Asylum seekers paid £8,000 for a spot on an overcrowded and poorly made dingy – which sank off the Kent coast killing four.

A teenager has been accused of causing the deaths, by negligently piloting the vessel without proper equipment on an uncharted voyage across the English Channel.

Ibrahima Bah, 19, this week stands trial charged with facilitating attempted illegal entry into the UK, and four counts of manslaughter - of Hajratullah Ahmadi and three other unnamed individuals.

Opening the case on Tuesday, prosecutor Duncan Atkinson KC told jurors that the man joked with passengers about their likely death.

“As the pilot of a vessel carrying passengers, he owed each of them a duty of care, to ensure their safety and protect them from the overwhelming risk to their lives posed by an unchartered voyage in an unseaworthy boat across the open sea.

“One passenger considered that the defendant was driving the boat at an unsafe and excessive speed.

“That passenger also heard him say ‘I will either take you there or kill you all’.”

Mr Atkinson pointed to the poor build quality of the boat, its lack of safety equipment and the fact that it was carrying far too many passengers.

He told Canterbury Crown Court the vessel was “home-built from very low quality materials”.

“Such an inflatable craft, if properly manufactured, would be designed for use close to shore and in favourable weather conditions,” he continued.

“It was therefore neither designed nor manufactured for crossing the world's business shipping lane, which is of course, the English Channel.

“By reference to its length, the inflatable should not have had more than 20 persons aboard. n fact, this small boat contained at least 43 migrants, each of whom was without a legal basis for residence in the UK, or any visa or entry clearance to enter the country.”

The prosecutor went on to describe the experience of several passengers who survived the perilous journey, which took place in the early hours of December 14, 2022.

“The boat had ‘broke apart’ and split into two, causing him to fall into the water...”

Ahmadzai Mohammadi, he said, was one such passenger who had travelled from his home in Afghanistan, through Turkey and across Europe to a settlement camp in Dunkerque, France, known as ‘the Jungle’, where he stayed until making his way to Calais.

His uncle had paid £8,000 to a criminal smuggling gang to allow him to travel in the dingy from Calais to the Kent coast. But after between one and two hours into the journey, the boat began to take on water before suffering significant structural damage.

“Mr Mohammadi noted how there was not enough lifesaving or protective kit in the boat,” said Mr Atkinson.

“The boat had ‘broke apart’ and split into two, causing him to fall into the water.”

Mr Mohammadi, along with 30 other male passengers, including children, were saved by the crew of a fishing boat named the Arcturus.

The ship’s first mate heard the screams of the asylum seekers, some of whom had fallen into seawater recorded as being between 3 and 5 degrees centigrade.

“The crew of the Arcturus acted to help those on board the boat and were joined in that rescue effort by members of the life boat service, UK border force and air ambulance,” added the prosecutor.

“Despite those efforts, at least 4 of the migrants drowned.”

The prosecutor also recounted testimony of how the people smugglers who had organised the voyage but had not boarded the boat, were “very violent towards the passengers and used abusive language”.

And during his police interview, the defendant himself said he was assaulted by the smugglers and threatened with death. He said the illicit voyage’s organisers asked him if knew how to pilot a boat and when he said he that he did, was permitted to travel for free in exchange for piloting the vessel.

After learning on the Calais beach that the boat was made not of wood, but of rubber, he changed his mind and refused to drive.

But, he told police, he was forced to go through with the agreement when he was assaulted and threatened with death by the smugglers. He also said the intention of all of them on the boat was to reach the middle of the Channel, surrender themselves to the British authorities and claim asylum.

Concluding his opening speech, Mr Atkinson cast doubt over Bah’s defence – that he acted under duress.

“By setting sail across the Channel in an overcrowded and obviously unseaworthy boat, the conduct of the defendant can be said to be so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act.

“The defendant may argue that he was acting under duress. However, if such a defence was asserted, the defendant had voluntarily associated himself with people smugglers, and therefore he had voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of such duress. So that doesn’t represent a defence.”

Bah is yet to argue his case and trial continues.