Merseyrail Guard to be prosecuted - cleared

[Reorte]

It sounds so ridiculous that I have to assume there's more to it than we know of, although you can never rule out "the world's gone bonkers."

[flyingsignalman]

Class 507/508 units do have intermediate door controls fitted but when in the tunnel section to Liverpool the Guard must ride in the rear cab.

[darrel]

From the evidence we have the guard followed the correct procedure as laid down by his employer. Therefore if the CPS thinks there is a case should they not have charged the employer not the employee?

If you can be charged for carrying out the correct procedure every guard and driver of DOO services should be instructed not to take any passenger train into service until the court has made a judgement.

If the companies are at risk of prosecution then they are unable to run any trains.

End result is no passenger trains running anywhere indefinitely.

The CPS seem to have made a huge mistake here

[beast66606]

Granted we only have one version but nowhere does it say the train moved.

 

I read it as this

 

Train in station.

Guard starts door close procedure

beep beep

Girl runs and tries to get through the closing doors

Fails and falls into gap between train and platform

Guard goes to her assistance.

 

MR were very quick to get rid of the other guard who is still in prison as he did give the signal to the driver to depart, in this case they are supporting their employee which would imply different circumstances.

[The Stationmaster]

At first glance this seems grossly unfair on the guard, but don't forget that there has been a previous prosecution involving a Merseyrail guard:

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-christopher-mcgee-jailed-3329790

 

Knowing this, it's possible that the ambulance chasers have seen an opportunity to get some cash and have been pushing for a prosecution.

 

It isn't proper to speculate before a trial, but I cannot help but wonder why RAIB were/are not involved. This incident isn't in the list of current investigations.  

 

Also, if an internal enquiry has concluded that it is a system risk and not an individual's fault, why then are the CPS not going after Merseyrail? (Unless of course they are).

 

More to this than we currently understand for sure.

This, I think, goes right to the crux of the matter.  While I could say something about 'victim complex' in a geographical context I will avoid that with one exception - a Merseyrail Guard was convicted of Manslaughter, and imprisoned(!!!) in the past and there might well be some sort of link there but I sincerely hope there isn't otherwise there could be something seriously amiss in the CPS.

 

But back to what we do know - albeit from the RMT statement and assuming it is correct in its detail regarding Merseyrail's action following the incident.   Firstly there seems to be no doubt that the Guard correctly complied with the operating company's procedures which by implication would indicate to me that he must also have complied with the national Rule Book  (or that the operating company varies from the Rule Book procedure using one of its own which has been properly risk assessed).  Procedurally in railway safety terms the Guard appears to have done nothing wrong and indeed seems on the face of it to have behaved commendably in the aftermath (although that necessarily does not right a wrong of course).

 

Secondly if the Guard followed correct procedure why are his actions being tested in court rather than the procedure which it appears he followed correctly?  This makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

Thirdly the incident was reportable and we can but assume that it was reported as there seems to be no indication that any sort of action is being taken against Merseyrail for failure to report.  This also suggests to me that the ORR/RAIB did not consider further investigation necessary as the internal inquiry was considered to have adequately dealt with the incident and had highlighted that correct procedures had been followed.

 

Thus overall I can see no case at all which can be made against the Guard as an individual (on the basis of what the RMT has said and Merseyrail's continuing support for him) which leaves me questioning why a prosecution is taking place? The only conclusions which I can draw are possibly the 'victim complex'  (i.e. this is the second time in a handful of years that a Merseyrail Guard 'has tried to kill someone') and it is therefore a move to assuage (grossly misplaced) 'public anger', i.e. it is a 'political' prosecution rather than anything else.   Or, even more unjustly (a personal view) the prosecution is aimed at Merseyrail but the CPS can't find any/enough evidence to bring a case against them directly.  Or, possibly even more worryingly, the CPS doesn't really know what it is doing.

 

My concern then concentrates on how the case will be tried because it could be in a situation where it is judged by those with limited knowledge of the procedures and the manner in which they have to be applied

[40044]

[cynic mode]Dangerous folk, these Merseyrail Guards. Best hurry up and make the system DOO....[/cynic mode]

[darrel]

Thing is it does not matter in this case if the train has a guard or is DOO. The passenger was at fault for trying to board the train while the doors were closing and the hustle alarm was sounding.

That is not a unique situation it happens all the time. There is not a guard or a driver who has not had a passenger trapping themselves in the door or just making it onto the train as the doors close. It happens to all of us several times a day. Passengers seem to think the door alarms mean run faster. You would not belive how many people there are that leave their brains outside the station. You cannot trust passengers, you think to yourself no one would be so stupid as to do something but they do. They risk their lives because they don't want to miss their train and end up half an hour late. But they won't turn up on time for the train in the first place.

They complain if the train is late but expect you to delay the train and every one on it because they can't be bothered to get to the station in time.

[Rivercider]

Granted we only have one version but nowhere does it say the train moved.

 

I read it as this

 

Train in station.

Guard starts door close procedure

beep beep

Girl runs and tries to get through the closing doors

Fails and falls into gap between train and platform

Guard goes to her assistance.

 

MR were very quick to get rid of the other guard who is still in prison as he did give the signal to the driver to depart, in this case they are supporting their employee which would imply different circumstances.

This is my reading of the events, though according to the Liverpool Echo report it was a 88 year old lady travelling with a friend, so probably not running for the door,

 

cheers

[40044]

Thing is it does not matter in this case if the train has a guard or is DOO. The passenger was at fault for trying to board the train while the doors were closing and the hustle alarm was sounding.

That is not a unique situation it happens all the time. There is not a guard or a driver who has not had a passenger trapping themselves in the door or just making it onto the train as the doors close. It happens to all of us several times a day. Passengers seem to think the door alarms mean run faster. You would not belive how many people there are that leave their brains outside the station. You cannot trust passengers, you think to yourself no one would be so stupid as to do something but they do. They risk their lives because they don't want to miss their train and end up half an hour late. But they won't turn up on time for the train in the first place.

They complain if the train is late but expect you to delay the train and every one on it because they can't be bothered to get to the station in time.

Oh I completely agree, but I can also see how events could be twisted by certain parties to aid the DOO cause.

[phil gollin]

.

 

I agree with the majority, it really seems odd (especially as none of the Health and Safety iterations seem to be involved).

 

One thing I would point out from the RMT message is that this is poorly worded ;

 

"..........     this unfortunately resulted in minor injuries to a passenger who opted to ignore the hustle alarm, warning her that it was unsafe to board, instead choosing to board the service whilst the doors were in the process of closing whilst it was unsafe to do so.  ......."

 

"Hustle Alarm" may be a nickname, it may even be the official name (?) - BUT either it is to hustle passengers along  OR  it is to signal that it is unsafe to enter  -  you can't have it both ways.  As a decades long user of Tube and Southern Region sliding door trains I  KNOW  just how passengers push aboard, but don't call it a "hustle alarm" - it is misleading and allows lawyers to play games.

[The Lurker]

The Liverpool Echo reported that the victim was an elderly woman. Apart from a similar report in the Wirral Globe I couldn't find anything else about this

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hamilton-square-accident-elderly-woman-9613992
 
I wonder if this is what lies behind this story. Far from being stupid, she may have been slow. If he operated "correct procedure" as she tottered her way on to the train there might be a case to answer. Although whether you could assert procedure had been followed correctly if she was for example already one foot on the step and he sounded the doors close buzzer I don't know.
 
I'm guessing CCTV will show who made a misjudgement here, the guard, the guard and the old lady, or the old lady and the CPS.
 
.

[beast66606]

If he operated "correct procedure" as she tottered her way on to the train there might be a case to answer. Although whether you could assert procedure had been followed correctly if she was for example already one foot on the step and he sounded the doors close buzzer I don't know.

 

I'm guessing CCTV will show who made a misjudgement here, the guard, the guard and the old lady, or the old lady and the CPS.

 

.

 

I assume (maybe wrongly) that the MR investigation would have looked into the timings and certainly viewed any CCTV which would have made it obvious if the guard had acted irresponsibly - but I guess we will find out in due course.

[caradoc]

This Guard is being prosecuted, yet the driver of the bin lorry which killed 6 people in Glasgow last December has not been. And today, a story on the BBC News website Scotland section about a bus driver who apparently ignored medical advice and was involved in an accident in which a colleague was killed, but who is also not being prosecuted. Double standards for rail and road transport, surely ?

Edited November 20, 2015 by caradoc

[Fat Controller]

This Guard is being prosecuted, yet the driver of the bin lorry which killed 6 people in Glasgow last December has not been. And today, a story on the BBC News website Scotland section about a bus driver who apparently ignored medical advice and was involved in an accident in which a colleague was killed, but who is also not being prosecuted. Double standards for rail and road transport, surely ?

Both of the cases you mention would be under Scottish juristriction, which I don't believe uses the CPS, but instead has the Procurator Fiscal's office. Not so much double standards, more different systems.

[Zomboid]

Both of the cases you mention would be under Scottish juristriction, which I don't believe uses the CPS, but instead has the Procurator Fiscal's office. Not so much double standards, more different systems.

And different evidence of different alleged crimes.

[Bernard Lamb]

This Guard is being prosecuted, yet the driver of the bin lorry which killed 6 people in Glasgow last December has not been. And today, a story on the BBC News website Scotland section about a bus driver who apparently ignored medical advice and was involved in an accident in which a colleague was killed, but who is also not being prosecuted. Double standards for rail and road transport, surely ?

My understanding of the Glasgow bin lorry case was that if he had been prosecuted he would have been advised to say nothing at the enquiry.

As it suited just about every body to hold the enquiry ASAP it was decided  to withdraw the threat of prosecution.

Bernard

[jjb1970]

The reason I think there is more to this case than meets the eye is exactly because it appears to be so cut and dried according to the reports that have been linked. If it is that simple then the CPS are truly incompetent. However, as has been pointed out to prosecute the CPS have to be able to demonstrate certain criteria, the fact that they have decided that the criteria are satisfied indicates that the case is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Whilst the CPS are certainly not infallible and get things wrong, to pursue the case if there is a complete absence of any reason to believe they can secure a conviction and that it would be in the public interest then clearly they will have serious questions to answer down the line.

Which leads meto stick by my feeling that we should leave it to the courts to decide the merits or otherwise of the case.

[caradoc]

Both of the cases you mention would be under Scottish juristriction, which I don't believe uses the CPS, but instead has the Procurator Fiscal's office. Not so much double standards, more different systems.

 

Agreed of course that there are separate and different legal systems in England and Scotland, but surely not so different that the very definition of an offence or crime can vary so massively. In the two Scottish cases seven people have died in accidents involving professional drivers at work, but no person or organisation has been prosecuted. How can that be right, or justice; Is it maybe that road deaths are simply regarded as accidents whereas on the railway someone is always to blame ?

[Kenton]

Have I missed something here?

 

All I see is a typical union rant (that appears to be understandable in cause but not in content "brother").

 

Also a curious position of the CPS - which has been said is only contended by one sided argument.

 

I want to know who the litigant is - clearly not the company or the union. For a prosecution to go ahead there surely needs to be an aggrieved party. If a crime has been committed it is necessary for due process and the case to be heard, if this is a civil action seeking damages then, for what, why and from whom?

 

It does seem very odd - though the call for strike action or the collapse of order on the railways does seem a bit exaggerated and somewhat typical of a union's stance. I'd like to know more facts, and certainly the other side of the case.

[Grovenor]

I want to know who the litigant is - clearly not the company or the union. For a prosecution to go ahead there surely needs to be an aggrieved party. If a crime has been committed it is necessary for due process and the case to be heard, if this is a civil action seeking damages then, for what, why and from whom?

 

i thought that the CPS only prosecutes crimes not civil cases.

Regards

[Jim Martin]

The thing here is the evidence we know is... not evidence at all. It's a totally one-sided account of events. That's not intended as a criticism - the union is supposed to act as an advocate for its members - but it's a fact, nevertheless.

 

What strikes me is how fantastically cross people are getting here over something about which they have so little information.

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

I'm beginning to wonder how many people have actually read all of the originally linked item from the RMT?  It refers specifically to Merseyrail's action following the incident and what happened after their investigation - now either the  RMT are telling bare faced lies (which I somehow doubt - exaggeration and posturing is one thing, direct lying statements are quite another) or they have told the truth  

 

If they have told the truth then my post No.32 above refers - nothing to 'get cross over' but certainly something which could be very worrying for the entire British railway network where all centrally closed power operated doors have this sort of audible signal (and an accompanying visual indication) to indicate the doors are closing.

 

Above all it is absolutely clear - from what the RMT have said - that the train did not move which clearly indicates that the Guard carried out the 'train safety check' required by Module SS1 of the RSSB Rule Book before giving the signal to start - as that was not given.  If the train did move then the situation would be very different - but it seems that it did not (unless the RMT are lying of course).

Edited November 21, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think the law will take its course. I do not know the details of this case but the CPS do not normally bring vexatious cases to court and if the court finds it is a silly case then it'll be dealt with appropriately. One thing to keep in mind is that generally legal cases are less interested in right and wrong than whether or not there is grounds for believing acts were contrary to the law.

I think it is very easy to see cases like this and call the law an ass and lose sight of the fact that if somebody is hurt as a result of negligent behaviour then it is correct that there should be a legal process. If the guard acted correctly then he will be acquitted, if his actions were not in accordance with rules and procedures then it is not the law that is an ass.

My feeling is we should let the court hear the evidence and arrive at an informed decision.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree. CPS does bring some very silly cases to court and even wins some of them.

 

I think that, in the circumstances, Martin Zee will certainly be acquitted but he should not have to go through the harrowing procedure and we taxpayers should not be paying for it. If CPS thinks that the operating procedures are wrong (more a matter for HSE/RAIB really), then they should be prosecuting the company not the guard.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[Kenton]

 

Sorry but I have to disagree. CPS does bring some very silly cases to court and even wins some of them.

 

and I think you are wrong there.

 

The CPS does not instigate a prosecution itself. It simply authorises one to proceed. That is only based on the evidence as presented to it. They do not have to make any judgement on the viability of the evidence or the nature of the offence just that it is presentable to a court. What we are still missing here is what offence/law has been broken that brought about the case to be submitted to the CPS?

 

So no case is silly. There are always two parties and two sets of evidence and in between is the law. The judge/jury will make a decision. Now you can argue that a particular law is silly (though I would prefer to argue it is badly worded)

[beast66606]

and I think you are wrong there.

 

The CPS does not instigate a prosecution itself. It simply authorises one to proceed. That is only based on the evidence as presented to it. They do not have to make any judgement on the viability of the evidence or the nature of the offence just that it is presentable to a court. What we are still missing here is what offence/law has been broken that brought about the case to be submitted to the CPS?

 

So no case is silly. There are always two parties and two sets of evidence and in between is the law. The judge/jury will make a decision. Now you can argue that a particular law is silly (though I would prefer to argue it is badly worded)

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/index.html

 

The CPS:

• decides which cases should be prosecuted – keeping them all under continuous review;

 

 

 

Maybe wording but it's good enough for me - it does not investigate but thats not the same thing.

 

I think the first thing we are missing is WHO decided any (further) investigation was required.