Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[bahnause]

Pretty sure the Merseyrail ones have specced edge detection. Indeed, they have specced a number of things that appear to be based on this incident.

Edge detection as it is implemented in our FLIRTs wouldn't recognise a small/thin object like a trapped hand. However the soft edges should make it possible to pull your hand out of a closed door.

 

[theironroad]

Let's just remember that none of us were there. It's the prosecutions job to make it sound as bad as they possibly can to try and secure a conviction.

Let's leave this well alone until the verdict in a few weeks, all the speculating in the world does no one any good.

Good luck with that.....!

 

[4069]

RAIB haven’t investigated because it is such a cut and dry case but despite not investigated they are appearing for the defence and have created a report which has apparently cleared the guard, despite nobody on here having seen its contents.

Just to make it crystal clear, RAIB have no involvement in this case.

 

[AlterEgo]

The link for today's updates appears to be here: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...er-89-12714986

Doesn't seem to have started yet. I wonder if Zee will be giving evidence in his own defence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Case has resumed: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-court-after-89-12714986

Yesterday, we heard evidence from Mr Dodd, part of the Merseyrail team who train and assess guards.

The majority of the evidence centred on whether or not Zee would have been able to see Edna Atherton on the platform when he took to the decision to close the doors.

The court was shown CCTV footage of Mrs Atherton’s fall, as well as a series of photographs demonstrating the guard’s line-of-vision along the platform.

We also heard statements read out by Mrs Atherton and her friend, Mrs Cotgrove, who she was boarding the train with.

Today, we’re expecting to hear more evidence from Mr Dodd, as well as details of the internal Merseyrail investigation into the incident.

(my bold)

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting evidence so far from the defence about visibility at Hamilton Square. The defence witness, MR's head of Customer Service [trains] (basically the overall manager of all MR's guards), states Dodd did exactly what was expected, accepts that the injured passenger would not have been visible, accepts that the front carriage doors would not have been visible, and highlights how a guard would need to turn their back on the monitors to operate the door controls.

Zee's defence team so far appears to be competent and well-resourced, even using a 3D-imaging system to illustrate lines of sight.

 

[talltim]

So, on a train where the doors close after a period of time, if a passenger re-opens them and causes someone to fall on the track, it will be their fault?

 

[infobleep]

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

Perhaps TOCs need to start prosecuting more people for this offence. I wonder how many people reading this forum would be arrested?

 

[infobleep]

You sound as though you've made your mind up in your decision of what has been done wrong in this case! You clearly have no clue as moonshot has quite rightly pointed out, all processes required to close doors and procedures to follow before re opening doors and then closing them the second time were followed and cleared by the TOC in question along with RAIB and ORR bodies.

This is what makes the prosecutions defence case totally weak.

A question that should be asked is what if any, actions were being taken by the passenger to safeguard their own safety when they heard the hassle alarm going off. Judging by this case- nothing!

I'll give you heads up now, verdict will the ACCIDENT!

WatcherZero talks about it being an accident so perhaps they are not saying they are guilty but explaining what they think happened to cause the accident.

 

[185]

Now this is a bit interesting, and I had not realised this. What is that particular local rule trying to mitigate?

Re-despatch at the rear in tunnels-
(from what I recall) Must ordinarily remain at the rear in the event of an emergency within the tunnels.

 

[infobleep]

Is it against the law to comment on, on going cases via social media? Obviously I'm assuming it's not against the law down the pub to discuss but who knows.

 

[me123]

^I don't think so, provided you are not in contempt of court. Indeed, in England and Wales you are allowed to use social media to report directly from the court room (The Echo is doing this live every day). Care needs to be taken so as not to prejudice the trial, but the jurors are also duty bound to take into account only what they hear in the courtroom when they come to their deliberations so our discussions on here should not have an effect.

 

[furlong]

opinions expressed on social media isnt exactly going to influence the case is it...

"conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so" (Contempt of Court Act 1981)

 

[Merseysider]

Is it against the law to comment on, on going cases via social media? Obviously I'm assuming it's not against the law down the pub to discuss but who knows.

If prejudicial to the integrity of the court case, then yes, that would be contempt of court. Otherwise no AFAIK.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

I have used Hamilton Sq station on many ocassions and appreciate just how wide the gap between the carriage and platform can be. Taking this into account plus the age and mobilty problems of the injured elderly lady would it not be reasonable to expect station staff to offer assistance ? Countless times at busy Merseyrail stations there seems to be many staff with apparently, little to do, or is it just my imagination ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's reasonable that if you want "formal" assistance you should ask for it. Many disabilities are not obvious, and many people prefer *not* being assisted.

 

[WatcherZero]

Day three, CPS introducing an engineer from Glasgow who mapped the platform with lasers to produce a 3d model as witness. They are also bringing up that the internal Merseyrail investigation that cleared him later became internally questioned when on second look there were discrepancies in testimony. Pressing the person who led the investigation team they've got them to admit that they knew mistakes were made and steps in the POD process omitted yet they cleared him and didnt do any discipline actions.

They seem to be alleging that with all the discrepancies in evidence the merseyrail investigation team swept the accident under the carpet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They seem to be alleging that with all the discrepancies in evidence the merseyrail investigation team swept the accident under the carpet.

That seems the wrong argument for a prosecution of an individual. Is there not a corporate or managerial offence that should perhaps have been used?

 

[HH]

That seems the wrong argument for a prosecution of an individual. Is there not a corporate or managerial offence that should perhaps have been used?

Who's to say that if they succeed in this they they won't go for Merseyrail?

I really cannot understand it if MR really did take this action; it's really, really stupid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who's to say that if they succeed in this they they won't go for Merseyrail?

But why scapegoat an individual if the real argument is an alleged rotten corporation?

 

[Pyreneenguy]

I think it's reasonable that if you want "formal" assistance you should ask for it. Many disabilities are not obvious, and many people prefer *not* being assisted.

Well, you have to be "capable" of asking for assistance. The old lady concerned is 89 and perhaps doesn't have the mental faculties that should forewarn her of the dangers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, you have to be "capable" of asking for assistance. The old lady concerned is 89 and perhaps doesn't have the mental faculties that should forewarn her of the dangers.

If you are not capable of asking for assistance, you really need to be escorted when out in the real world for your own safety; crossing the road would have been more of a risk than boarding a train to such a person. And indeed she was, wasn't she? Or was that a different incident.

 

[Clip]

But why scapegoat an individual if the real argument is an alleged rotten corporation?

Because it is alleged that the individual was the one who committed the act - not the corporation which leads me too

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.

Why it has taken so long for this to actually come to court.


And any evidence against the individual, including brushing it under the capret by the company needs to be heard.

 

[HH]

But why scapegoat an individual if the real argument is an alleged rotten corporation?

Firstly, the individual isn't, according to them, innocent.

Secondly, if they establish his guilt, then they have a prima facie case against MR, a case which is likely to be a lot more expensive and politically charged.

In other words, tactics.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

If you are not capable of asking for assistance, you really need to be escorted when out in the real world for your own safety; crossing the road would have been more of a risk than boarding a train to such a person. And indeed she was, wasn't she? Or was that a different incident.

I think you should substitute "ideal" for "real". I'm sure most people have no idea that their mental state has deteriorated and before they'd admit it !

 

[Bertie the bus]

But why scapegoat an individual if the real argument is an alleged rotten corporation?

Have you made any attempt whatsoever to follow what is going on before commenting? They are not suggesting Merseyrail are implicated in the incident itself and that is what he is being tried for.

 

[lejog]

why? some of us are following this as we want to know whats going on. Potentially as our jobs are on the line.

Thanks!


of course people are going to speculate. Thats why we have a healthy debate on here. opinions expressed on social media isnt exactly going to influence the case is it...

Any "opinion-forming" speculation published on the web may result in a contempt of court. Accurate fact-based, speculation-free live blogging can't,

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/04/tweeters-warned-about-contempt-of-court

The attorney general is to begin issuing legal warnings to steer Twitter users away from prejudicial comments that might force trials to be abandoned.

Advisory notices – already issued confidentially to print and broadcast media about controversial or emotive trials – will now be flagged up via the attorney general's website and Twitter feed (@AGO_UK).

Attorney general Dominic Grieve's decision to share warnings is recognition that social media conversations are increasingly opinion-forming. He hopes to prevent people without legal training inadvertently publishing remarks that could technically be contempt of court, requiring a judge to discharge a jury in order to ensure adverse publicity did not undermine a fair trial.

"Blogs and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook mean individuals can now reach thousands of people with a single tweet or post," he said.

This is "exciting" but can pose certain challenges to the criminal justice system. He added: "In days gone by, it was only the mainstream media that had the opportunity to bring information relating to a court case to such a large group of people that it could put a court case at risk.

"That is no longer the case and is why I have decided to publish the advisories that I have previously only issued to the media.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you should substitute "ideal" for "real". I'm sure most people have no idea that their mental state has deteriorated and before they'd admit it !

Quite possibly, but that's society's problem and any family's problem, not Merseyrail's. Merseyrail, after all, is rather more heavily staffed than most other systems, and certainly so compared with crossing the road!

 

[AlterEgo]

Quite possibly, but that's society's problem and any family's problem, not Merseyrail's.

It is Merseyrail's problem, because they have a duty of care to anyone who enters their property or uses their services.

This is exactly the same principle that was discussed when the McGee case was concluded - that though the victim was under the heavy influence of alcohol (and possibly a banned substance), McGee and Merseyrail had a basic duty of care to that person. McGee failed in that duty of care by dispatching the train while the victim was leaning against it.

Just because someone is drunk, has dementia, a mobility issue, a learning difficulty, etc etc etc, doesn't mean an employee can't be guilty of wilful neglect or omission of their duties when it comes to their safety.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is Merseyrail's problem, because they have a duty of care to anyone who enters their property or uses their services.

Yes, but that doesn't extend to providing personal assistance services where these are not requested, does it?

If it did, that would be one massive can of worms.