The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has sought to “narrow” the evidence on submarine movements given to a pre-inquest hearing into the deaths of two French fisherman off the coast of Cornwall.
The families of the deceased claimed their trawler could have been pulled under after tangling its nets with a submarine during a Nato exercise, although this is strongly disputed by the MoD.
Yves Marie Gloaguen, 45, and Pascal Lucien Le Floch, 49, were among five crew members on the fishing trawler Bugaled Breizh who tragically died when it capsized around 14 nautical miles form Lizard Point in Cornwall in January 2004.
When the wreck was raised, the body of Patrick Gloaguen, 35, was taken to France but the remains of sailors Eric Guillamet, 42, and Georges Lemétayer, 50, were never found.
READ NEXT:
French authorities conducted an investigation into the sinking but, as two of the crew members' bodies were recovered to England, an inquest will now take place here.
While it is believed the deaths may have been the result of a fishing accident, the families of the deceased are concerned their loved ones may have died when their boat was pulled underwater after getting a line caught on a submarine taking part in war games.
Nato exercises were due to take place in the area the following day, resulting in a number of vessels being relatively nearby, including one Dutch sub which assisted in rescue operations.
But the hearing also heard suggestions that a non-allied sub may have been responsible, though a response from the MoD read to the court said "the Royal Navy is very confident that there were no non-allied submarines in the vicinity.”
The recovered Bugaled Breizh. Picture: Anthony Dela
Oliver Hyams, a lawyer representing the families of the two men, told a pre-inquest review hearing at the Old Bailey how previous reports prepared for the French investigation were inconsistent and that the evidence is still “messy” and not “tied up neatly with a bow.”
He said: “Some of the French experts considered submarine involvement the most likely cause of casualty.
“There is credible expert evidence that is consistent with that theory.
“There is a clear inconsistent picture that emerges.
“The submarine theory is not fanciful.
“While the court cannot say a submarine is not responsible, the issue should remain active.”
READ NEXT:
But Edward Pleeth, representing the MoD, disagreed.
He said: “Our primary submission is that there is no evidence whatsoever that submarine activity played any part in the sinking of the vessel.
“We say there is no discretion to investigate issues which did not arguably probably contribute to the deaths and, accordingly, the court should not require any further disclosure relating to submarine involvement or permit any significant exploration of the entirely speculative involvement of unseen submarines with the vessel.
“The evidence, as it stands, demonstrates that there is no arguable evidence that a submarine made any contribution to the sinking of the vessel.
“We accept that some limited evidence of submarine involvement could be read and could be called directly if appropriate.
“It should be very narrow indeed.”
Assistant Coroner Nigel Lickley QC is expected to give a decision about evidence in the inquest at a later unconfirmed date.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here