Caving death guide stays silent

Experienced caver Matthew Doubtfire denies manslaughter

A caving instructor accused of the manslaughter of a teenage Army trainee will not be giving evidence in his own defence, a jury has heard.

Matthew Doubtfire, 33, of Monmouth, south Wales told Swansea Crown Court he had already given an "honest and truthful" account of events.

Kevin Sharman, 17, from Marlpool, Derbyshire, drowned on a training course in Wales in July 2002.

Mr Doubtfire denies manslaughter through gross negligence.

Mr Sharman, died in a partially submerged underground passage while on a military adventure course in Sennybridge.

This is a case in part about the prosecution of an individual in substitution for his department because of the honest mistake he made Huw Davies, QC

Previously, the jury had heard how the teenage recruit, who was a non-swimmer, panicked and drowned after being led out of his depth while in the watery underground passageways.

Mr Doubtfire, who was a civilian working for the MoD at the time, was leading a group of 11 recruits into the Porth-yr-Ogof cave complex in the Neath Valley.

Outlining the defence case on Tuesday, Huw Davies QC, defending, told the jury that Mr Doubtfire had given "honest and truthful" accounts of what had happened to the police in the aftermath of the death.

He said, as a consequence, he did not propose to add one more word to anything he has previously said and would not go into the witness box.

'Management defects'

He also criticised police for carrying out an investigation which, he claimed, began with a theory and then tried to make the facts fit it.

Mr Davies also highlighted health and safety policy guidelines which set out the policy basis on which prosecutions should be brought.

Contained in a publication read out in court , the guidelines state: "The Health and Safety Executive has no intention whatsoever of prosecuting an individual civil servant or member of the military in substitution of his department.

"There is no question of prosecuting individuals for honest mistakes because of defects in management organisation."

Mr Davies told the jury: "This is a case in part about the prosecution of an individual in substitution for his department because of the honest mistake he made, and neglecting to allow for the defects in management which led to that mistake."

He then told the jury that he would formally open the defence case on Wednesday.

The trial continues.