Firefighter expects charges over family's flood deaths

Jim Goose · 06-05-2011, 10:01 AM

Im finding this a bit alarming to say the least (if its true).......
If Police do charge him with unlicenced driving, then they should also charge everyone else during the floods who carried people in the backs of utes, in the bucket of a front end loader! and ALL the people who helped out after the Brisbane floods for causing an obstruction to traffic, not having authority to block off brisbane roads without council permission etc etc.....

Something smells here

Quote:

Firefighter expects charges over family's flood deaths

By Francis Tapim

Updated 1 hour 22 minutes ago
Rural firefighter Danny McGuire speaks to the media

Danny McGuire was driving a fire truck in Grantham with his wife and children when they were hit by a wall of water. (ABC TV)

A volunteer firefighter who lost his wife and two children in the Lockyer Valley floods says police are preparing to charge him over their deaths.

Danny McGuire was driving a fire truck in Grantham with his wife and three children when they were hit by a wall of water in January.

His wife, daughter and eldest son drowned, but Mr McGuire and his seven-year-old son survived.

Mr McGuire, who is due to give evidence at Queensland's flood inquiry, says he has been told by senior police that he is to be charged over their deaths.

He says he will be charged with driving an emergency vehicle causing death and driving an emergency vehicle without a current licence.

Toowoomba man John Tyson, who also lost a wife and son in the floods that day, says Lockyer Valley residents will not let it happen.

"The guy should be hailed as a national hero for rescuing people and he left his own family till last, so how they can do that to the guy, I think, is absolutely ridiculous," he said.

"I personally will lead a march on the police station in Brisbane.

"I think I will have more than thousands of supporters with me. I just think it is absolutely ridiculous."

Mr McGuire has engaged a top Brisbane lawyer to represent him in the matter.

A police media spokeswoman says police are unable to comment on cases in which charges have not yet been laid.

Last month Mr McGuire claimed he was gagged from speaking out about the management of the disaster.

He said the fire service ordered him to hide in a motel for nearly six weeks after the floods and to not speak to anyone.

"We were hidden in a motel in Toowoomba and my group officer was told to look after me and make sure I didn't get in contact with anyone because we actually asked to have the place evacuated two nights before," he told the ABC before he was set to testify at the flood inquiry.

"It should have been done and they are trying to hit me up by saying I broke rules and regulations by driving fire trucks in the water to save people, but I did save lives."

SEZ213 · 06-05-2011, 10:20 AM

This man wasn't selfish, and saved other people before his own family...and they're going to do THIS to him?

Some days, the actions of this state really upset me...today is one of those days...

I can't verbalise what I'm really thinking - I'll get banned...

It seems a little odd...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/b...-1226050897096

The police minister is saying here that

Quote:

Police Minister Neil Roberts said although he sympathised with Mr McGuire's plight, he had to let the justice process take its course.

and yet here...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226050909261

Quote:

But the Queensland Police Service said in a statement: "The QPS is currently not aware of any information that would lead to charges against this man relating to the death of his wife and children".

And the police minister is being quoted as saying the same thing here also...

Do these departments not talk internally at all prior to this stuff?

In two articles on the same day - QPS didn't comment, and then they did...

I smell a big rat...

Particularly when I read this...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/f...-1226046546937

glavas · 06-05-2011, 10:26 AM

bit of a grey area. he still broke the law and without law there is caos. people have gone to jail for being attacked and fighting back and killing the person. i would hate to be the judge if this goes to trail.

shedcoupe · 06-05-2011, 10:38 AM

Unfortunately this is one of those times where the law is having to be seen to be applied fairly across the board, ie. a breach of a comparatively important law has technically occurred, 'causing' a seriously disturbing outcome, thus giving rise to a charge so that the truth can come out.

I doubt that the police or anyone in the prosecuter's office want to do this, but given that 'justice' must be seen to be done to preserve its credibility, this sort of thing happens.
The alternative is to ignore it and let it slide, but the danger in that is that a precedent may be set which might allow the local 'good ol' boys' to avoid charging one of their mates for a real sin down the track.

The poor guy in the middle has had a bad year already, and anyone with any decency would be sickened to add to his load, but the law and morality aren't always the same thing unfortunately.

Jim Goose · 06-05-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glavas

bit of a grey area. he still broke the law and without law there is caos. people have gone to jail for being attacked and fighting back and killing the person. i would hate to be the judge if this goes to trail.

Yes he did, but you missed my comments at the start then?

News footage showed time and time again people being rescued in the bucket of a front end loader. IF you uphold the letter of the law, the driver of the loader MUST BE CHARGED.

How about all the footage of people in the back of utes? Or on the back of tray trucks being rescued across flood waters?

Police have descresionary powers still....

What i smell here is yet again the clear message "DONT ROCK THE BOAT".
Government Depts constantly tell us that people have NOTHING to fear when you speak out about something in you see wrong in your job.

How many times did the nurse behind the Dr Pattel saga get warned off?
Every single time someone speaks out in a government or quasi government dept. they are singled out and have their jobs threatened.

Look at the inquiry into the management of the dam post the Brisbane floods where parliamentary priviledge was claimed by certain people.

So why charge him? Dont tell me he was the ONLY person during the floods who did something "illegal" in order to save someone or to help clean up!

SEZ213 · 06-05-2011, 10:51 AM

Aren't there laws regarding 'whistle blowing' now...?

Buttnekid · 06-05-2011, 11:41 AM

I would be pretty sure that there will be a defence available to him under their criminal code where ordinary citizens can be excused from what would normally be an offence when they commited the offence in good faith in circumstances of an emergency and were not not wilfully reckless.

We have the exact provisions in the Criminal Code (WA) and it overrides traffic laws as well.

xisled · 06-05-2011, 11:43 AM

IMO there is 2 reasons why he is looking at being charged by the police.

The first reason is that he is a firefighter and he should be setting an example and not driving while not having a licence.

The second reason is that the media has got to this and he has put attention on himself, and the police do not want to be seen as being soft when it comes to people committing crimes. If they let him off they could be judged later on down the track as to why they let a person drive with no licence.

IMO the police should let this one slid he did do a good thing by saving people.

**DJM83** · 06-05-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes he did, but you missed my comments at the start then?

News footage showed time and time again people being rescued in the bucket of a front end loader. IF you uphold the letter of the law, the driver of the loader MUST BE CHARGED.

How about all the footage of people in the back of utes? Or on the back of tray trucks being rescued across flood waters?

Police have descresionary powers still....

What i smell here is yet again the clear message "DONT ROCK THE BOAT".
Government Depts constantly tell us that people have NOTHING to fear when you speak out about something in you see wrong in your job.

How many times did the nurse behind the Dr Pattel saga get warned off?
Every single time someone speaks out in a government or quasi government dept. they are singled out and have their jobs threatened.

Look at the inquiry into the management of the dam post the Brisbane floods where parliamentary priviledge was claimed by certain people.

So why charge him? Dont tell me he was the ONLY person during the floods who did something "illegal" in order to save someone or to help clean up!

Agreed 100%
I for one feel i can comment, i went out there with a few AFF'ers to hold a BBQ.
I spent 5-6hrs sitting in the back of an XR6 ute, tailgate down handing out drinks to people doing the hard work cleaning up. Now a couple of times we came across the local police as you would expect they were everywhere. And not one of the batted an eyelid, and we werent on just suburban streets afew times we would pass down roads with a 60kph speed limit still sitting in the back (Tailgate up) and police would give the nod of approval.
Now if my experience is anything to go by this is the biggest case of double standards ive seen.

Road_Warrior · 06-05-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

So why charge him? Dont tell me he was the ONLY person during the floods who did something "illegal" in order to save someone or to help clean up!

This is called "acts in tort" as in, you can't be held accountable under law if you were doing something to prevent another offence from occurring or from saving someone's life. The WA Criminal Code has this, I'd be surprised if QLD didn't have something similar.

LTDHO · 06-05-2011, 12:35 PM

Sorry I missed it, why was he not licenced?

xisled · 06-05-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Sorry I missed it, why was he not licenced?

From what has been posted here. I can not see news articles due to being at work. It does not say why he was unlicenced.

MAGPIE · 06-05-2011, 12:59 PM

Why was he (an unlicenced driver) driving the vehicle ?

Where were the licenced/qualified brigade drivers ?

There is obviously more to this...

Is this normal practice or an isolated incidence ?

As an OIC I certainly wouldn't be letting any unlicenced/unqualified driver drive any vehicles from my station, no matter what the circumstances

FGII-XR6 · 06-05-2011, 01:03 PM

I can see it now " sorry I'd love to save your life but I don't have a licence so I will be dragged off by jack booted geastapo"
relativly minor offenses commited during a selfless rescue can and must be excused under police discretionary powers, this sort of thing only serves to lower the publice opinion of the police

SEZ213 · 06-05-2011, 01:14 PM

Well, there seems to be an update...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...06/3209616.htm

Quote:

Police deny plans to charge flood dad

Updated 1 hour 4 minutes ago
Danny McGuire was driving a fire truck in Grantham with his wife and children when they were hit by a wall of water

Queensland's Acting Police Commissioner says he has no idea why a Lockyer Valley man thinks he will be charged over the deaths of his wife and children in the January flood.

Volunteer firefighter Danny McGuire says he was driving his family to safety in a fire truck when a wall of water slammed into them at Grantham in the Lockyer Valley.

His wife, daughter and eldest son drowned, but Mr McGuire and his seven-year-old son survived.

Mr McGuire says senior police have told him they plan to charge him with driving an emergency vehicle causing death and driving an emergency vehicle without a current licence.

Acting Commissioner Ian Stewart has told ABC Radio that local police maintain they have had no contact with Mr McGuire.

"I would be very happy for Mr McGuire to contact my office if he is concerned about this," he said.

"And in fact I would encourage him to contact my office to let me know who is this police officer, what is this information that was passed to him, and I will have that matter fully investigated."

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Paul Lucas, also says there has been no suggestion Mr McGuire will be charged over the deaths.

He has told ABC Radio it could be a matter of miscommunication.

"People may have, I don't know, a view or a misunderstanding but this will be subject to a coronial inquiry," he said.

"There's a royal commission on, all these things are happening. The police have made it clear [that] there is no suggestion they are contemplating any charges against Mr McGuire."

Premier Anna Bligh also says Mr McGuire will not be charged.

"I have no idea where Mr McGuire got this idea from," she said.

Police this morning issued a statement saying they were not aware of any information that would lead to charges against Mr McGuire.

A police media spokeswoman had earlier said they were unable to comment on cases in which charges have not yet been laid.

Mr McGuire, who is due to give evidence at Queensland's flood inquiry next week, had said he had engaged a top Brisbane lawyer to represent him in the matter.

Last month, Mr McGuire claimed he was gagged from speaking out about the management of the disaster.

He said the fire service ordered him to hide in a motel for nearly six weeks after the floods and to not speak to anyone.

"We were hidden in a motel in Toowoomba and my group officer was told to look after me and make sure I didn't get in contact with anyone because we actually asked to have the place evacuated two nights before," he told the ABC before he was set to testify at the flood inquiry.

"It should have been done and they are trying to hit me up by saying I broke rules and regulations by driving fire trucks in the water to save people, but I did save lives."

Flaming Mo · 06-05-2011, 02:10 PM

Sect 25 Qld Criminal Code – Extraordinary Emergency - a
person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission
done or made under such circumstances of sudden or
extraordinary emergency that an ordinary person possessing
ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be
expected to act otherwise.

Every police officer knows of this section. Every lawyer knows of this section. Charges will not result. The more likely scenario is investigators are preparing a thorough investigation for the Coroner (as is their duty) of ALL the circumstances leading to the death of this man’s family. It is perhaps just an unfortunate circumstance, that sometimes uncomfortable questions need to be asked in order to brief the Coroner with all the facts.

Jim Goose · 06-05-2011, 02:38 PM

Well that later report certainly is good news... This inquiry has been interesting to say the least. One truely hopes that any recommended changes are carried through.

SEZ213 · 06-05-2011, 02:41 PM

Well they're moving Grantham, so that's got to be a plus...

Jim Goose · 06-05-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Well they're moving Grantham, so that's got to be a plus...

Yes but look at how many new suburbs now are built on flood plains, why is it councils far and wide allow these areas to flourish?
Townsville has a dozen or so new developments being built in flood plains areas.
Everyone knows this, yet council just rubber stamps it.
All these houses are even built at ground level!
They built all those cottages and queenslanders on stumps for a reason all those years go.
Just like having a tiled roof in a cyclone area...
I have seen more damaged tiled roofs then damaged (newer) iron roofs (unless its an really old house which used nails)

SEZ213 · 06-05-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes but look at how many new suburbs now are built on flood plains, why is it councils far and wide allow these areas to flourish?
Townsville has a dozen or so new developments being built in flood plains areas.
Everyone knows this, yet council just rubber stamps it.
All these houses are even built at ground level!
They built all those cottages and queenslanders on stumps for a reason all those years go.
Just like having a tiled roof in a cyclone area...
I have seen more damaged tiled roofs then damaged (newer) iron roofs (unless its an really old house which used nails)

I've asked the exact same questions...

I sure as hell don't understand it. I guess the harsh reality is, that we're a growing population, and people need somewhere to live. Why anyone would build on a flood plane is beyond me - but they do it. I assume they want the Australian dream of owning your own home, it's far enough away from the city to be quiet, close enough to the city that you can drive there if you need to.

There's houses around here that were next to small watercourses at the bottom of the hills in town...they became raging torrents - they have picket signs out the front of their homes about the insurance company not coming through for them...it's sad, and I've been brought to tears a number of times just driving past them.

The positive is, that these people are starting to rebuild, and whilst the suggestion is the new Grantham won't be ready until the end of next year, they at least have something to aim for now, well, those that have accepted the 'land swap'.