, which lost its keel and capsized, killing four crew members. Alexander Cittadini, a director at Applied Alloy Yachts, was found guilty by a New South Wales jury and now plans to appeal the verdict.
Cittadini was accused of either knowing that the stainless-steel keel on the 51-foot aluminum sloop had been improperly constructed or of failing to enforce adequate quality-control measures. The jury’s majority verdict found him guilty; he faces up to 25 years in prison. His current lawyer, Simon Mitchell, said Cittadini will challenge the decision, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that Cittadini expressly forbade any cutting of the keel — the action that ultimately led to the accident. Mitchell described the cutting as a secret act and says holding Cittadini criminally responsible for it would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
A co-defendant, welder Adrian Presland, was acquitted by the same jury. Presland’s attorney, Peter Gray, said his client consistently maintained he was unaware of any horizontal cut and re-welding of the keel pieces. Gray told the court that Presland believed someone else must have altered the keel without his knowledge.
Prosecutor Pat Barrett said the conviction should serve as a wake-up call for the boatbuilding industry, prompting stronger production and quality standards in yacht construction. Barrett argued that the failures in construction and oversight rose to the level of criminal negligence.
Excalibur was just four months old when, while returning to Sydney from a race in northeastern Australia, the crew hove-to in rough weather to set a storm jib. The skipper was alone on deck and the other five crew were below when the keel detached near the hull. The yacht capsized; two people survived and four drowned. Only one body was recovered.
The court summarized the legal standard: manslaughter by criminal negligence occurs when an act or omission so far departs from the care expected of a reasonable person that it surpasses a civil wrong and becomes a crime. Where omission is alleged, the crown must prove the accused owed a personal legal duty of care and failed in that duty to such an extent that it amounts to “wicked” negligence.
It is undisputed that someone at Applied Alloy Yachts horizontally cut the metal plates that formed the keel’s port and starboard halves, bent the pieces separately and rewelded them. After the capsizing, Excalibur was recovered and the keel was found to have broken along those weld lines.
At trial, Cittadini’s lead counsel, Stephen Odgers, told jurors his client had no knowledge of the cut and had implemented a seven-part quality-control system. That system, Odgers said, included hiring qualified tradespeople and foremen, supplying detailed instructions, and issuing explicit orders not to cut the keel. He stressed that the customer had not demanded additional quality measures that would have increased the vessel’s cost. Odgers also noted that, according to Cittadini, there were no specific industry standards for yacht construction in 2000–2001 when Excalibur was built.
Despite those arguments, the jury returned an 11–1 verdict to convict Cittadini, while clearing Presland of all charges.
Gray, Presland’s lawyer, criticized the prosecution’s case as weak. He pointed out that expert testimony suggested the horizontal cut and subsequent welding were likely linked to a later repair involving the hydraulic ram of the keel-centerboard mechanism — work that may have occurred after Presland fabricated the keel. Gray emphasized that numerous people had keys to the workshop and the ability to perform such modifications, possibly after hours to avoid detection.
Witnesses described Presland as meticulous in his welding, whereas experts characterized the re-welds that rejoined the severed keel as substandard. Even if jurors believed Presland had carried out the alterations, Gray argued, he lacked experience with yachts and did not understand that the changes could be fatal. Under the legal test for “wicked” negligence, that lack of knowledge, Gray contended, absolved him of criminal liability.
Legal observers noted that the case raises difficult questions about when manufacturing failures amount to gross criminal negligence. As Gray observed, there have been few Australian cases dealing with a manufacturer’s potential criminal liability for such conduct, so the broader legal significance of the verdicts remains a topic of debate.
This article originally appeared in the June 2009 issue.