Five French sailors died on January 15, 2004 in the sinking of their boat, off the cornwall. On Friday, the British justice dismissed the attachment with a submarine, defended by the families of the victims.
Le Monde
British justice ranked 5 November on the thesis of the fishing accident to explain the sinking of the French trawler “Bugaled-Breizh”, who had made five dead in 2004. It thus deviates the thesis of the sub -Marin defended by the families of the victims.
The ship has “poured due to a fishing accident,” said Judge Nigel Lickley, making his conclusions to the London High Court.
Over three weeks of hearing in October, the witnesses followed one another in this procedure that attempted to shed light on the circumstances in which the vessel suddenly sunk off the Cornwall (southwestern of the England) January 15, 2004.
Non-final place in France
“I cast up, come quickly!”, had launched the boss of the “Bugaled-Breizh” (“Children of Brittany” in Breton) Yves Gloaguen, in a call of distress at one of his colleagues at mid- day that day.
On board the trawler, which felt in rather good conditions, were five experienced sailors, “on horseback on security”, according to their loved ones.
Of the five victims, only the bodies of Patrick Gloaguen, Yves Gloaguen and Pascal the Floch were found – the first in the wreck during his bailout, the other two in the British waters. It is on the deaths of these last two that the British procedure has concentrated. Georges Lemetayer and Eric Guillamet have been missing at sea.
If the British procedure could not result in the pronouncement of convictions, the families of the victims hoped that it could bring out new elements likely to feed a request for reopening of the investigation in France. The non-place pronounced by French justice has become final in 2016 after the rejection of their last resort.
But in the course of the hearings before the London High Court, the hypothesis of the hanging with a military submarine, privileged by the families of the victims, has moved away in favor of that of a fishing accident which would be due to a ship’s equipment that would have gripped the substance, defended by an expert at the hearing.