Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[Matt Taylor]

The prosecution of Martin Zee has returned to court with the prosecution's case largely being that by keeping the doors open a few seconds later he encouraged Edna Cotsgrove to board as the doors were closing.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-court-after-89-12708719

I’m at Liverpool Crown Court this morning of the second day of the trial of Martin Zee - a Merseyrail worker accused of endangering passenger safety after an elderly passenger fell between a platform and a train.The 33-year-old has pleaded not guilty to a charge of endangering railway passengers by wilful omission or neglect.
At the opening of the trial yesterday the jury were shown CCTV of the incident - which showed Edna Atherton falling from the platform at Wirral’s Hamilton Square station.

 

[HLE]

Proceedings which no doubt the whole of the industry will be watching with a close eye.

 

[Monty]

The prosecution of Martin Zee has returned to court with the prosecution's case largely being that by keeping the doors open a few seconds later he encouraged Edna Cotsgrove to board as the doors were closing.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-court-after-89-12708719

If that is indeed the case it's a very weak argument, I can't believe it's taken the CPS nearly two years to use that as the basis of their prosecution.

 

[Moonshot]

If that is indeed the case it's a very weak argument, I can't believe it's taken the CPS nearly two years to use that as the basis of their prosecution.

Indeed it is......and when I do that, its down to my discretion.....on the basis that I can actually see someone who does need to board the train but may not be in the immediate position to do so. If they are out of sight , then I really cannot make that call.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that is indeed the case it's a very weak argument, I can't believe it's taken the CPS nearly two years to use that as the basis of their prosecution.

It is very weak, isn't it? At least it doesn't have far reaching implications - but what it would do, if guilty, is prevent any reopening. Closed means closed. Not very passenger friendly and in nobody's interest.

Indeed, as a taxpayer I resent the CPS spending my money on this.

 

[Moonshot]

It is very weak, isn't it? At least it doesn't have far reaching implications - but what it would do, if guilty, is prevent any reopening. Closed means closed. Not very passenger friendly.

indeed......and would it mean the discretion being taken away from me IF I realised that after closing doors, I then realised that someone was trying to get off and had failed to do so for a genuine reason??

 

[AlterEgo]

Two years for this, and that's all the CPS can come up with?

This really is tenuous - that reopening the doors, in good faith, was in itself a negligent act.

There is more on the case tomorrow but so far I'm very disappointed to read that the CPS have proceeded this far and that's their core argument.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The case was mentioned on the 1830 edition of the BBC TV North West News this evening.

 

[WatcherZero]

He performed inspection and saw a passenger hurrying towards the train so decided to hold off closing them. However he didnt repeat the check and take another look before operating them, if he had he would have seen a second elderly woman holding on to the door handles to board. When the doors that she was holding on to moved she fell under the train.

His defense is arguing that he was being thoughtful in keeping the doors open longer, and could not see the second woman because of platform curve and having to be inside the train with his gaze averted to operate the doors. the prosecution is alleging he was negligent leading to serious injury in operating them after an arbitrary delay without taking a second look.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does anyone know for a fact, was she boarding at the point he pressed close?

 

[WatcherZero]

Awkward one for the union is if his defence is sucessful, that he could not safely operate the doors then it destroys the argument against DOO.

 

[WatcherZero]

Reading court monitor his defence is now arguing he didnt and couldn't see the second woman because of platform curve however in his initial written statement after the accident he said he saw both women.

He says he did press door close before checking to see if the first woman had safely boarded and that was the first time he saw the second woman. He then returned to the controls to reopen the doors in case she got her arms trapped.

The recorded CCTV did show the second womans zimmerframe however he chose to use his eyes rather than the CCTV, an option at the guards discretion.

 

[WatcherZero]

Does anyone know for a fact, was she boarding at the point he pressed close?

From court:

Did check, saw first woman approaching, held off closing doors for a few seconds.
Pressed door close then went to see if first woman had sucessfully boarded.
Saw second woman and pressed door open again, but she was holding on to the doors and so was thrown.

 

[AlterEgo]

From court:

Did check, saw first woman approaching, held off closing doors for a few seconds.
Pressed door close then went to see if first woman had sucessfully boarded.
Saw second woman and pressed door open again, but she was holding on to the doors and so was thrown.

This is also how I read the events. I just don't think you can nail him for neglect when his action was to open the door to allow the woman to enter the train (and by extension leave the PTI).

I would not foresee the risk of someone falling as a result of the door opening (which does not make contact with the passenger).

There has been much conjecture about this case since the incident happened and I'm not aware that anyone hypothesised that this could have been the sequence of events. I'm not sure any of us would have foreseen that risk.

 

[ComUtoR]

This really is tenuous - that reopening the doors, in good faith, was in itself a negligent act.

Reopening of doors has come up on this forum before. If Martin gets found guilty of negligence then I expect TOC policy to change and that reopening of the doors will be banned and then considered a breach of safety and a safety of the line incident.

It would however, resolve any argument that opening doors is good customer service. It will also become very black and white that re-opening doors will be considered unsafe.

 

[Moonshot]

Reopening of doors has come up on this forum before. If Martin gets found guilty of negligence then I expect TOC policy to change and that reopening of the doors will be banned and then considered a breach of safety and a safety of the line incident.

It would however, resolve any argument that opening doors is good customer service. It will also become very black and white that re-opening doors will be considered unsafe.

What if I was trying to clear a hazard light that had remained lit after closing doors? Its part of the process when that happens to re open and close in order to try and clear the light....

 

[WatcherZero]

Technically he shouldnt have been guessing the time that the first woman would require before blindly closing them though, it was the first mistake which led in a series of events to the accident.

 

[Moonshot]

Technically he shouldnt have been guessing the time that the first woman would require before blindly closing them though, it was the first mistake which led in a series of events to the accident.

This guy has been cleared internally of any wrong doing both by Merseyrail and the RMT

 

[dmncf]

Reading court monitor...

May I ask, is this a particular website or something? Thanks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if I was trying to clear a hazard light that had remained lit after closing doors? Its part of the process when that happens to re open and close in order to try and clear the light....

Presumably it would be necessary to do a full reopen and redispatch from the start. That'll cause some delay!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The recorded CCTV did show the second womans zimmerframe however he chose to use his eyes rather than the CCTV, an option at the guards discretion.

To clarify, is there CCTV provided at that station for the guard to use in the manner that there is at Berkhamsted, i.e. what is effectively a DOO monitor but positioned for guard use?

 

[Moonshot]

Presumably it would be necessary to do a full reopen and redispatch from the start. That'll cause some delay!

Thats what we do now as it happens.....but the point I was trying to make that sometimes once doors are closed, it does not necessarily mean they stay closed if the hazard light situation occurs. Of course late running passengers would actually benefit from that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There has been much conjecture about this case since the incident happened and I'm not aware that anyone hypothesised that this could have been the sequence of events. I'm not sure any of us would have foreseen that risk.

I certainly wouldn't have foreseen someone holding onto the door to board instead of the handle provided for that purpose. That's an incredibly unusual case where the actual reopening would have sent her flying.

Indeed, on the new FLIRTs doing so would have caused an automatic reopen.

This is getting incredibly tenuous...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thats what we do now as it happens.....

Ah, I'm getting confused with the Tube where a partial "bounce" of the doors is often carried out in the event of failing to get interlock.

 

[ComUtoR]

What if I was trying to clear a hazard light that had remained lit after closing doors? Its part of the process when that happens to re open and close in order to try and clear the light....

Yep, one problem just leads to another. I still foresee the second a Driver or Guard reopens the doors will have to justify it. If you allow sufficient dwell time, check the doors are clear, press the button, then carry out the train safety check then there should be no question of there being a need to reopen the doors. After all you checked it was safe to do so before closing them.............

We have a very vague clause about not closing them until your sure everyone has boarded or alighted and you have allowed for vulnerable passenger etc. I expect a new line about reopening will be added if this case goes sour.

 

[razor89]

To clarify, is there CCTV provided at that station for the guard to use in the manner that there is at Berkhamsted, i.e. what is effectively a DOO monitor but positioned for guard use?

It's Hamilton Square P1, there are monitors for both 3 and 6 car trains as the stopping point is pretty much the same.The incident occurred on a 3 car- the single monitor shows the front of the train facing towards the guard. The problem is that the monitor screen faces the cab door but there is no off indicator, so to observe the signal as part of dispatch procedure the guard must walk away from the train to the platform wall. This makes the monitor rather redundant as from that position the guard can see the full length of the train, however to then close the doors they must walk back to the cab to press the close button, leaving a few seconds where the guard cannot see the full length of the train and also has their back to the monitor.

It also means that, for the guard to observe all doors closed and check the signal before starting the train, they must again walk back to the platform wall, which means they are unable to react quickly to reopen or stop doors closing if someone attempts to board whilst the hustle alarm sounds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks.

So is the suggestion in the case that the procedure should be:-

1. Walk away from train and check signal
2. Return to train and press close, turning around to watch the monitor until it appears the doors are closed
3. Walk away from the train and check for any obstructions and that the signal is still off
4. Return to train and "ding ding"?

Would that have prevented the incident?

 

[neilb62]

This guy has been cleared internally of any wrong doing both by Merseyrail and the RMT

And the case so clear cut the RAIB decided not to investigate and are I understand standing witness in his defence...?

 

[Chrisgr31]

The biggest surprise is that it is a criminal offence to join the train whilst the hustle alarm is sounding.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I didn't expect that to be the CPS case.

Let's wait and see what the jury decide...