Explainer | Can the shadow of the Lamma IV disaster at last be lifted? The Post looks at the implications of a High Court ruling in favour of an inquest 11 years after the ferry sinking claimed 39 lives
- A High Court ruling after a years-long fight that an inquest should be held into the maritime disaster is welcomed by campaigners
- They say a Coroner’s Court hearing might at last discover the full circumstances of the tragedy – and help prevent similar incidents in the future
An order by Hong Kong’s High Court on Wednesday to open a coroner’s inquest into one of the city’s worst maritime disasters is a breakthrough in an 11-year battle for justice by families of its victims.
One of the plaintiffs, Alice Leung Suk-ling, who lost her brother in the tragedy, said outside the High Court that the ruling made her “very emotional”.
“This is the only time I can smile in front of the camera after so many years,” she said. “I was very emotional inside the courtroom, this is the result of everyone’s hard work over the past 10 years.”
Here the Post explains why the shadow of the 2012 disaster still lingers.
1. What happened during the Lamma IV disaster?
The accident happened on China’s National Day in 2012, when the Lamma IV, with 124 passengers on board, was struck on the port side by the Hong Kong and Kowloon Ferry vessel Sea Smooth.
The damaged Sea Smooth continued on to Yung Shue Wan, but the Lamma IV sank in minutes, partly because of design flaws.
The collision led to the deaths of 39 people, including eight children, and another 92 were injured on both ships.
It was the city’s worst maritime disaster since 1971, when a ferry sank during a typhoon, killing 88 people.
Owned by city power company HK Electric, the Lamma IV was taking the firm’s staff and their families to see the National Day fireworks display in Central.
Hong Kong court orders coroner’s inquest into 2012 Lamma ferry crash
2. What were the findings of investigations into the tragedy?
An independent Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Michael Lunn released its report in April 2013. It found the absence of a watertight bulkhead door on the Lamma IV caused the ferry to sink faster.
The report said other contributing factors were a failure to comply with life jacket regulations, which resulted in a lack of child-sized life jackets, and unsecured upper deck seating.
The Marine Department was criticised for “serious systemic failings” and “a litany of errors committed at almost every stage by many different people”, including not enforcing the law, as well as a failure to document its decisions and a lack of proper inspections.
A media report in December 2021 quoted court papers as saying that police had suggested in 2015 that an inquest be held.
A total of 17 of the 22 Marine Department officers who gave statements did not testify before the commission.
3. Who was held accountable for the disaster?
The two vessels’ captains, a ship inspector and a Marine Department assistant director were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4½ months to eight years on a variety of charges related to the tragedy, including manslaughter, endangering the safety of others at sea, misconduct in public office and perjury.
The Transport and Housing Bureau, a former government agency, found after an internal investigation in 2014 that 17 unidentified Marine Department officials responsible for safety were found guilty of misconduct and linked the tragedy to “suspected criminality”.
But the Department of Justice ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge them.
The government has since resisted the idea of releasing the report in full on the grounds it would risk prejudicing criminal proceedings and privacy concerns.
“We feel there is more truth that could be disclosed if there is an inquest,” Chiu Bing-chuen, who lost his sister, Chiu Siu-king in the disaster, said. “The details of the incident made known so far are not enough.”
Hong Kong court rejects coroner’s inquest bid into 2012 Lamma ferry disaster
4. Why has the battle for a further investigation continued?
Families of the victims and survivors argued that the Transport and Housing Bureau investigation had more information on the cause of the sinking than was made public.
The executive summary of the report said the disaster was linked to “suspected criminality” and 17 unnamed officials were accused of misconduct.
But the report was only partly disclosed to the families under a confidentiality agreement.
Relatives have since demanded that the report be released in full and that an inquest be held, but the Coroner’s Court in 2020 said it would not investigate the tragedy.
Campaigners’ efforts were renewed in 2021 after a media report revealed that police in 2015 suggested an inquest should be held. But authorities said they would not pursue the matter further.
The latest attempt was sparked by a 2022 application for an inquest to the Coroner’s Court, which was originally rejected as not in the public interest.
5. What will an inquest mean?
The decision by the court on Wednesday means that the quest for the truth may finally come to an end.
Leung told reporters after the High Court ruling that she believed in 2012 she would know the truth about the collision and the death of her brother within two years.
“It is regrettable that this was not the case, so I could only keep asking questions, search and find the answers,” she explained.
A statement by campaigners said the Coroner’s Court was “only the beginning” and that there was a long way to go.
They said, apart from uncovering more information on the circumstances of the sinking, the most important result of the inquest would be recommendations on how to prevent similar disasters happening again.
“We have never understood why the Lamma IV sank so quickly, why the Sea Smooth was able to so easily strike through the Lamma IV, what is the real cause of the disaster, and what is the responsibility of those involved ?” the statement said.
The Transport and Logistics Bureau and HK Electric said they would give their full cooperation to the inquest.
