RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[Tetchytyke]

I have sympathy with everyone involved. We simply don't know why the CPS have chosen to prosecute. We don't know why the trial, scheduled for July last year, was delayed at the last minute. The trial is in a couple of weeks, so we'll find out then.

 

[DarloRich]

: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.

None of us are in a position to make any such statements as to guilt or innocence. Only the court can decide that. Not you or I.

I make no comment on what may or may not have occurred or my view of those events other than to say following company protocols or procedures is not a defense if those protocols are illegal or expose you to culpability OR in following those protocols you behaved in a manner below the standard expected of the reasonable person undertaking that role.

 

[yorkie]

None of us are in a position to make any such statements as to guilt or innocence. Only the court can decide that. Not you or I.

I make no comment on what may or may not have occurred or my view of those events other than to say following company protocols or procedures is not a defense if those protocols are illegal or expose you to culpability OR in following those protocols you behaved in a manner below the standard expected of the reasonable person undertaking that role.

The fact that he was cleared of wrongdoing by Merseyrail and was found to be following procedures, should be the end of the matter in a civilised society.

Our legal system has its priorities wrong, and is stacked very much against people like us and Martin Zee.

The CPS are acting disgracefully; any reasonable minded person with access to the known facts can see that.

 

[DarloRich]

The fact that he was cleared of wrongdoing by Merseyrail and was found to be following procedures, should be the end of the matter in a civilised society.

Our legal system has its priorities wrong, and is stacked very much against people like us and Martin Zee.

The CPS are acting disgracefully; any reasonable minded person with access to the known facts can see that.

Yorkie - with respect.

if you were a gas fitter and followed a company policy to fit a boiler which then blew up because you acted in some way negligently or it was reasonable for you to know the policy was faulty your defence that you followed the company installation procedure would fail.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie - with respect.

if you were a gas fitter and followed a company policy to fit a boiler which then blew up because you acted in some way negligently or it was reasonable for you to know the policy was faulty your defence that you followed the company installation procedure would fail.

That's the most bizarre analogy I've ever read on this forum (and I've seen quite a few), so you're really scraping the barrel.

If you are going to use an analogy, at least make it slightly right. The analogy would be that you fitted the boiler entirely correctly, someone else acted incorrectly and ignored warnings and interfered with it resulting in them getting injured, you were found to have acted correctly, and the CPS persecutes you.

 

[theironroad]

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.

Lucky for him you're not the judge and jury as you've found him guilty before any trial or evidence has been heard.

 

[Camden]

other than to say following company protocols or procedures is not a defense if those protocols are illegal or expose you to culpability OR in following those protocols you behaved in a manner below the standard expected of the reasonable person undertaking that role.

Which if you think that through, given that the edicts followed are approved by the highest echelons of safety, at government level, and were arrived at specifically in the aftermath of another accident, if what you have said should prove to be the case, that would place a guard in an impossible position because if they then didn't follow the company procedures and something bad happened they could be on equally shaky ground.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The fact that he was cleared of wrongdoing by Merseyrail and was found to be following procedures, should be the end of the matter in a civilised society.

I don't think it is wise to comment too much on what happened with Martin Zee, because he gets tried in a couple of weeks. Let's leave the speculation until we know why the CPS have chosen to prosecute him.

All we know is that the passenger who was injured was 89 years old and not in good health.

Just to point out, though, that Christopher McGee was also cleared by an internal investigation...because he told them something that simply wasn't true.

 

[Moonshot]

Yorkie - with respect.

if you were a gas fitter and followed a company policy to fit a boiler which then blew up because you acted in some way negligently or it was reasonable for you to know the policy was faulty your defence that you followed the company installation procedure would fail.

If i was a gas fitter and I knew the policy was faulty, I simply wouldnt fit the boiler. H and S policies have to be signed of by a very senior competent person, who no doubt would also take due diligence with the companies own legal team to ensure it was robust and watertight.

 

[DarloRich]

That's the most bizarre analogy I've ever read on this forum (and I've seen quite a few), so you're really scraping the barrel.

If you are going to use an analogy, at least make it slightly right. The analogy would be that you fitted the boiler entirely correctly, someone else acted incorrectly and ignored warnings and interfered with it resulting in them getting injured, you were found to have acted correctly, and the CPS persecutes you.

In your addition to my analogy the householder would have demonstrated contributory negligence and any damages awarded would be reduced accordingly. However, if you fitted the boiler negligently in the first place ( and that negligence was of an order to override any contribution from the home owner) you are still liable for your actions notwithstanding any contributory negligence. The reserve is, obviously, true.

Also you must see that the result of an internal enquiry at a different burden of proof and evidential standard is of no real standing compared to that of the courts.

If i was a gas fitter and I knew the policy was faulty, I simply wouldnt fit the boiler. H and S policies have to be signed of by a very senior competent person, who no doubt would also take due diligence with the companies own legal team to ensure it was robust and watertight.

Which if you think that through, given that the edicts followed are approved by the highest echelons of safety, at government level, and were arrived at specifically in the aftermath of another accident, if what you have said should prove to be the case, that would place a guard in an impossible position because if they then didn't follow the company procedures and something bad happened they could be on equally shaky ground.

That is a very important point. Corporate responsibility is harder to achieve than individual responsibility.

 

[northwichcat]

: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.

A problem we have in this country is you are supposed to be treated as being innocent unless you've been found guilty. Yet the media are allowed to name people who have not been found guilty, as well as sometimes putting their photos on the front page. I think one of the worst examples is where newspapers printed the name and pictures of a hospital nurse who was accused of poisoning patients, yet it was found she was wrongly accused and another nurse was later found guilty of the offence.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A problem we have in this country is you are supposed to be treated as being innocent unless you've been found guilty. Yet the media are allowed to name people who have not been found guilty

Criminal trials are a matter of public record- as well they should be- and so any defendant is going to be named.

I have big problems with the police leaking names when they've simply arrested someone, but if they've been charged then it becomes a matter of public record. I don't think the alternative- secret trials- is really something that I'd be in favour of.

In this case, though, the real worry for the defendant is about being convicted, and he's had that hanging over him for almost two years. Let's face it, everyone he works with will know his identity even if he isn't named in the Liverpool Echo. And it works both ways: the RMT have repeatedly named him in their criticism of the CPS.

 

[lejog]

The fact that he was cleared of wrongdoing by Merseyrail and was found to be following procedures, should be the end of the matter in a civilised society.

So companies like Serco-Abellio should be the arbiters of the law? This fortunately does not feature in any civilized society I know of.

The very thought fills me with horror.

 

[yorkie]

What I am saying is that where someone does nothing wrong and follows the correct procedures, and someone else ignores warnings and - predictably - through their own actions comes to harm, then the innocent party should not be persecuted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So companies like Serco-Abellio should be the arbiters of the law? This fortunately does not feature in any civilized society I know of.

The very thought fills me with horror.

No, but if a member of staff follows company procedure in good faith, the company (or those responsible for defining the procedures), not the member of staff, should be prosecuted if those procedures are found to be deficient.

For example, if Merseyrail's policy is that once the doors are closing they are not reopened unless obstructed, and it is found that this is what happened and she walked into the closing doors and was knocked off balance by them, then there is an argument that that procedure may be deficient. But the guard is doing as he was told, and may have been under threat of disciplinary proceedings if he ignored the policy, and caused delay by reopening, for example.

FWIW, this is potentially an odd edge case where the hustle alarms (which are a retrofit job on 50x) make things less safe, as you now push close to start something happening in about 10 seconds (by which time you may well be standing too far away from the train on a curved platform to stop it in time), not to start it now. It's also a case where on a curved platform (don't know if this was or not) DOO might have been safer, as a DOO driver wouldn't have to stand away from the train on a curved platform to see all doors closing safely, but could instead have his finger resting on "open" while watching the doors close on the monitors (or, as an alternative and as happens on passenger controls for doors on some UIC stock, you have to keep your finger on close until the doors are fully closed and interlock gained, otherwise they reopen automatically as soon as it is removed). It might be that guard-operated trains are seen to need a door remote control to allow that to be afforded to a guard.

(I don't know if this is what happened, it is hypothetical)

 

[Moonshot]

No, but if a member of staff follows company procedure in good faith, the company (or those responsible for defining the procedures), not the member of staff, should be prosecuted if those procedures are found to be deficient.

Which in this case would have a huge impact on the rail industry, as door procedures are consistent nationwide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which in this case would have a huge impact on the rail industry, as door procedures are consistent nationwide.

They aren't necessarily, there is some variance. Most notable is (sorry, I edited my post to add an example) the difference between Voyagers (no easy way to stop door closure at all as it's done with the ten-bell procedure), most other stock (done by the guard, but he may be standing too far from the train to reopen, and on some stock reopen doesn't actually reopen anyway, just unlock) and DOO (done by the driver who has his finger on the button to reopen until the doors are closed fully, if the stock allows).

There are also variations in the time the hustle alarm sounds for - on Merseyrail it is if I recall rightly quite a long time, and that's time in which someone could come running. There's also that PEDs would near certainly have prevented this (she'd have been knocked over, but not onto the track), and the deflecting side skirts that the new Merseyrail stock appears to have may have done too, as might extending steps (though Merseyrail unit steps are very wide and stick out over the platform edge unlike most other UK stock).

However, I think it is felt that dispatch procedures will have to change massively - to the extent of fully clearing platforms, possibly - in the event of him being found guilty. Or that all doors would need to be retrofitted with sensitive edges at huge cost both to do it and in delay terms when people realise and start holding them open.

 

[Moonshot]

They aren't necessarily, there is some variance. Most notable is (sorry, I edited my post to add an example) the difference between Voyagers (no easy way to stop door closure at all as it's done with the ten-bell procedure), most other stock (done by the guard, but he may be standing too far from the train to reopen, and on some stock reopen doesn't actually reopen anyway, just unlock) and DOO (done by the driver who has his finger on the button to reopen until the doors are closed fully, if the stock allows).

There are also variations in the time the hustle alarm sounds for - on Merseyrail it is if I recall rightly quite a long time, and that's time in which someone could come running. There's also that PEDs would near certainly have prevented this (she'd have been knocked over, but not onto the track), and the deflecting side skirts that the new Merseyrail stock appears to have may have done too, as might extending steps (though Merseyrail unit steps are very wide and stick out over the platform edge unlike most other UK stock).

However, I think it is felt that dispatch procedures will have to change massively - to the extent of fully clearing platforms, possibly - in the event of him being found guilty. Or that all doors would need to be retrofitted with sensitive edges at huge cost both to do it and in delay terms when people realise and start holding them open.

that would certainly be difficult when passengers are waiting for following trains at that platform

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are any number of hypothetical situations, ranging from the passenger making a headlong mad dash for the train to the guard beginning the door closure procedure despite a slow-moving passenger still moving towards the train. I've had it on DOO trains where I'm stuck behind a slow moving passenger boarding in front of me and the hustle alarm sounds despite the fact I'm still clearly boarding the train. I'm sure it is correct procedurally, but that doesn't mean it is safe. We see similar cases where parents and young children get separated because the doors are closed on them.

But all this is just hypothesis, and it's best to avoid it until after the trial. We'll see soon what evidence the CPS have and why they have chosen to prosecute. And we'll see whether a jury agree with them or Mr Zee.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are any number of hypothetical situations, ranging from the passenger making a headlong mad dash for the train to the guard beginning the door closure procedure despite a slow-moving passenger still moving towards the train. I've had it on DOO trains where I'm stuck behind a slow moving passenger boarding in front of me and the hustle alarm sounds despite the fact I'm still clearly boarding the train. I'm sure it is correct procedurally, but that doesn't mean it is safe. We see similar cases where parents and young children get separated because the doors are closed on them.

But all this is just hypothesis, and it's best to avoid it until after the trial. We'll see soon what evidence the CPS have and why they have chosen to prosecute. And we'll see whether a jury agree with them or Mr Zee.

Indeed, there is so much to speculate about in this case.

Part of me thinks the CPS will quietly drop this in the coming weeks before a trial is begun.

 

[Bletchleyite]

that would certainly be difficult when passengers are waiting for following trains at that platform

Indeed. It would probably require a big change to station construction, perhaps involving things like half-height platform-edge doors back away from the edge so they could be used in conjunction with varying door positions, which would require widening at many stations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Part of me thinks the CPS will quietly drop this in the coming weeks before a trial is begun.

I don't.

Truthfully, I think the CPS believe that he shut the door in her face and that he shouldn't have done that, because she was 89 years old. It would tie in with the RMT saying his defence was that he "didn't see her".

ETA: I can imagine it quite clearly. Guard looks down train, sees all doors are clear, starts closing the doors. Notices old lady shuffling towards train, thinks she's either a) waiting for next train or b) will accept she's missed the train and will stand clear. Old lady doesn't, gets wiped out by closing door, ends up in the four foot. Procedurally that's probably correct, but I can see why the CPS would question those sorts of decisions in a different way.

All that is just my hypothetical interpretation based on what I read in the Echo. Nothing more than that. We'll find out at trial what actually happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are any number of hypothetical situations, ranging from the passenger making a headlong mad dash for the train to the guard beginning the door closure procedure despite a slow-moving passenger still moving towards the train. I've had it on DOO trains where I'm stuck behind a slow moving passenger boarding in front of me and the hustle alarm sounds despite the fact I'm still clearly boarding the train. I'm sure it is correct procedurally, but that doesn't mean it is safe. We see similar cases where parents and young children get separated because the doors are closed on them.

And meanwhile closing doors on people at Bank in the rush hour is the only way to keep the service moving and prevent a dangerous situation occurring resulting in a platform evacuation, and occurs with just about every train in the evening peak. That would have to be revisited, and might necessitate the complete closure of Bank in the rush hour to spread the load out.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't.

Truthfully, I think the CPS believe that he shut the door in her face and that he shouldn't have done that, because she was 89 years old. It would tie in with the RMT saying his defence was that he "didn't see her".

Hmmmm.

The paradox is this:

1) If Zee is found innocent, and the RAIB find that Merseyrail procedures were not defective, then that is good news for Zee. But it is bad news for the union argument that a guard ensures the safety of (especially vulnerable) passengers at the PTI, because it can be shown that is not the case even where the TOC and guard acted properly.

2) If Zee is found guilty, then he likely bears all responsibility for the accident, if Merseyrail are not also prosecuted. This is bad news for Zee, but good news for the union argument in as much it can be easily shown this person was negligent and therefore what happened is not related to the actual safety of the guarded PTI.

3) If the case is dropped, not much happens, except the CPS get (rightfully) slated over the delay, and waste of time and resources.

Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1) If Zee is found innocent, and the RAIB find that Merseyrail procedures were not defective, then that is good news for Zee. But it is bad news for the union argument that a guard ensures the safety of (especially vulnerable) passengers at the PTI, because it can be shown that is not the case even where the TOC and guard acted properly.

Not only that, but as per my previous case, a DOO driver watching the PTI on a monitor can have his hand on "open" ready to avoid a case like this when someone comes running, but a guard standing out from the train to observe the PTI on a curved platform can almost certainly not react quickly enough to stop door closure.

It therefore might be an outcome that gives a boost to the view that DOO is not less safe than guarded operation - not an outcome that would be appreciated by staff nor unions, nor many passengers.

 

[lejog]

What I am saying is that where someone does nothing wrong and follows the correct procedures, and someone else ignores warnings and - predictably - through their own actions comes to harm, then the innocent party should not be persecuted.

That is complete nonsense, anyone who breaks the law can and should be prosecuted, not trying avoid responsibility for their actions by hiding behind following procedures.

Fortunately we do live in a civilized society where the due process of law decides wrongdoing, not an over-opinionated poster on an internet forum.

Talking of law breaking, some of the posts published here such by railforums may be viewed as prejudicial to a fair trial and in contempt of court. This is an open internet forum, not a discussion down a pub. I'd report them to the moderators, but some of them have been made by a moderator.

 

[Tetchytyke]

some of the posts published here such by railforums may be viewed as prejudicial to a fair trial and in contempt of court.

Not really, jurors shouldn't be reading anything to do with the case.

We're all just outsiders having a natter. It's all hypothetical.

And yorkie hasn't really said anything that the RMT haven't.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/about/health-...circulars/martin-zee--guard-merseyrail121115/

Martin was involved in an incident at Hamilton Square on 8th July 2015 in which a member of the public was injured when she tried to board the train after the door closure procedure had commenced when the door closing alarm was sounding. The individual concerned received a number of injuries after falling between the train and the platform. Our member, by following the training he has received from the company, was instrumental in assisting the train driver in isolating the electrical supply to the third rail by placing the short circuit bar on the running and conductor rail. Martin then lowered himself between the platform edge and the train and offered assistance and reassurance to the member of the public until the emergency services arrived.

Merseyrail’s investigation into the incident and the company’s response to the findings of that report is exemplary. The company have taken no action against our member and all of the recommendations in the report are addressed to system risk issues rather than individual failings. This is in line with RMT’s campaign of fair culture programme in the investigation of incidents.

What is beyond belief is that the Crown Prosecution Service has now commenced a prosecution of our member under Section 34 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. This statute allows for the prosecution of staff on the railway who endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway. The maximum penalty under the Act is two years imprisonment.

 

[Moonshot]

That is complete nonsense, anyone who breaks the law can and should be prosecuted, not trying avoid responsibility for their actions by hiding behind following procedures.

Fortunately we do live in a civilized society where the due process of law decides wrongdoing, not an over-opinionated poster on an internet forum.

Talking of law breaking, some of the posts published here such by railforums may be viewed as prejudicial to a fair trial and in contempt of court. This is an open internet forum, not a discussion down a pub. I'd report them to the moderators, but some of them have been made by a moderator.

Would any evidence presented only on Railforums be admissible in court ?

 

[daikilo]

Would any evidence presented only on Railforums be admissible in court ?

There is a specific legal definition of what can constitute evidence and writing in a blog is not included. However, a personal photo or words such as "I was there and I saw what happened" could lead to the poster being called as a witness after an appropriate interview.

What can happen is that a poster may provide details which are not in the public domain or give an opinion on what s/he believes is a correct way of working and who is responsible according to corporate rules. Worse, an argument that the rules are regularly not followed to the letter. Either of these could lead to a lawyer choosing to repeat them during a cross-examination where s/he does not actually need "proof" to be able to ask a question (although they generally do).

 

[Bellbell]

I don't.

Truthfully, I think the CPS believe that he shut the door in her face and that he shouldn't have done that, because she was 89 years old. It would tie in with the RMT saying his defence was that he "didn't see her".

ETA: I can imagine it quite clearly. Guard looks down train, sees all doors are clear, starts closing the doors. Notices old lady shuffling towards train, thinks she's either a) waiting for next train or b) will accept she's missed the train and will stand clear. Old lady doesn't, gets wiped out by closing door, ends up in the four foot. Procedurally that's probably correct, but I can see why the CPS would question those sorts of decisions in a different way.

All that is just my hypothetical interpretation based on what I read in the Echo. Nothing more than that. We'll find out at trial what actually happened.

We'll have to see what comes out in the trial but if Zee had pressed the door close button before the woman came into the scope of his sight (whether he saw her or not) then on many units nothing would have happened even if he rereleased the doors - the doors continue to close but pressing door release means they can be reopened. If he saw her and didn't shout a warning that might leave some room for doubt over negligence, if indeed he saw her, and if indeed it was reasonable for him to assume she was headed for the train, not waiting for another etc. Again, it will come out in the trial but if the hustle alarms were sounding should he have had to shout a warning? I would say not, technically, since them themselves are a warning, but I'm unfortunately only too familiar with people running for the doors as they're closing.

Hmmmm.

The paradox is this:

[snip]

2) If Zee is found guilty, then he likely bears all responsibility for the accident, if Merseyrail are not also prosecuted. This is bad news for Zee, but good news for the union argument in as much it can be easily shown this person was negligent and therefore what happened is not related to the actual safety of the guarded PTI.

I understand the logic but RMT have defended Zee so can they turn round and accuse him of being negligent later? Or do you mean the woman is negligent?