
'Extremely qualified' chief engineer onboard a £50million superyacht died when he failed to isolate the power during repairs, inquest told
'Dedicated' Roy Temme was working in a 'hot and sweaty' tiny compartment on the luxury 62.5 metre superyacht when he was fatally electrocuted.
The 47-year-old experienced 230 volts of electricity jolting through his body after failing to take the necessary precautions when working with live wires, an inquest into his death heard.
A colleague who found Mr Temme slumped in the enclosed compartment also experienced a mild electric shock when they touched his body.
Jason Pegg, acting senior coroner for Hampshire described the father-of-two as an 'extremely qualified' chief engineer, having served in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary before moving to a private yacht.
It was heard that Mr Temme, from Southampton, loved his job on the luxurious Baton Rouge superyacht, which was docked in Falmouth Harbour in the Caribbean island of Antigua at the time of his death.
The superyacht, which even has its own beach club onboard and a deck pool complete with jets, has just been put on the market for €60 million (£51 million).
Accommodating up to twelve guests, it can be chartered at a weekly cost of $500,000, the equivalent of £368,250.
Winchester Coroner's Court heard that Mr Temme told the ship's captain he would carry out necessary repair work on the overpressure duct compartment.
The pair had agreed on a maximum of 10 minutes inside the duct at any one time before taking a rehydration break, due to its high temperatures of 55 degrees celsius.
He began the work shortly after 7.30am on February 23, 2024, keeping in constant communication with the yacht's chief officer via a radio.
It wasn't until around an hour later, when he entered the duct for the third time to continue his work, that he was electrocuted.
Alarms were activated onboard whilst the second engineer and the chief officer rushed to the duct where they found Mr Temme slumped over.
The chief officer tried to move him but suffered a minor electric shock himself, making it clear that Mr Temme was still touching the live wires.
Emergency services were called and the engineer was taken to a hospital on Antigua where he was tragically later pronounced dead.
During a post-mortem it was found that Mr Temme had full thickness burns on his hands which showed where the 230 volts of electricity had entered his body.
The medical cause of death was given as hypoxia and partial burns.
The inquest was told he had failed to take the additional precautions recommended for work where the electricity cannot be turned off.
Recording a conclusion of death by misadventure, the coroner said the conditions in the duct were 'oppressive' and had resulted in an 'unintended consequence'.
As a result of the tragic incident, Mr Pegg told the inquest that procedures on yachts chartered by Nigel Burgess Ltd had been changed and existing ones reinforced.
Mr Temme's wife, Nataliya Temme, raised concerns during the hearing that Nigel Burgess Ltd, the yacht's operator, had acted 'unprofessionally' and 'lied to her about the cause of her husband's death'.
She alleged that during an initial phone call about the incident she had been 'lied to', adding: 'They did not bother to ask if I was alone or not, my daughter was in the car.
'They said he was doing his usual rounds and he collapsed on deck, I found out the real cause from the media.
'It was evidently unprofessional, I was disrespected... how they behaved is not acceptable.'
However, Mr Pegg said this was not within the remit of the inquest as it did not concern how Mr Temme had died.
Mr Pegg, who described Mr Temme as a 'much loved husband and father', said that his devastated wife would remember him as a 'strong man, a family man, a very dedicated man, someone who was cheerful with a great sense of humour'.
Addressing Ms Temme directly, he added: 'To you, the children, wider family and friends you have my genuine and sincere condolences.
'(Mr Temme) is desperately missed I am sure'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
NSW cop reveals chilling reason officers touch your car boot when they pull you over
A NSW police officer has explained the deliberate reason why officers touch a vehicle after pulling it over -and it's all about safety. Sergeant Steven Planinic told listeners of Nova FM 's Fitzy and Wippa with Kate Ritchie that officers often leave their fingerprints on a car before walking back to their patrol vehicle, and it's no accident. The explanation came after a listener named Gemma from Parramatta asked: 'Why is it when you've pulled someone over you tap the car and leave your fingerprints as you walk off back to your police car?' she asked. He confirmed the move is about leaving fingerprints on the pulled-over vehicle. 'I'll let you use your imagination as to why we would leave bits of ourselves on someone's car,' he said. The sergeant went on to explain that if something goes wrong and the driver flees, 'you've left something, a marker on that car that they can't refute.' Mr Planinic confirmed the 'deliberate' act was not just about a police officer's safety. He also revealed the simple move is used to make 'sure the boot's secured so that no one jumps out of it'. He was asked whether a driver should drive through a red light to make way for a police car approaching quickly from behind. The officer confirmed drivers should only ever move out the way if they can do so without crossing the line. Mr Planinic is the founder of Beat the Blue, a yearly event which gives drivers the opportunity to face off against NSW Police Force highway patrol officers. The event returns on Saturday and takes place at the Sydney Motorsport Park.


The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Fort Stewart army base shooting raises questions about military gun policies
A shooting that injured five soldiers at one of the country's largest military bases on Wednesday has resurfaced questions about a long-standing army policy that largely prevents service members from carrying personal weapons on military installations. Soldiers in the area who witnessed the shooting at Fort Stewart in Georgia 'immediately and without hesitation' tackled the shooter to subdue him before law enforcement arrived, Brigadier Gen. John Lubas said at a news conference Wednesday. But they didn't have firearms to shoot back because of a policy first enacted decades ago to ensure safety by limiting armed members on army bases to military police. The suspect in the shooting, logistics Sgt. Quornelius Radford, used a personal weapon, Lubas said. Questions about why soldiers didn't have weapons were buzzing online after at least one video of the incident on social media appears to show service members in uniform running to safety amid a lockdown that lasted about an hour, instead of firing back at the shooter. While some have questioned why many service members in the area during the shooting didn't use weapons to defend themselves, others have questioned whether existing regulations do enough to prevent shootings on bases. The shooting is the latest in a growing list of violent incidents at American military installations over the years — some claiming upward of a dozen lives. Experts say that there are reasons for long-standing regulations on military bases, despite their limitations. Department of Defense policy in place for decades Department of Defense policy prohibits military personnel from carrying personal weapons on base without permission from a senior commander, and there is a strict protocol for how the firearm must be stored. Typically, military personnel must officially check their guns out of secure storage to go to on-base hunting areas or shooting ranges, and then check all firearms back in promptly after its sanctioned use. Military police are often the only armed personnel on base, outside of shooting ranges, hunting areas or in training, where soldiers can wield their service weapons without ammunition. The federal policy leaves little room for local commanders to use discretion about how the policy is enforced. That means the regulation applies even in Georgia, a state with some of the most lax gun regulations in the country, where Fort Stewart is located. Designed to protect national security Robert Capovilla, a founding partner for one of the largest military law firms in the country, strongly believes in the Second Amendment. But he said that the strict firearm policies on military bases exist for a reason. 'A lot of these installations are involved in top-secret operations, dealing with top-secret information, and because of that you need a heightened security," said Capovilla, a former military prosecutor and defense attorney. 'You simply don't want folks walking around a federal installation with personal weapons.' He said he has traveled to 'nearly every single major military installation' in North America for his work. Whenever he visits an installation, he said armed military police have a visible presence almost constantly on base. He added that he doesn't believe Wednesday's shooting could have been prevented if military personnel had been armed at the time. Limitations to military gun regulation Firearms on military bases are more regulated than most states in some ways, according to former military prosecutor and defense counsel Eric Carpenter. But he said that the limitations on gun control on military bases parallel gun policy debates in the public more broadly. 'You don't forfeit all of your rights when you enter the military,' Carpenter said. ' Outside of a military situation, the service member has just as much Second Amendment right as anyone else.' For example, it could be fairly straightforward for a service member living off-base to bring a weapon onto the military installation, Carpenter said, because a senior commander can't regulate gun ownership off base. There is also scant legal ground for leadership to confiscate a gun when a service member is exhibiting signs of a mental health crisis or post-traumatic stress disorder, potentially posing a threat to themselves or others. In recent years, those gaps have come under more scrutiny because of mass shootings, he said. 'All those rules aren't going to prevent someone from doing what the guy did today,' Carpenter said.


The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
Giant signs painted on Oxford street warn Londoners to get off their phones amid record high snatches
PEDESTRIANS in London's top shopping district are being warned to get off their phones by giant signs painted on the street – after theft rates soared to record highs. Electrical retailer Currys painted purple lines along Oxford Street to remind shoppers to step back from the kerb and keep their mobiles hidden from e-bike thieves. The move is modelled on the Tube's iconic yellow 'mind the gap' lines. It is part of a campaign to help drive down phone thefts on packed high streets. We revealed earlier this year how a phone was stolen on average every seven minutes in the capital last year. The thefts usually involve criminals on mopeds snatching phones straight from people's hands on busy pavements before speeding off. New anti-theft signage will also be installed on Oxford Street – the home of Marks and Spencer's and Adidas ' flagship stores – as part of the 'Mind the Grab' campaign. It has been backed by Westminster Council, the Metropolitan Police, and the charity Crimestoppers. Ed Connolly, the chief commercial officer at Currys, said: ' Phone theft isn't just about losing a device. It's frightening, invasive, and cuts people off from their loved ones, their money, and their daily lives. 'Enough is enough. It's time to draw the line on phone theft (with) a bold pavement marking we believe can make a real difference by encouraging people to step back from the kerb.' Westminster Council has granted permission for the study to be tried on one of the capital's busiest streets. Deputy leader Aicha Less said: 'This campaign is a great example of how we are working with partners to raise awareness about phone thefts and promote simple measures to stay safe in public spaces, such as keeping valuables out of sight and planning routes home in advance.' 1 Met Police seize 1,000 stolen phones in a week and arrest 230 people