CPS prosecutes Merseyrail Guard

[DarloRich]

As selfish as it may sound, I would be happier knowing that I will get home from work without the police arresting me because of the actions of a drunk. We can all go out and have a good time and get drunk but need to accept responsibility for ourselves. If someone is so drunk that their actions could land me as a rail employee in court then I honestly couldn't care less how they get home or where they spend the night.

I understand that view point and agree to a certain extent - although the law says otherwise. We have a duty of care to passengers and a responsibility to fulfill that duty of care. The railway and us as servants of the railway are not above or exempt from the law.

Consider this: You are driving home late at night after work and strike a man in the street with your car. He is drunk. It is investigated and your driving of your car is found to be negligent ( you were speeding, you weren't paying attention, you missed the light change, you nipped through the no entry point etc) but by your argument you should escape censure on the basis the victim was drunk.

Is that right?

 

[MikeWh]

If this prosecution is successful it will be the end of anything resembling punctuality on the railway until every single platform in the country is very well staffed. The rush hour service will be non existant as no driver or guard will move their train until the platform is completely empty. So when people can't fit on a busy train or want the one behind they will have to leave the platform completely before the train moves.

A completely bizarre prosecution with some very, very serious implications for the railways.

Quite!

Could someone explain how the Thameslink core will work if the platforms have to be completely clear between each train?

 

[talltim]

I understand that view point and agree to a certain extent - although the law says otherwise. We have a duty of care to passengers and a responsibility to fulfill that duty of care. The railway and us as servants of the railway are not above or exempt from the law.

Consider this: You are driving home late at night after work and strike a man in the street with your car. He is drunk. It is investigated and your driving of your car is found to be negligent ( you were speeding, you weren't paying attention, you missed the light change, you nipped through the no entry point etc) but by your argument you should escape censure on the basis the victim was drunk.

Is that right?

That's not really an equivalent to this case (from what has been reported) The equivalent would be that your driving was exemplary, but you were still charged.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Assuming this is the same incident, it would appear that the passenger was a woman aged 88. There is no suspicion she was drunk.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/investigations-launched-how-elderly-woman-9634221

Multiple investigations have been launched into how an elderly woman came to fall between a train and the platform at Hamilton Square station.

The 88-year-old is still being treated in hospital after suffering a cut to her head and other injuries in the incident at around 12.10pm on Wednesday.

It is understood the woman fell onto the tracks as she went to board a train on the station’s Liverpool-bound platform.

Merseyrail services were disrupted while paramedics were called in and the woman was rescued from the tracks and taken to hospital.

The travel operator has now confirmed it has launched a full investigation into the incident, as have several other agencies including British Transport Police and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) – the independent safety and economic regulator for Britain’s railways.

A family member of the injured woman told the ECHO: “She’s still in hospital and was kept in again yesterday. We’ve been told now there is going to be a full investigation.

“Her friend who was with her was also taken ill in the ambulance as a result of the stress and she is also still in hospital.

“It’s very distressing for them both at the moment. We are all very upset, we just want to know why and how this happened.”

The ORR – which has enforcement powers and can force companies to make changes or bring prosecutions – confirmed its inspectors have been carrying out investigations following the incident.

British Transport Police said it had notified the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB), the UK’s independent railway accident investigation organisation.

A BTP spokesman said: “Our officers were called to Hamilton Square station, Liverpool, at around 12.15pm on Wednesday following reports of a person falling between a train and the platform.

“Paramedics from North West Ambulance Service also attended and a woman was safely removed from the tracks and taken to hospital with a cut to the head.

“We are now investigating to establish the full circumstances of this incident. The RAIB has been informed. The woman currently remains in a stable condition.”

The RAIB said it was aware of the incident and at this stage was making initial enquiries.

A Merseyrail spokesman said: “Following an accident involving an elderly lady at Hamilton Square station [on Wednesday] lunchtime, Merseyrail has launched a full investigation to determine precisely what happened. Until this investigation is completed and the facts fully established, we are unable to comment in more detail.”

 

[A-driver]

Assuming this is the same incident, it would appear that the passenger was a woman aged 88. There is no suspicion she was drunk.



http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/investigations-launched-how-elderly-woman-9634221

The talk of drunk people isn't specific to this incident but more the McGee incident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understand that view point and agree to a certain extent - although the law says otherwise. We have a duty of care to passengers and a responsibility to fulfill that duty of care. The railway and us as servants of the railway are not above or exempt from the law.



Consider this: You are driving home late at night after work and strike a man in the street with your car. He is drunk. It is investigated and your driving of your car is found to be negligent ( you were speeding, you weren't paying attention, you missed the light change, you nipped through the no entry point etc) but by your argument you should escape censure on the basis the victim was drunk.



Is that right?

That's entirely different and I think you have misunderstood my argument.

If I stop at a station, open doors, count to 5 then without looking close the doors and drive off killing someone I would be negligent and fully responsible despite the fact the deceased was drunk and ignored the hustle alarm. I still havnt performed my duties to the instructions given and checked the train is clear.

But if I check the train is clear of people and close the doors, check again after interlock has been gained and as I start moving a drunk (or infact anyone) runs up to the train and falls down the gap I shouldn't be held responsible.

 

[DarloRich]

But if I check the train is clear of people and close the doors, check again after interlock has been gained and as I start moving a drunk (or infact anyone) runs up to the train and falls down the gap I shouldn't be held responsible.

While I am entirely in agreement with your stance that's not quite what the law says. I am simply saying we can not assume ourselves to be above the law AND need to ensure we all understand what the law means, how we should apply it and exactly whats our responsibilities are.

(I am not on train staff but still have safety responsibilities)

I also completely agree with the view you suggest of the potential implications of a guilty verdict

That's not really an equivalent to this case (from what has been reported) The equivalent would be that your driving was exemplary, but you were still charged.

I think here it would be that you performed your responsibility as per the highway code but were still arrested.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But if I check the train is clear of people and close the doors, check again after interlock has been gained and as I start moving a drunk (or infact anyone) runs up to the train and falls down the gap I shouldn't be held responsible.

And you wouldn't be held responsible.

McGee was held responsible because Varley was actually holding on to the train side when he gave the two bells. He thought she would move, she didn't, and she fell down the gap and died. If she'd done as he originally claimed- moved away and then run back- he wouldn't have been prosecuted. He was originally vindicated until the CCTV showed he'd lied, remember.

If you drove off with someone clinging to the side of your train- regardless of why they were doing it- then yeah, you should be held responsible. And I'm sure you wouldn't do that; you'd wait for the BTP to move them and stick in a delay attribution form.

ETA: As for this case, I'm very wary of speculating, but 88 year old women are not known for their agility and speed. I can understand why the CPS might be a little bit skeptical that she rushed the doors just as the hustle alarm sounded.

 

[najaB]

ETA: As for this case, I'm very wary of speculating, but 88 year old women are not known for their agility and speed. I can understand why the CPS might be a little bit skeptical that she rushed the doors just as the hustle alarm sounded.

You have to wonder though what information is available to the CPS what wasn't available to the previous investigations.

 

[A-driver]

And you wouldn't be held responsible.

McGee was held responsible because Varley was actually holding on to the train side when he gave the two bells. He thought she would move, she didn't, and she fell down the gap and died. If she'd done as he originally claimed- moved away and then run back- he wouldn't have been prosecuted. He was originally vindicated until the CCTV showed he'd lied, remember.

If you drove off with someone clinging to the side of your train- regardless of why they were doing it- then yeah, you should be held responsible. And I'm sure you wouldn't do that; you'd wait for the BTP to move them and stick in a delay attribution form.

ETA: As for this case, I'm very wary of speculating, but 88 year old women are not known for their agility and speed. I can understand why the CPS might be a little bit skeptical that she rushed the doors just as the hustle alarm sounded.

Considering the TOC and raib have stated the guard did everything correctly and the TOC is fully backing the guard (paying his legal fees) it would appear he is being held responsible criminally for somethin. Which he could have done nothing about.

I note your point that 88yr olds are not known for speed but am intrigued what you possibly believe could have happened which would mean the industry investigators have found e guard to be in the right.

 

[theageofthetra]

Have ASLEF made any statements to members re this? PM if you don't feel a reply is for a public forum. Thx

 

[A-driver]

Have ASLEF made any statements to members re this? PM if you don't feel a reply is for a public forum. Thx

Not yet, but this is an rmt member and until the the potential prosecution goes further there is little they can or will say.

 

[Pinza-C55]

The fact that MerseyRail's investigation resulted in no further action makes me believe that there isn't anything more to the story.

I think it is just the CPS responding to the 'someone has to pay' mob mentality.

This. Maybe one of the "InjuryLawyers4U" type companies can smell some money ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Considering the TOC and raib have stated the guard did everything correctly and the TOC is fully backing the guard (paying his legal fees) it would appear he is being held responsible criminally for somethin. Which he could have done nothing about.

McGee was fully vindicated by the internal investigation by Merseyrail; the investigation was only reopened months later by the BTP when new evidence came to light. ASLEF paid his legal fees for both his trial in 2012 and his appeal in mid 2013.

This was the initial newspaper report about her death, at the time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ies-trying-board-train-Liverpool-Station.html

This. Maybe one of the "InjuryLawyers4U" type companies can smell some money?

Personal injury claims are settled in the civil court, not the criminal court, with a different burden of proof. The elderly lady could be suing Merseyrail for compensation for her injuries; that would have no influence on the CPS.

 

[A-driver]

This. Maybe one of the "InjuryLawyers4U" type companies can smell some money ?

It isn't as that wouldn't involve a criminal prosecution.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

McGee was fully vindicated by the internal investigation by Merseyrail; the investigation was only reopened months later by the BTP when new evidence came to light. ASLEF paid his legal fees for both his trial in 2012 and his appeal in mid 2013.







Personal injury claims are settled in the civil court, not the criminal court, with a different burden of proof. The elderly lady could be suing Merseyrail for compensation for her injuries; that would have no influence on the CPS.

The difference with McGee was that he hadn't followed the written company procedure to the letter. His actions were arguably more safe and didn't contribute to the death however his Failiure to work exactly to the procedure meant the company was able to wash its hands of him. That is not the case here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The difference with McGee was that he hadn't followed the written company procedure to the letter

You miss my point. The initial investigation found that he had followed the company procedures correctly. The initial investigation found the girl was running for her train home, slipped and fell. A terrible accident, but nothing more.

It was only months ETA: was actually about six weeks later that the BTP started to re-investigate the matter, as it became apparent McGee's recollection might not have been entirely accurate.

I edited my last post to show the initial newspaper report of her death at the time.

 

[185]

Is it posted anywhere what *actually* happened? It seems bizarre that someone could fall down the side of a Merseyrail train if all they did was try to board it when the doors were closing. Merseyrail sets have very deep stepboards that extend fully across the gap at most stations.

Yes, the stepboards are big, however I see the following as aggravating factors.
1- Curvature of 2 of 3 platform at Ham Sq. Causing
(i) poor siting (ii) bigger "horizontal gaps" at centre of curve
2- Poor object detect on (elderly) door mechanism.
3- Big "vertical gap". 20% above NR's interface norm.

I would suspect the door has shut on her whilst holding the bar, push her arm sideways and skittled her into the gap.

 

[bramling]

You miss my point. The initial investigation found that he had followed the company procedures correctly. The initial investigation found the girl was running for her train home, slipped and fell. A terrible accident, but nothing more.

It was only months ETA: was actually about six weeks later that the BTP started to re-investigate the matter, as it became apparent McGee's recollection might not have been entirely accurate.

I edited my last post to show the initial newspaper report of her death at the time.

This doesn't quite add up, as given the serious nature of the incident one would have expected CCTV to have been reviewed pretty much immediately. Certainly where I am this would have been done.

Looking through the report, I think the issue over what procedures he did or didn't follow is a red herring - it appears what he was prosecuted for was signalling for the train to move when someone was leaning against it, i.e. his 'safety check' as part of the dispatch process proved inadequate. According to the report he closed the doors, at which point nothing in the report suggests it wasn't safe for the train to depart, however for some reason he re-opened the doors then re-closed them. It was during this latter period that the unsafe situation arose - the girl moved from the platform wall towards the train. Had the guard given the signal straight after the doors closed the first time, then I don't think anything could have come back on him, regardless of the fact that he was using his own process for dispatch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the stepboards are big, however I see the following as aggravating factors.
1- Curvature of 2 of 3 platform at Ham Sq. Causing
(i) poor siting (ii) bigger "horizontal gaps" at centre of curve
2- Poor object detect on (elderly) door mechanism.
3- Big "vertical gap". 20% above NR's interface norm.

I would suspect the door has shut on her whilst holding the bar, push her arm sideways and skittled her into the gap.

With regard to 2, there is *no* object detect on Class 507/508 doors, nor on any other units of that vintage, nor Mk3-based DMUs/EMUs.

The rest is surely Merseyrail's/Network Rail's responsibility, not the guard's - so surely any legal case, if one is justified, should be against them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's another thought - are hustle alarms perhaps part of the cause of this problem?

Before the 50x were fitted with them, guards would often press close, then reopen, then close, sometimes a few times, to accommodate passengers running for the train. Now doing that would cause 20 seconds of delay (and is officially deprecated, I believe), would this mean the guard may be reluctant to stop the closure procedure for a passenger, even if that passenger was breaking the rules?

I'm not saying they are a bad thing overall, but is this one unintended consequence?

 

[507 001]

With regard to 2, there is *no* object detect on Class 507/508 doors, nor on any other units of that vintage, nor Mk3-based DMUs/EMUs.

The rest is surely Merseyrail's/Network Rail's responsibility, not the guard's - so surely any legal case, if one is justified, should be against them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's another thought - are hustle alarms perhaps part of the cause of this problem?

Before the 50x were fitted with them, guards would often press close, then reopen, then close, sometimes a few times, to accommodate passengers running for the train. Now doing that would cause 20 seconds of delay (and is officially deprecated, I believe), would this mean the guard may be reluctant to stop the closure procedure for a passenger, even if that passenger was breaking the rules?

I'm not saying they are a bad thing overall, but is this one unintended consequence?

Guards often still re-open doors for late passengers.

 

[bramling]

With regard to 2, there is *no* object detect on Class 507/508 doors, nor on any other units of that vintage, nor Mk3-based DMUs/EMUs.

The rest is surely Merseyrail's/Network Rail's responsibility, not the guard's - so surely any legal case, if one is justified, should be against them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's another thought - are hustle alarms perhaps part of the cause of this problem?

Before the 50x were fitted with them, guards would often press close, then reopen, then close, sometimes a few times, to accommodate passengers running for the train. Now doing that would cause 20 seconds of delay (and is officially deprecated, I believe), would this mean the guard may be reluctant to stop the closure procedure for a passenger, even if that passenger was breaking the rules?

I'm not saying they are a bad thing overall, but is this one unintended consequence?

Maybe. Certainly on some LU trains re-opening the doors will guarantee adding approximately 15 seconds to the dwell time, just because of the way the doors work and the timings involved. If you've had trouble getting the doors closed first time, chances are the platform is busy, so it's likely the same thing will happen again - so yes sometimes it's best *not* to re-open if you can avoid it.

It's not clear what happened at Hamilton Square, however it *seems* that the train didn't move. If this is the case, then it would simply be the case of the doors closing on a passenger. Unfortunately this is an everyday event, generally the most important parts in the process are choosing the right moment to start the sequence (i.e. the platform/train interface should be clear), and carrying out the safety check along the side of the train before moving off. My view is that everything in between is down to the passenger.

If the sequence was interrupted every time a passenger ignores the door chimes, this would introduce unacceptable delay -- and at certain locations no train would depart during busy times as there will always be new people arriving on the platform on a constant basis.

One potential way to help the situation could be to introduce penalties for obstructing doors or boarding whilst chimes were sounding. If people knew they would get a fixed penalty if observed by BTP, for example, it might discourage the practice and encourage passengers to follow the rules. Then you're introducing a whole new issue of whether it would be worth using police resources on this, etc.

 

[BanburyBlue]

This does seem strange. Has the passenger who tried to board the train made some form of complaint perhaps?

My understanding (and I'll freely admit that I know nothing) is that normally in criminal law someone has to make a complaint for the police to take any action. For the CPS to then prosecute, they would make a decision based on evidence collected by police.

If the procedure is wrong, then surely Merseyrail should be prosecuted under H&S legislation? That's why i'm wondering if the passenger made a complaint?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One potential way to help the situation could be to introduce penalties for obstructing doors or boarding whilst chimes were sounding. If people knew they would get a fixed penalty if observed by BTP, for example, it might discourage the practice and encourage passengers to follow the rules. Then you're introducing a whole new issue of whether it would be worth using police resources on this, etc.

Well, Merseyrail do like their zero-tolerance Byelaw enforcement, so if anyone's going to try it first...

 

[Tetchytyke]

T&W Metro have started prosecuting people who board their trains as the doors close, partly in response to their own issues with people getting dragged along platforms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

T&W Metro have started prosecuting people who board their trains as the doors close, partly in response to their own issues with people getting dragged along platforms.

Funny thing...the Tube would grind to a halt if they tried that, and you don't hear of people being dragged. That said, its overcrowded nature means there is usually someone standing by the door to either pull it open and release the trapped person, or to pull the passcom if they can't.

 

[A-driver]

Funny thing...the Tube would grind to a halt if they tried that, and you don't hear of people being dragged. That said, its overcrowded nature means there is usually someone standing by the door to either pull it open and release the trapped person, or to pull the passcom if they can't.

Yes you do. Will look for a link later but recently someone was dragged down a northern line platform (Clapham I think) as their scarf was caught in the door. I seem to recall a over similar incident recently to on the tube.

Edit-link below

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...apham-south-balham-delays-chaos-10102716.html

Then there was this incident

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/Scarf-tube-danger

And a different incident on the tube although slightly different

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-thr...ap-between-tube-platform-baker-street-1492583

So one woman recently dragged by getting her coat trapped in Clapham. Another getting her scarf caught in Holborn. And a toddler falling down the gap at Baker Street.

So you do hear of these incidents on the tube!

 

[bramling]

Funny thing...the Tube would grind to a halt if they tried that, and you don't hear of people being dragged. That said, its overcrowded nature means there is usually someone standing by the door to either pull it open and release the trapped person, or to pull the passcom if they can't.

It does occasionally happen (e.g. at Clapham South earlier this year), but given how heavily used LU is, it's surprisingly rare.

Unlike mainline trains where doors are firmly secured closed, older LU trains are deliberately designed that doors can be pulled open slightly in order to free an obstruction. Newer trains (09 & S stock) have the electronic 'sensitive edge' system instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

50x doors can, FWIW, also be pulled open about 6" before you hit the stops. It used to be a favourite schoolkid prank to do this, though staff obviously didn't approve as if you went wide enough they'd lose interlock.

 

[Oswyntail]

You have to wonder though what information is available to the CPS what wasn't available to the previous investigations.

It could be that the various investigations are looking at the incident with different criteria. The railway side asks "were procedures followed?"; the CPS asks "has a prosecutable offence possibly occurred?"
Without any detailed statement as to why from the CPS, we can only speculate. My sympathies to the guard.

 

[Camden]

People have tube doors close on them all the time. Busy networks with frequent trains, it's going to happen.

The solution isn't to prosecute people who close the doors, it's to take a hard attitude with the public that says "If you get hurt by a closing train door, don't expect any compo". But that's not the way our screwed up society works, it seems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People have tube doors close on them all the time. Busy networks with frequent trains, it's going to happen.

The solution isn't to prosecute people who close the doors, it's to take a hard attitude with the public that says "If you get hurt by a closing train door, don't expect any compo". But that's not the way our screwed up society works, it seems.

This a million times (in a general sense, as I do not know enough about this case)... safety systems need to be in place to prevent people being hurt accidentally, but people who do stupid things need to take some responsibility for having done so.