Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[Bertie the bus]

So now we wait....



If found guilty this could set a very dangerous presedent, and i think every single member of train crew who deal with despatch should all down tools until the position is made very clear on the safe despatching of a train

When in doubt inconvenience passengers. Your union will be proud of you.

 

[talltim]

When in doubt inconvenience passengers. Your union will be proud of you.

You don't have to be in a union to worry about going to prison for doing your job as you have been trained and following the procedures you have been given.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that it says above that the jury have been sent home. I thought traditionally the jury stayed in a hotel throughout and spent all day in the Court such that the chance of outside information becoming available to them would be minimised.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Interesting that it says above that the jury have been sent home. I thought traditionally the jury stayed in a hotel throughout

Nah, you stay in your own bed every night, it's not like in the films. Most Crown Court trials are quite breathtakingly mundane.

Only time it would change is where there is a significant threat that the jury might be got at.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

When in doubt inconvenience passengers. Your union will be proud of you.

Nothing to do with the union. This guy goes down the definition of safe despatch changes and becomes a very grey area. For the sake of clarifying the legal position as far as we stand.

As one TOCs safety messages state "if you cannot do it safely, dont do it" and "make sure you come to a clear understanding" as I made it clear in my post this could set a very dangerous prescedent. (And I probably didnt spell that right this time either!)

Remember she was holding the doors. As the doors reopened they retracted into the bodywork. She fell necause she was holding onto something she shoukdnt jave been holding which she found was no longer there. She was boarding a train when railway byelaw states :-

In the case of automatic closing doors no person shall enter or leave the train when the doors are closing

Yet he is the one up in court for it. If he goes down where does that put the rest of us?

 

[AlterEgo]

Josh Parry of the Echo reporting on Twitter that the jury are still out.

The jury were asked by the judge to deliver a unanimous verdict, but the judge indicated he might accept a majority.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly, as built Class 50x used to have full-height outside grab handles (similar to the ones still present on the staff doors) as well as the inside ones which are perhaps too far back from the door. These were removed due to people riding on the outside of trains. Had they not been removed, would this incident perhaps not have occurred, as she'd have grabbed that instead of the door?

Edit: or maybe I'm remembering wrong, as I can't find a photo showing them - was it perhaps 15x instead? (142s still do) But outside handles may have helped.

 

[Onedirection]

Yes!!!!! Found not guilty !!!!!!

 

[BHXDMT]

Not Guilty.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/jury-out-trial-merseyrail-guard-12749900

Martin Zee NOT GUILTY

Martin Zee has been found not guilty by a unanimous verdict.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thank the Lord for that.

May common sense resume, and now the verdict has been delivered (so me saying so is not contempt) can the CPS please not be so insanely stupid in future and waste my money pursuing nonsense like this.

(Meanwhile, can Merseyrail also please fit a monitor facing the right way round so a future incident of exactly this nature is prevented? It's hardly an expensive job even with "railway inflation").

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm very pleased that he's been found not guilty.

Now that the jury have made their unanimous decision, I will say for certain that I genuinely cannot believe that the CPS brought this case to trial, give the scarcity of evidence that they had. If he'd slammed the door in her face and she'd got trapped then I could understand, but for opening the door to let her get on? Absolute madness.

The fact that their star expert witness had no experience of railways, and was seemingly torn to shreds by the defence (and the defence expert!) just sums up what a silly decision this was. A spectacular waste of taxpayer's money. If the passenger had been 35 nobody would have given a toss, they'd have blamed her for being a moron.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Thank god for that!!!

 

[Zoidberg]

Yes!!!!! Found not guilty !!!!!!

Not Guilty.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/jury-out-trial-merseyrail-guard-12749900

Common sense has prevailed!

 

[AlterEgo]

There we go. Not guilty, as I expected.

The prosecution's case was woeful. Their expert witness was far less experienced, and far less authoritative than the defence's. Quite why they chose someone whose main specialism was in marine engineering was a head-scratcher.

Zee's defence was, on the other hand, well-resourced, sensible, and competent. I am not sure who paid for the defence but I understand the RMT may have done so. If this is true then, quite discrete from any criticism I have of their other actions, the RMT deserve great credit for defending their member so competently.

This case never had a hope in hell of returning a guilty verdict and I am both concerned and irritated that the CPS wasted so much time and effort on this.

 

[Marklund]

Now for the old lady to be charged with the bylaw offences...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am not sure who paid for the defence but I understand the RMT may have done so.

I think the RMT did too. And it is something that the RMT- no matter how bad their press is- do well. They look after their own.

I'm very annoyed that, after two years of this, the case that the CPS had was so pathetically weak. I expected there to be some big thing that everyone had missed before, as happened with Christopher McGee, but no. It was just an old lady being an idiot boarding a train with closing doors and the CPS being too scared to say this because she was an old lady. I don't think it would have got anywhere near court if they had been 29 instead of 89. I know we're supposed to look after vulnerable people, but still...

 

[bradders1983]

We await the "the family of Edna are horrified with the verdict" quotes....

 

[HH]

After the summing up by the judge, the jury would have had to have been made up of idiots to bring in a guilty verdict. It was a pathetic case by the CPS, which ought to worry us all; if they're that incompetent how many guilty people escape their proper punishment?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Now for the old lady to be charged with the bylaw offences...

Pffrt... thats not going to happen. Nor will the CPS/BTP answer to wasting the courts time/abuse of process

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the RMT did too. And it is something that the RMT- no matter how bad their press is- do well. They look after their own.

I'm very annoyed that, after two years of this, the case that the CPS had was so pathetically weak. I expected there to be some big thing that everyone had missed before, as happened with Christopher McGee, but no. It was just an old lady being an idiot boarding a train with closing doors and the CPS being too scared to say this because she was an old lady. I don't think it would have got anywhere near court if they had been 29 instead of 89. I know we're supposed to look after vulnerable people, but still...

That's about the sum of it. Weak as p*ss.

 

[100andthirty]

Probably as a result of reading far too many legal novels, I thought it was the prosecution who always hired the best expert witness and the defence had to grub around for someone. Seems to be the opposite in this case. I'm amazed the court accepted the prosecutions witness as an expert.

 

[daikilo]

According to the Echo,

"A spokesman for British Transport Police said: “Train guards have a duty of care to those who travel on their services.
“When it is suspected that this duty of care may not have been satisfactorily met, it is our duty as a police force to investigate and present the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.
“As in this case, it then makes a decision on whether to progress the matter to the courts.”

From this I could interpret that the CPS believed that the BTP investigation left open a possibility of guilt, hence the trial. That is why we have jurors who weigh up the evidence presented to them and form a "people's" opinion.

What now happens will be interesting, as the case has raised a number of issues which in my opinion cannot now be overlooked.

 

[Marklund]

Pffrt... thats not going to happen. Nor will the CPS/BTP answer to wasting the courts time/abuse of process

Yes, exactly.

 

[AlterEgo]

From this I could interpret that the CPS believed that the BTP investigation left open a possibility of guilt, hence the trial. That is why we have jurors who weigh up the evidence presented to them and form a "people's" opinion.

What now happens will be interesting, as the case has raised a number of issues which in my opinion cannot now be overlooked.

The CPS' job is to analyse the evidence that the police have collected and decide whether:

1) A prosecution is in the public interest
2) There is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

On the second count, I am astounded the CPS felt they had enough evidence. There was no reasonable prospect of conviction based on the evidence. Merseyrail and the RAIB/ORR both took no action against Zee. The RAIB gave an advisory to Merseyrail over their "advice" to use monitors.

Given all the evidence I read over the live reporting, I am honestly dumbfounded that this ever got to court.

 

[yorkie]

I am very pleased at the outcome, and find it disgraceful that the case went to court.

I'm very pleased that he's been found not guilty.

Now that the jury have made their unanimous decision, I will say for certain that I genuinely cannot believe that the CPS brought this case to trial, give the scarcity of evidence that they had. If he'd slammed the door in her face and she'd got trapped then I could understand, but for opening the door to let her get on? Absolute madness.

The fact that their star expert witness had no experience of railways, and was seemingly torn to shreds by the defence (and the defence expert!) just sums up what a silly decision this was. A spectacular waste of taxpayer's money. If the passenger had been 35 nobody would have given a toss, they'd have blamed her for being a moron.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Pffrt... thats not going to happen. Nor will the CPS/BTP answer to wasting the courts time/abuse of process

We wish! Sadly they will get away with it.

After the summing up by the judge, the jury would have had to have been made up of idiots to bring in a guilty verdict. It was a pathetic case by the CPS, which ought to worry us all; if they're that incompetent how many guilty people escape their proper punishment?

Indeed, it's very worrying that the CPS can be this bad. It's not the only case they've been severely criticised for recently, but I don't want to go off-topic by discussing any other cases. But yes I certainly share your concerns.

 

[rebmcr]

Quite why they chose someone whose main specialism was in marine engineering was a head-scratcher.

Because every qualified person would have told them the truth, instead of what they wanted to hear.

 

[Chris M]

Probably as a result of reading far too many legal novels, I thought it was the prosecution who always hired the best expert witness and the defence had to grub around for someone. Seems to be the opposite in this case. I'm amazed the court accepted the prosecutions witness as an expert.

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I don't believe the court has any say on who may or may not be called as a particular witness - it is up to the opposing side to challenge the qualifications, etc of a witness if they think they are misrepresenting themselves/being misrepresented. Whether this person is accepted as an expert is for the jury to decide.

Obviously if a witness told untruths about their experience/qualifications or otherwise lied to the court they could be guilty of perjury, but only after the fact.

There is nothing to stop me appearing in court as an "expert witness" on the subject of tramway accidents. My only qualifications for this role are reading accident reports, forums like this one, and other internet resources. Any halfway competent lawyer would tear me to shreds but as long as I do not lie under oath or (seek to) defraud anyone then there is no legal comeback (but IANAL).

 

[Bromley boy]

Given that the CPS is supposed to act in the public interest, does anyone know if they are required to defend their decision to prosecute, or not to do so, if there is significant public concern raised once the trial has ended?

I'm by no means an expert but from a quick look at their guidance manual they make a charging decision based firstly on an evidential and then on a public interest test.

Evidential = enough evidence to ensure "reasonable prospect" of conviction. Public interest = looking at a range of factors including culpability of defendant, level of harm etc. (obviously a lot more factors besides).

This tries to tread a path between giving them the leeway to prosecute "grey area" cases which don't necessarily equal "slam-dunk" guilty verdicts but equally should mean they don't prosecute cases where there's absolutely no evidence of guilt or absolutely no public interest in pursuing the prosecution.

As I understand it from some people I know in the criminal justice field, despite the detailed guidance, the charging decisions can be quite inconsistent depending on who at the CPS looks at the case, variance by region and also according to public opinion. For example there's been a lot in the press recently about rape conviction rates being low and this has apparently led to an increase in rape cases being prosecuted.

As it's a public body I imagine you'd need to perform a judicial review of the decision to prosecute which was be extremely costly, time consuming and unlikely to conclude they had been unreasonable in prosecuting unless there was enormous evidence that the decision was made for ulterior purposes or was manifestly wrong. This was also be pretty pointless after the case had concluded.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

Obviously off topic (and perhaps more appropriate after the verdict) but I wonder if anyone posting here has a detailed view of the decision process taken by the CPS and could give their views on the case in question.

EDIT - hadn't refreshed thread when I posted this. Great result and pleased with the verdict!

 

[OliverS]

I disagree with those who say that the CPS should not have brought this case. Someone has to decide how much evidence is needed to secure a conviction. That someone, in our legal system, is a jury. So now the CPS knows that a guard following the rules isn't going to be convicted and so the next guard won't be brought to court. It is unfortunate for Martin Zee that he was the test case and he deserves support from everyone for what he must have gone through. But now the law is clearer and that is better for everyone.

 

[rebmcr]

I disagree with those who say that the CPS should not have brought this case. Someone has to decide how much evidence is needed to secure a conviction. That someone, in our legal system, is a jury. So now the CPS knows that a guard following the rules isn't going to be convicted and so the next guard won't be brought to court. It is unfortunate for Martin Zee that he was the test case and he deserves support from everyone for what he must have gone through. But now the law is clearer and that is better for everyone.

Perhaps the CPS's intention was actually to secure a Not Guilty verdict, in the public interest of clarifying this...?