“A simple test would have averted this tragedy,”

Mégantic Trial jury hears Crown’s closing arguments

The Crown presented its closing arguments against former Montreal Main and Atlantic (MMA) employees Thomas Harding, Richard Labrie, and Jean Demaitre on Wednesday morning in the Sherbrooke courthouse, offering up its final reasoning as to why the three men who were working the night of July 5, 2013, should be charged with criminal negligence. Over the course of two and a half hours Crown Prosecutor Sacha Blais reviewed the evidence that he and his team feels prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the three individuals each failed to act in the way a reasonable and prudent employee would in the face of a dangerous situation and, in doing so, significantly contributed to the catastrophic train derailment and resulting death of 47 people.

“The employees on the ground are the last defence of the population,” Blais said, reminding the jury of their duty to interpret facts without relying on emotion and encouraging them to focus on the context in which the accused made their decisions, rather than thinking about the changes that have been made since the disaster. He recalled the first day of the trial when Judge Gaetan Dumas compared the jury’s task to putting a puzzle together stating that, “it is possible that there are still some pieces of the puzzle missing, but that

should not prevent you from being able to see what happened.”

The three part presentation of the crown’s case began with the arguments against conductor and engineer Thomas Harding.

Replaying audio recordings that had been presented earlier in the trial, Blais underlined the fact that according to both expert witnesses and MMA’S own regulations, Harding did not properly secure the train before leaving it for the night. The prosecutor highlighted the fact that the minimum number of hand brakes required by company regulations was nine and added that under the circumstances of this particular train, that number ought to have been closer to 14. Harding applied seven before leaving for the night, and left the train dependent on an airbrake system that requires a running locomotive to maintain pressure.

“Seven is half of fourteen,” the prosecutor said, “It’s like sending your kids to school in February when it is minus 25 with mittens and a hat, but no jacket. (Harding’s) conduct is not logical; it does not make any sense.”

Blais said that the decision demonstrates “a reckless disregard for the lives of other people,” particularly in light of the fact that the engine that was left running for the air brake system was known by the driver to have been having serious problems.

“A reasonable and prudent engineer would have foreseen the risk,” the prosecutor said.

In the case of the rail traffic controller, Labrie, Blais continued his argument that the employees are the last line of defence between the danger of a loaded train and the population by establishing that Labrie never established how Harding had secured the train until after the derailment had taken place.

Replaying a series of phone calls from the night of the explosion, the prosecutor pointed out that the rail traffic controller was well aware of the risks associated with the train and yet never confirmed that the vehicle was properly secured, even after the lead locomotive caught on fire and had to be shut down.

Finally, the arguments against Demaitre, the regional supervisor, took that same issue of failing to communicate safety concerns properly to a higher level. Like in the case of Labrie, Blais said that Demaitre only asked questions about how the train was secured after Lac-mégantic was already in flames, despite the fact that asking those same questions an hour earlier might have made all the difference.

“As soon as the derailment took place, the question of how the train was secured occurred to him immediately,” the Prosecutor said, arguing that each of the employees could easily have taken steps to increase safety, but didn’t. “According to the experts, if the train had been properly secured it would not have run away.”

“The hard reality of the Lac Mégantic disaster is that a simple test would have averted this tragedy,” Blais concluded.

The defence begins presenting its closing arguments today, beginning with Labrie. The arguments are expected to last until the end of the day on Friday.