Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[Bromley boy]

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.

I think what people are questioning is the CPS' conduct at the stage before the jury trial. Ie the decision whether or not to charge the defendant in the first place.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

Pretty much that. It's why Martin's barrister spent so long trashing the CV of the expert witness, to make it clear his railway experience was negligible.

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.

Crown Court decisions do not set legal precedent. It isn't a "test case" and it isn't something that any driver or guard can take comfort from.

The driver of the train at Hayes and Harlington, which was a very similar situation involving a passenger throwing themselves at closing doors, was committed for trial back in January. I can't imagine the CPS backing down now, even with this verdict.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Let's be clear, in case you did not follow the case in detail. Zee actually didn't follow procedure and made a minor procedural error. Zee admitted this in his testimony.

Zee was not guilty because it could not be proven that the risk of a passenger being startled by *opening* doors and subsequently falling onto the track was one which could have been foreseen by him (indeed, this is not a risk I think anyone could have foreseen, and I am amazed at the sequence of events). It could not be proven that Zee had been shown the 17-point door procedure, and what should happen if the procedure was interrupted. It could not be proven that Zee could even see the injured passenger, on the monitor or from the platform.

This case cannot set precedent because it's in the Crown Court. The law is not clearer as a result of this case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Zee was not guilty because it could not be proven that the risk of a passenger being startled by *opening* doors and subsequently falling onto the track was one which could have been foreseen by him (indeed, this is not a risk I think anyone could have foreseen, and I am amazed at the sequence of events).

Indeed. It creates somewhat of a dilemma on the design of modern rolling stock - it until now was always assumed that re-opening is the correct course of action in the event of a problem involving a passenger and a door. Should there be a way of stopping the doors in their present position, perhaps?

The RAIB investigation once published will be interesting.

 

[Moonshot]

Indeed. It creates somewhat of a dilemma on the design of modern rolling stock - it until now was always assumed that re-opening is the correct course of action in the event of a problem involving a passenger and a door. Should there be a way of stopping the doors in their present position, perhaps?

The RAIB investigation once published will be interesting.

I mentioned this earlier in this thread......the short answer is no, and the reason being should traction interlock failed to be gained ( thus depriving the driver the ability to draw power ) , the process is to re release the doors and try again. This is not an uncommon problem, and is generally solved by a re release/ close procedure in almost all cases. As always, attempting to solve one issue invariably impacts on another process.

 

[Sleepy]

I thought it was BTP job to safeguard passenger and staff safety as well ? So why was I witness to them putting an aggressive fare evader on the train when he had been removed from a train earlier by TOC staff for not having valid ticket and had also threatened a member of revenue staff the previous day !!

 

[Moonshot]

I thought it was BTP job to safeguard passenger and staff safety as well ? So why was I witness to them putting an aggressive fare evader on the train when he had been removed from a train earlier by TOC staff for not having valid ticket and had also threatened a member of revenue staff the previous day !!

BTP have always been very good and quick when I have needed them.

 

[muz379]

Great news for Martin and his legal team . Although obviously only being in the crown court it sets no precedent and does not provide any guarantee to safety critical staff on the railway .

As for the decision to prosecute , as I have just said in another thread there are questionable elements of the CPS case like the choice of expert witness which was especially disappointing given the time it has taken to bring this matter to trial , how it would not be clearly foreseeable to the CPS that this expert witnesses CV would lead to their expert being completely discredited is beyond me . On the other hand as someone else has just pointed out Martin did admit in his own testimony that he did not follow the procedure properly this would have raised questions clearly if someone has not followed a procedure properly when carrying out safety critical work and somebody suffers serious injuries as a result what responsibility if any should that person have for that .

Had it been a different aged victim on a different day and they did not suffer such serious injuries then I still maintain that this prosecution would probably not have occurred .

People have repeatedly in this threat attempted to rely on the fact that the Merseyrail internal investigation did not find any wrongdoing on the behalf of Martin a position I myself have shown sympathy for before proper consideration . Whilst that is now shown to be true by the decision in the court , prior to the conclusion of this trial I think caution is needed with that approach . I have seen company investigations in the past that have been wrong , that have been inaccurate or that have missed important factors in incidents . The internal report is not created to meet the same burden of proof as is required to be met in a criminal trial . It is created to learn lessons and decide if anybody internal to the company should have any action taken against them . Similarly with any RAIB report . They are usually written to a high standard but they are still not intended to meet the criminal burden , and RAIB reports themselves caution that they are not for apportioning blame they are again to see if lessons can be learnt or recommend any improvements that should be made in operating procedures .

 

[TimboM]

This case cannot set precedent because it's in the Crown Court. The law is not clearer as a result of this case.

The law may not be clearer, however this may impact on CPS' consideration of future similar cases as to whether there's "a reasonable prospect of conviction" and hence whether to pursue any prosecution in the first place.

That said, it never seemed to me like there was "a reasonable prospect" in this case and they prosecuted anyway...!?

 

[WatcherZero]

Pain in the ass for the RMT this acquittal as the the defence had argued that a guard could not safely operate the doors and so a accident was inevitable and not the guards fault. If a guard cannot safely operate the doors then it strengthens the case for the driver to do it.

 

[FordFocus]

A very welcomed decision that should not have gone to court. Well done Martin, RMT, the legal team and Merseyrail.

 

[BestWestern]

Pain in the ass for the RMT this acquittal as the the defence had argued that a guard could not safely operate the doors and so a accident was inevitable and not the guards fault. If a guard cannot safely operate the doors then it strengthens the case for the driver to do it.

Not neccessarily, it may merely strengthen any arguments for adequate sighting or equipment to be provided where concerns exist. It may also help in redressing the balance of responsibility towards passengers, who shouldn't be disregarding clear warnings not to board trains.

 

[Moonshot]

Pain in the ass for the RMT this acquittal as the the defence had argued that a guard could not safely operate the doors and so a accident was inevitable and not the guards fault. If a guard cannot safely operate the doors then it strengthens the case for the driver to do it.

The reality is that irrespective of what method of dispatch is used, there will always be a very small number of accidents over a given year - slips trips and falls being the vast majority.

 

[Moonshot]

Not neccessarily, it may merely strengthen any arguments for adequate sighting or equipment to be provided where concerns exist. It may also help in redressing the balance of responsibility towards passengers, who shouldn't be disregarding clear warnings not to board trains.

judging by the amount of passengers wearing earphones, a move towards some sort of traffic light warning system on doors may help....

 

[Bletchleyite]

judging by the amount of passengers wearing earphones, a move towards some sort of traffic light warning system on doors may help....

Funnily enough, precisely such a feature will be installed on the new Stadler FLIRTs (serious attention has gone into the design of these to reduce the likelihood of either of the two recent PTI incidents that went to Court happening again, with a number of features added that have never been seen on the UK rails before). It has been seen elsewhere though not on trains - LU have it on the lifts at Bank.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If a guard cannot safely operate the doors then it strengthens the case for the driver to do it.

Not really, a big part of this case hinged on the CCTV monitors which didn't show everything that was happening. The lesser-publicised case against Stephen Murdoch, which has just been committed to Crown Court, will very likely hinge on that too.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not neccessarily, it may merely strengthen any arguments for adequate sighting or equipment to be provided where concerns exist. It may also help in redressing the balance of responsibility towards passengers, who shouldn't be disregarding clear warnings not to board trains.

Let's hope so.

One situation I encounter on a daily basis is someone standing half in half out of a train I'm working. I'll operate the door close button and the hustler alarm sounds. At this point the passenger either moves clear of the doors or remains in place and tries to hold them open when they shut.

If said passenger loses their footing and ends up under the train I'm now wondering if I could find myself facing a prison sentence.

There's any number of scenarios similar to the above that occur every shift and I find the CPS' approach in this case extremely worrying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One situation I encounter on a daily basis is someone standing half in half out of a train I'm working. I'll operate the door close button and the hustler alarm sounds. At this point the passenger either moves clear of the doors or remains in place and tries to hold them open when they shut.

The very obvious answer to this is a whistle. I've long thought guards should use these as a matter of course before triggering door closure, just as they do on DB. It gives a clear differentiation between doors closing on a timer and for departure.

 

[Bromley boy]

The very obvious answer to this is a whistle. I've long thought guards should use these as a matter of course before triggering door closure, just as they do on DB. It gives a clear differentiation between doors closing on a timer and for departure.

I'm DOO unfortunately so at the vast majority of locations there isn't one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm DOO unfortunately so at the vast majority of locations there isn't one.

I think you should be more worried about what happens to Stephen Murdoch, if I'm totally honest...

 

[FordFocus]

Not neccessarily, it may merely strengthen any arguments for adequate sighting or equipment to be provided where concerns exist. It may also help in redressing the balance of responsibility towards passengers, who shouldn't be disregarding clear warnings not to board trains.

I agree at some stations the dispatch method is either outdated or the equipment should have been replaced with something more modern. Examples I can think of..

Look back procedure on DOO trains is outdated as many modern cabs wasn't properly designed for it. Longer formations, busier and curved platforms make it more risky. Plus the claims of RSI injuries for the unnatural positioning of the body.

DOO platform CCTV equipment with low resolution cameras and older, darker CRT monitors that aren't fit for purpose. Rain especially affects them or poor platform lighting.

Blind spots for guards that should be addressed with additional control panels to enable a full view of the platform.

More dispatch staff for busier locations.

Of course the DfT all singing and dancing solution is for all trains to have mounted DOO cameras on the side but as seen on the 377 fleet, this has it's limitations.

There cannot be a one size fits all approach to station dispatch.

 

[BestWestern]

The very obvious answer to this is a whistle. I've long thought guards should use these as a matter of course before triggering door closure, just as they do on DB. It gives a clear differentiation between doors closing on a timer and for departure.

Many do. And if one specific individual is causing an issue, shouting works well too. Both of these require a Guard however, placed on the platform where they can see properly what's happening, as they should be for every dispatch. Neither tactic is much good if you're a DOO Driver.

 

[FordFocus]

I think you should be more worried about what happens to Stephen Murdoch, if I'm totally honest...

Is that the Reading driver from the Hayes incident?

Although I wouldn't like to see it happen, why didn't the CPS go after the West Wickham traincrew?

There isn't enough protection for staff now, especially on DOO.

 

[6Gman]

Pain in the ass for the RMT this acquittal as the the defence had argued that a guard could not safely operate the doors and so a accident was inevitable and not the guards fault. If a guard cannot safely operate the doors then it strengthens the case for the driver to do it.

No it doesn't. The driver would be even more compromised by other duties.

This was a specific incident in a particular location involving a person with a particular vulnerability.

It has little impact on the general issue.

 

[4973]

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.

I can't help wondering if this was a CPS staffer who has watched too many US Crime dramas and was hoping to make a reputation. If so it has probably (and hopefully) backfired.

 

[Moonshot]

The very obvious answer to this is a whistle. I've long thought guards should use these as a matter of course before triggering door closure, just as they do on DB. It gives a clear differentiation between doors closing on a timer and for departure.

We do already.....

 

[Bromley boy]

I think you should be more worried about what happens to Stephen Murdoch, if I'm totally honest...

I'm worried about that too.

What particularly worries me about the Martin Zee case is that there's clearly a huge area of risk of criminal charges even around deciding when to close the doors.

 

[DarloRich]

Firstly - the court have reached what everyone agrees is the correct outcome. I am very pleased this chap was found not guilty. It is sad that an innocent man had to go through the court process but right that such a process is the one to decide on guilt or otherwise.

Secondly - it is odd that people seem very keen to have someone ( no doubt a decent bloke, doing his job and following all the internal rules) punished or dismissed because they work for the CPS and brought a case you don't like............

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is that the Reading driver from the Hayes incident?

Aye, Highbury Corner Mags have just sent the matter to Crown Court.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We do already.....

Most TOCs don't, though.