Lac-Mégantic jurors say they are at an impasse

Jurors ask Superior Court judge ‘what happens if we can’t arrive at a unanimous decision,’ who tells them to try once again

The jurors at the LacMégantic trial told the judge Tuesday they are at an impasse in their deliberations.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Gaetan Dumas read a letter from the jurors in which they asked him what would happen if they couldn’t reach unanimity.

“We are at an impasse,” Dumas said, referring to the letter. “What happens if we can’t arrive at a unanimous decision.”

Dumas later told the eight men and four women that failing to reach verdicts for the three accused will not reflect badly on them, provided they “made an honest effort.”

“The law gives me the power to dissolve the jury if it appears that holding you longer would be useless,” Dumas said. “This power can’t be used lightly or prematurely.

“Will you please try once again to reach a verdict? This is a time for each of you to reflect further on the evidence and to see how, listening to each other carefully and reasoning together, you can come to an agreement.”

Tom Harding, Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre were charged with criminal negligence causing the 2013 tragedy that killed 47 people when a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded.

Before the jurors began deliberating last Thursday, Dumas told them the verdict for each had to be unanimous.

All three accused can be found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people, while jurors have the option of convicting Harding on one of two other charges: dangerous operation of railway equipment or dangerous operation of railway equipment causing death.

Harding was the train’s engineer, Labrie the traffic controller and Demaitre the manager of train operations.

The three men each pleaded not guilty to one count of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people.

None of them presented a defence at the trial, but lawyers for each told the jury in turn the Crown had failed to meet its burden of proof.

The prosecution mounted a case that the three were each criminally negligent in their own way for failing to ensure the train was safe before the wee hours of July 6, 2013.

That’s when the locomotive and its cargo of crude oil from the United States rolled away and derailed in Lac-Mégantic, exploding and then killing 47 people as well as destroying part of the downtown core.

The Crown argued that Harding’s role was a significant one because he didn’t apply a sufficient number of brakes after parking the oil-laden convoy for the night in nearby Nantes.

That left the locomotive, which weighed more than 10,000 tonnes, resting precariously on a slope 10 kilometres away from downtown Lac-Mégantic.

Harding applied only half the required level of brakes and didn’t test them to ensure they worked properly before leaving for the night.

One of Harding’s lawyers countered that the rail disaster was an accident resulting from a perfect storm of unforeseeable events.

The prosecution also blamed Labrie and Demaitre, arguing their responsibilities included taking the necessary steps to avoid injuries and loss of life the night before the derailment.

The prosecution claimed neither man deemed it necessary to check with Harding to see how many handbrakes had been applied.

Firefighters extinguished a blaze at the lead locomotive shortly before the tragedy and cut the engine, which meant the air brakes were not functioning.