Austrian climber found guilty after girlfriend froze to death on mountain

2 hours agoBethany BellBBC Vienna correspondentBergrettung KalsAn Austrian climber has been found guilty of gross negligent manslaughter after his girlfriend froze to death on Austria's highest mountain last year.The man, named only as Thomas P in line with Austrian privacy laws, has been given a five-month suspended sentence and fined €9,600 (£8,400).His girlfriend, Kerstin G, died of hypothermia during a climbing trip on the Grossglockner mountain in January 2025.In a statement sent to the BBC, the court said it considered Thomas P's previous clean record and the loss of a person close to him "to be mitigating factors". It said it also took into account "the public discussion on social media, which was incriminating for the defendant".The judge, Norbert Hofer, himself an experienced climber who works with mountain and helicopter rescue teams in Tyrol, said Thomas P was an excellent Alpinist, but that his girlfriend was light-years behind him in terms of her climbing abilities.He said the couple should have turned back as Kerstin G did not have enough experience in winter conditions.The court also heard from Andrea B, a former girlfriend of Thomas P, who described how he had left her alone on a previous tour on the Grossglockner in 2023. She said she had been at the end of her tether, feeling dizzy and her headlight had gone out. She said she was crying and screaming when he suddenly disappeared, walking ahead and leaving her behind.Grossglockner mountain in AustriaAccording to reports in the Austrian media, the court heard how the mountain rescue team found Kerstin's body hanging upside down from a rock face.One of the rescuers told the court she had her rucksack on and her head was tilted back.Her eyes were wide open, she wasn't wearing gloves, and her boots were open, he said."We were amazed that she remained in that position." If the wind had been any stronger, "she would have fallen over the south face".The prosecution said there were strong winds of up to 74 km/h (45 mph), and was very cold. It was -8C, with a windchill temperature of -20C, they said.They argued that as the more experienced climber, Thomas P was "the responsible guide for the tour". They said he failed to turn back or call for help in time to help his girlfriend.Thomas P should never have allowed himself to get into this situation, the prosecutor said.Thomas P pleaded not guilty. He told the court he was deeply sorry. He said he had loved his girlfriend, who was very sporty and that they had planned the trip together.His lawyer Kurt Jelinek said the couple had found themselves in a really difficult and stressful situation.He said Kerstin was not inexperienced and knew what she was getting into.www.foto-webcam.euThis still from webcam footage shows the couple still climbing at 21:00 on 18 JanuaryProsecutors say the couple got stuck on the mountain and that the man failed to call the police and did not send any distress signals when a police helicopter flew overhead at around 22:30.Video footage from the helicopter showed the couple still climbing. The judge noted that no distress signals were sent.The defence argued that at that point Thomas P and girlfriend still felt fine and did not call for help as they were close to the summit.Webcam images show lights from their torches as they scaled the mountain.But shortly afterwards, the defence said the situation changed dramatically, when Kerstin became exhausted close to the summit.The defence said that she told Thomas P to go to get help.At 00:35 on 19 January, he called the mountain police. The content of the conversation is disputed. Rescuers said it wasn't an emergency call but the lawyer says he denies telling police that everything was fine.He scaled the summit and descended on the other side, leaving Kerstin behind. Prosecutors say he left her at 02:00 am.Webcam images show his torchlit figure coming down from the summit.The trial sparked interest and debate, not just in Austria but in mountain climbing communities far beyond its borders, raising questions about when personal judgement and risk-taking become a matter of criminal liability.The case is subject to appeal.