RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[AlterEgo]

But the CPS have decided that he has committed an offence contrary to S34 of the offences against the person act 1861 .

Almost - the CPS don't decide guilt but rather think the evidence shows a reasonable chance of success of prosecution for this offence (and that a prosecution is within the public interest).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Where the driver (DCO/DOO) is deciding whether the train is ready to start, s/he is provided with equipment to allow her/him to make that judgement. That equipment is verified by someone in the safety organisation as being sufficient to allow the driver to make that decision.

And that is where the problem lies. If you use that equipment and make an error in the use of that equipment, then if the CPS believe you are criminally negligent they are going to prosecute you. They may also separately prosecute your employer, but that doesn't change what happens to you.

An example is the Southall crash of 1997. The train had defective AWS, and Great Western Trains were prosecuted and fined £1.5m because of this. But this didn't stop the CPS prosecuting the driver for manslaughter, although in his case charges were dropped before trial. It was the same with the Watford Junction crash of 1996, where the driver was tried (and acquitted after trial) for manslaughter despite significant failures in the placing of speed restriction signs.

There is, too, an incentive for the employer to argue that their standards were fine, it was merely the implementation of those standards that was at fault. If the standards are wrong they'll get prosecuted too, throw the driver to the dogs and they might not do.

Martin Zee was found by internal review to have done everything correctly. But an elderly woman with significant health problems found herself in the four-foot, and so the CPS have prosecuted. Regardless of what happens, Zee's been waiting for his trial for more than two years since the incident, and that has a huge impact on your life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Almost - the CPS don't decide guilt but rather think the evidence shows a reasonable chance of success of prosecution for this offence (and that a prosecution is within the public interest).

As if this is successful it will cause railway operations to grind to a halt, I fail to see why it is in any way in the public interest. Does the CPS person involved have an axe to grind, perhaps?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Martin Zee was found by internal review to have done everything correctly. But an elderly woman with significant health problems found herself in the four-foot, and so the CPS have prosecuted. Regardless of what happens, Zee's been waiting for his trial for more than two years since the incident, and that has a huge impact on your life.

Surely a corporate prosecution would be appropriate here if they genuinely felt the procedures to be deficient.

I agree on the timescale, though. There is no good reason for someone to wait that long for their day in Court - it should be possible within months if that.

 

[martin2345uk]

Would the poor guy have been off work since the incident or allowed to carry on pending the trial?

 

[hounddog]

As if this is successful it will cause railway operations to grind to a halt, I fail to see why it is in any way in the public interest. Does the CPS person involved have an axe to grind, perhaps?

You think it's in the public interest for negligent rail staff to get away with killing and/or injuring people? Ok.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You think it's in the public interest for negligent rail staff to get away with killing and/or injuring people? Ok.

Martin Zee was following all rules and procedures as instructed and is supported by Merseyrail. I therefore fail to see how he could be considered negligent. It's possible the rules and procedures were faulty, in which case surely that makes the company (or the rule-maker) guilty of an offence.

 

[muz379]

Almost - the CPS don't decide guilt but rather think the evidence shows a reasonable chance of success of prosecution for this offence (and that a prosecution is within the public interest).

Yes quite correct ,what I was trying to say badly worded was that the CPS according to their evidence and understanding of the situation believe he has committed an offence and that they can convince a court so .

Surely a corporate prosecution would be appropriate here if they genuinely felt the procedures to be deficient.

Whilst I agree with you that this should be a corporate prosecution that however is only on the basis of limited facts and without seeing the argument that the CPS intend to put forward

I think the point I and others are trying to make is that if the CPS thinks as they do in this case that an individual member of rail staff has done something wrong there is nothing stopping them prosecuting even if internal company investigations have found no fault . And this is something I think ASLEF should be making explicitly clear to its members rather than trying to hide behind TOC statements about exploring indemnity schemes that have no prospect of influencing the CPS in that decision to prosecute .

As if this is successful it will cause railway operations to grind to a halt, I fail to see why it is in any way in the public interest. Does the CPS person involved have an axe to grind, perhaps?

But if they believe Martin Zee is a dangerous criminal who would continue putting the safety of people travelling on the railway at danger is it in the public interest to allow him to continue doing so ?

I have my own views on this prosecution and question if the person being knocked of the platform by the doors had been a more healthy able bodied young person who didn't suffer anywhere near the level of injuries would we have seen this prosecution . But I acknowledge that I am not in possession of all the facts to make such assessment .

Could be an axe to grind , could be a case of misunderstanding around the role or operating procedures , could be that there is more to it than the basic facts we know from the newspaper .

Would the poor guy have been off work since the incident or allowed to carry on pending the trial?

I wouldn't have thought that he would be in any fit mental state to be carrying out safety critical duties , besides which if he is convicted of the offence of endangering people on the railway are merseyrail going to guarantee his job (subject to the whole DOO thing anyway ) .And if a further incident occurred whilst he was carrying out safety critical duties with an outstanding prosecution for this offence against him what view would Merseyrails insurer take .

Its likely that he could have been given other duties if he really did not want to be sat at home .

 

[Tetchytyke]

I have my own views on this prosecution and question if the person being knocked of the platform by the doors had been a more healthy able bodied young person who didn't suffer anywhere near the level of injuries would we have seen this prosecution . But I acknowledge that I am not in possession of all the facts to make such assessment

I think we all have to wait and see what happens at trial, I certainly aren't in possession of the facts to make a judgment either.

I agree with you, however, that the age and health problems of the passenger (IIRC she was 89 years old and suffering from dementia) are materially relevant to why he has been prosecuted. I don't think it is anything more sinister than that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Martin Zee was following all rules and procedures as instructed and is supported by Merseyrail. I therefore fail to see how he could be considered negligent. It's possible the rules and procedures were faulty, in which case surely that makes the company (or the rule-maker) guilty of an offence.

Two scenarios spring to mind:

1) The procedures were obviously and fatally flawed and this should have been obvious to any professional who ought to have refused to carry them out (that would in my view lead also to a corporate prosecution). This scenario is possible but extremely unlikely.

2) The procedures rely on staff judgement and discretion: for example, if an old lady is seen running for the train, the staff member may be entitled to use their judgement to continue or halt dispatch. These may not be written procedures but may be "custom and practice" procedures. Thus, the TOC may say "staff member did not contravene procedure", but the employee may still be criminally negligent. This scenario is in my view much more likely than the above suggestion.

As nobody has any information on the Zee case we are going to be left hanging for quite a while I fear.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think we all have to wait and see what happens at trial, I certainly aren't in possession of the facts to make a judgment either.

I agree with you, however, that the age and health problems of the passenger (IIRC she was 89 years old and suffering from dementia) are materially relevant to why he has been prosecuted. I don't think it is anything more sinister than that.

Indeed, perhaps the argument is that Zee ought to have been more mindful of this passenger, if she was quite obviously impaired. (We don't know what he saw or what the old lady was like on the day).

Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

CPS need to either s**t or get off the pot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2) The procedures rely on staff judgement and discretion: for example, if an old lady is seen running for the train, the staff member may be entitled to use their judgement to continue or halt dispatch. These may not be written procedures but may be "custom and practice" procedures. Thus, the TOC may say "staff member did not contravene procedure", but the employee may still be criminally negligent. This scenario is in my view much more likely than the above suggestion.

Is the allegation that he shut the doors in her face, which is perfectly permitted but may have led to her stumbling and falling under the train due to her condition?

If that's true, it's in some ways more of an indictment on society that she was evidently not receiving the care she needed.

 

[Bookd]

Does anyone know why it has taken the Zee case so long to come to court? Apart from the effect on him speculation as to the outcome has certainly had a bearing on disputes since then - the case should have been tried long ago so that everyone knew where they stood.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Does anyone know why it has taken the Zee case so long to come to court? Apart from the effect on him speculation as to the outcome has certainly had a bearing on disputes since then - the case should have been tried long ago so that everyone knew where they stood.

It was originally scheduled for July last year, but was deferred until March of this year. The newspaper article doesn't say why.

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/1...ngers_at_Wirral_railway_station_is_postponed/

I only know what's been reported in the papers, both when the incident originally happened (which went into more detail about the woman who fell) and when Martin Zee was charged.

The trial is meant to be started in a few weeks. We'll see.

 

[Merseysider]

Is the allegation that he shut the doors in her face, which is perfectly permitted but may have led to her stumbling and falling under the train due to her condition?

If that's true, it's in some ways more of an indictment on society that she was evidently not receiving the care she needed.

I may be mistaken, but I believe she was not present when the dispatch procedure began. Silly cow then ignores safety warning & common sense, and attempts to enter train whilst doors are closing. Nobody wins.

The passenger lost balance while trying to board the train as the doors were closing, falling between the carriage and platform edge.

Mr Zee was cleared by a Merseyrail safety probe, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now announced it will bring a criminal neglect charge against him.

My bold.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks. Is it alleged that he could/should have reopened the doors?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If that's true, it's in some ways more of an indictment on society that she was evidently not receiving the care she needed.

She was travelling with her carer, IIRC, she certainly wasn't travelling alone.

From what I've seen in the papers, it seems that she started to board as he was closing the door, and she started boarding well after the hustle alarm sounded. She fell between the train and the platform as a result.

Given that 89-year-old women are not known for their fast turn of speed, I think the question is why the door closing procedure was started in the way that it was.

 

[Moonshot]

She was travelling with her carer, IIRC, she certainly wasn't travelling alone.

From what I've seen in the papers, it seems that she started to board as he was closing the door, and she started boarding well after the hustle alarm sounded. She fell between the train and the platform as a result.

Given that 89-year-old women are not known for their fast turn of speed, I think the question is why the door closing procedure was started in the way that it was.

Maybe the passenger was actually out of sight of the guard when the procedure was started.....this does happen at some stations.

 

[Astradyne]

Maybe the passenger was actually out of sight of the guard when the procedure was started.....this does happen at some stations.

We have been told on another thread that guards always adjust their position on the platform so they can see the whole train.

 

[muz379]

Thanks. Is it alleged that he could/should have reopened the doors?

This would depend on the stock though .On some traction even if you release the doors after the closing procedure has started doors that have started closing will continue unless the passengers operate the passenger controls .

I dont know how 507/8s work in this regards .

Not to mention by the time he had realised that she was trying to board it might have been too late to release them and stop her getting hurt .

Ive witnessed many a situations when a passenger has decided to ignore hustle alarms and closing doors and try and force their way through , by the time you realise return to the door control panel and release them again it is too late they are either stuck in or through the doors .

Given that 89-year-old women are not known for their fast turn of speed, I think the question is why the door closing procedure was started in the way that it was.

Whilst the average 89 year old is not known for their fast turn of speed we dont know about the 89 year old in this case .

Plus it could be possible that she was stood on the platform with a number of other people waiting for another train then realised that the train in the platform was her train and tried to jump on after the guard had already began closing the doors

 

[AlterEgo]

Is the allegation that he shut the doors in her face, which is perfectly permitted but may have led to her stumbling and falling under the train due to her condition?

If that's true, it's in some ways more of an indictment on society that she was evidently not receiving the care she needed.

I - and in fact nobody on here, knows exactly what the allegation is, so I'm afraid we are currently all in the dark.

All we know is she ended up under the train during the dispatch procedure, which doesn't in itself signify any negligence on the guard's part.

 

[AntoniC]

Two scenarios spring to mind:

1) The procedures were obviously and fatally flawed and this should have been obvious to any professional who ought to have refused to carry them out (that would in my view lead also to a corporate prosecution). This scenario is possible but extremely unlikely.

2) The procedures rely on staff judgement and discretion: for example, if an old lady is seen running for the train, the staff member may be entitled to use their judgement to continue or halt dispatch. These may not be written procedures but may be "custom and practice" procedures. Thus, the TOC may say "staff member did not contravene procedure", but the employee may still be criminally negligent. This scenario is in my view much more likely than the above suggestion.

As nobody has any information on the Zee case we are going to be left hanging for quite a while I fear.

I was talking to a Merseyrail Guard on Monday night about this case, and he told Mr Zee is in court next month (March) about this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Whilst the average 89 year old is not known for their fast turn of speed we dont know about the 89 year old in this case .

I don't know whether a mistake was made. I only say what was in the papers to try and give context as to why I think the CPS chose to prosecute. As I said, I think the age of the passenger has influenced their decision. Why? We'll find out in a couple of weeks, when the trial is due to start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I dont know how 507/8s work in this regards

If you press Open during closure the doors all immediately reopen. While it's less common than it used to be pre-hustle alarm due to wasted time, it is not at all uncommon for closure to be interrupted in this way for a last-minute runner.

 

[Foxcote]

As I understand it, the 89 year old lady would have used one of nos 1 to 4 lifts to the lower hall. It is most likely that the lifts were on rear door opening, thus pax would use the rear passageway steps to gain access onto the platform, which exits a little over a coach length along the Up platform. (This is quicker and more convenient than walking round the lifts into the lower hall, then using the wide staircase to the Liverpool end of the platform)

Those who remember the working of both Hamilton Square and James Street in the direction of the respective peaks prior to the Loop/Link scheme, will know that this exit onto the platform at Hamilton Square, and the two exits onto James St down platform, had pantograph gates which were manned by staff. These staff were instructed to close the pantograph gates as the train was running into the platform and not to open the gate until the train was part way out of the platform. The supervisors closely watched this.

Thus most pax joined quickly and safely and were not presented with doors closing in their face, unless they were very slow and did not join at the nearest door, or began to walk further down the platform, or used the wider staircase at the front of the platform. The underground station dwell time was 30 seconds, which was necessary to maintain 26 trains per hour in each direction. Off peak, no staff were rostered on the gates.

Perhaps a reccommendation may be made that Merseyrail devise a similar system to prevent access to the platform for a small amount of time? This would of course delay pax alighting, and leave the narrow platforms grossly overcrowded and dangerous, also where multiple entry/exits exist it could prove most difficult to enforce fully. So it would seem that the problem will continue until a solution is found.

 

[theironroad]

The delays in the Martin Zee case are a disgrace.

I can't for a moment wonder what stress this guy has been under for almost 2 years.

While the case should probably never have ended up at a trial, it has, and the judicial process is supposed to give a fair trial to both sides, including the defendant. The constant delays are prejudicial to good justice and the stress to both Martin Zee and the lady who fell could have been avoided.

 

[PauloDavesi]

It is, of course, quite possible that some of the delays are due to the defence side wanting more time to prepare their case, and the availability of the defence legal team for what may be a long trial.

We should not forget that an innocent person was seriously injured as a direct result of the defendants actions, so my sympathy is totally with the innocent victim, her family and carers.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is, of course, quite possible that some of the delays are due to the defence side wanting more time to prepare their case, and the availability of the defence legal team for what may be a long trial.

We should not forget that an innocent person was seriously injured as a direct result of the defendants actions, so my sympathy is totally with the innocent victim, her family and carers.

I think it's more likely that the CPS are causing the delay.

I think you're very premature by saying the injured person was "innocent", that they were "injured by the defendant". We actually haven't heard any evidence or proper facts around the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We should not forget that an innocent person was seriously injured as a direct result of the defendants actions

That is not proven, it is merely alleged by the CPS. Only after the court case can such a thing be stated conclusively, if he is prosecuted. Until then that is arguably libellous.

 

[yorkie]

We should not forget that an innocent person was seriously injured as a direct result of the defendants actions, so my sympathy is totally with the innocent victim, her family and carers.

:roll:

We should not forget that an innocent person was wrongly accused; Martin Zee was cleared of wrongdoing by Merseyrail and the CPS are behaving in a disgraceful manner. The innocent Guard has had to suffer two years of stress as a direct result of the lady's actions in choosing to attempt to board after the door closing alarm had started sounding, so my sympathy is totally with Martin Zee, his family, friends and colleagues

Sadly some people appear to support a ludicrous blame culture, where people who act in a wholly wrong manner are considered 'victims'. Shame on those people.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-train-guard-stand-trial-10481568

....Merseyrail train guard Martin Zee, 32, has been ordered to appear before a court after the pensioner was left with four broken ribs.

John Tilley, North West organiser for the RMT rail workers’ union, slammed the decision which leaves Mr Zee facing up to two years in jail if found guilty at crown court.

The train guard was interviewed under caution by British Transport Police after the accident.

Mr Tilley said: “It’s unprecedented for this kind of action to be taken against somebody who has been cleared completely by a safety inquiry.”

He added: “Martin and his family are devastated. However, they have been heartened by the messages of support they have received from all over the UK.

“He didn’t see the woman because he was shutting the doors. She went to the doors as they were closing and tried to jump through, got knocked off balance and fell.

“The safety inquiry was clear – he didn’t and couldn’t have seen the woman. This has knocked him for six and he will deny the charge.”

Mr Zee, who was not disciplined after the incident, is on gardening leave pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Merseyrail said: “The action by the CPS appears to represent a significant departure from the way safety incidents have been dealt with over the last few years.....