If a train driver makes an honest mistake he should not be prosecuted, & if the CPS were daft enough to bring a prosecution he certainly would be found not guilty by a jury of 12 decent people. Remember the test for a finding of guilt in a criminal case is that all the 12 jury members,or if the judge agrees, 10 of them, must be certain,such that they have no doubt,that the driver intentionally shut the doors knowing a person would be trapped. The train driver's barrister simply has to suggest reasons why the driver thought it safe to shut the doors for the jurors to have a reason to acquit. And the odds are enormously in the driver's favour. It only needs 3 of the 12 jurors to think it possible he made an honest mistake for him to be acquitted.
Im sorry but you clearly lack legal knowledge here .For starters intention is not a necessary element for many of the offences that rail staff could be charged with . Negligence is sufficient for many of the offences and many mistakes even honest ones could be sufficient breaches in the level of care required when carrying out that role to make the driver negligent in the eyes of the law .
The offence that Martin Zee has been charged with allows for someone to be guilty either by intentionally or negligently carrying out an act or omission that endangers the safety of anyone travelling on the railway . Even if a driver made a "genuine mistake" the Jury could still find guilt because genuine mistakes can still be so serious that they would make the driver negligent . Not forgetting that for Jurors this area of law and the operational procedures that they would hear about and be given direction upon would be alien to them so they would be relying a great deal on the judicial direction given to them and the representations made by counsel
Again the offence that Christopher McGee was charged with was Manslaughter by way of gross negligence . There would be no requirement in a similar case for the CPS to have to prove to the court that the closing of the doors was with the knowledge or intention that a person would be trapped or killed .Making a mistake even an honest one during the checking and closing process could be sufficient for someone to be negligent
McGee was genuinely of the belief that the girl leaning against the train would move back once the train started moving . This was later proven to be a mistaken belief when she was pulled off the platform and under the train . He did not intend at any point that she would fall or end up under the train or die . He was however found to be negligent because of his genuinely mistaken belief and his negligence was found to be so serious it ought be criminal .
As Arctic Troll has pointed out to you the standard the defendant would be judged against for negligence would be the standard of a reasonably competent train driver . And the Jury would be subjected to the evidence of an expert witness to hear what that standard is .
I think some anti DOO people are deliberately whipping up fears of successful prosecutions of drivers for manslaughter. Ordinary decent people do not want to convict hard working train drivers for the sake of it.
If you read my post again you will see that I actually address the serious probability that the Martin Zee case could result in an acquittal that could then act as a non binding precedent that other rail staff in his position could use to successfully defend a charge against them .Not to mention that at trial there is always a good chance of aquittal especially with indictable offences
However even the mere prospect of an unsuccessful prosecution and the time that this would take and the mental strain this would put on the person would cause chaos in your life , I mean if you have an outstanding charge against you I very much doubt you are going to be in the right frame of mind to be working especially not driving . Its going to effect both your professional life and personal life . look at the amount of time Martin Zee has spent in this limbo situation not knowing what is going to happen to him . That could have profound effects on someone health .
Although I am anti DOO I am coming from this from the perspective that eventually the DFT and the TOC's will get their wish .Therefore I think it is only right that Aslef members are clear about what it is they are signing upto and the union does have a duty to properly explain to its members that there is no way of stopping a prosecution and there is no way of knowing the outcome before the trial .Aslef wields no power over the decision making authority of the CPS or of the courts , neither do train operators or even the safety bodies on the railway . The CPS and the Court alone are the only people making the decisions .
The recent deal approved by the ASLEF leadership with the misleading clause around the exploration of an indemnity scheme for drivers involved in incidents shows that they clearly are not interested in making true and accurate representations on this matter to their members .
I think people such as yourself are trying to play down the risk of prosecutions arising from carrying out additional safety critical tasks in order to get drivers to just accept it ignorant of the risks and responsibility they are accepting .
Ordinary decent people do not want to convict hard working train drivers for the sake of it.
On the one hand you are suggesting that people consider train drivers to be hard working , but I am sure you are part of the anti strike brigade who are always telling us that the public perception of people on the railway is poor . Which is it please ?
).
