'Big man' vs Sam Main incident (final decision: no charges for either)

[Donny Dave]

Hopefully, 'big man' will not be prosecuted for the "assault", where as the "student" will have the book thrown at him. It may even teach him a lesson, although going by his facebook page, I very much doubt it ....

On a side note, I've been on trains where a bit of "justice" has been dished out to people being prats, although this has mainly been limited to humiliating people who deserve it, although on 1 occasion, there was a guy in his late teens/early 20s constantly running up and down a carriage on a TPE 158. After he "tripped" over someones foot and got laughed at by everyone in the carriage, he for some strange reason then stayed in his seat unitl Manchester ....

 

[khib70]

christ all The Big Guy did was push him off a train, he didn't hit or punch him, Mr Main is seen verbally assaulting the Conductor, being a total (insert required chav type description here) and having absolutely no regard for anyone around him, If the "Big Guy" is found guilty expect alot of trains to ground to a halt quite simply because we will all just walk away and wait for the police. the SLIGHTEST bit of trouble the majority of Train Crew will just lock themselves in their cabs and who can blame them as this shows not only can decent members of the community try and help someone in need (in this case the conductor) TrainCrew cannot rely on the law to help protect them

one BIG can of worms is opening up
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If hes broken any law??? what do you call verbal assault as that is clearly on the recording let alone numerous railway byelaws

I've been lurking on here for a while now, but this whole situation annoys me so much I've got to break cover. Most of what I think has already been said, but I agree 100% with your take on it. I just wouldn't have the self control to be a customer-facing rail staff member

 

[sonorguy]

christ all The Big Guy did was push him off a train, he didn't hit or punch him, Mr Main is seen verbally assaulting the Conductor, being a total (insert required chav type description here) and having absolutely no regard for anyone around him, If the "Big Guy" is found guilty expect alot of trains to ground to a halt quite simply because we will all just walk away and wait for the police. the SLIGHTEST bit of trouble the majority of Train Crew will just lock themselves in their cabs and who can blame them as this shows not only can decent members of the community try and help someone in need (in this case the conductor) TrainCrew cannot rely on the law to help protect them

one BIG can of worms is opening up
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If hes broken any law??? what do you call verbal assault as that is clearly on the recording let alone numerous railway byelaws

Unfortunately that's not all the big man did, and what he did is clearly visible in the video. He grabbed him round the neck/upper body, spun him round and threw him off the train and onto the platform. I suspect it's this that resulted in the damage to Main's face, which looks very like the gravel rash you see on bikers when they've come off their bikes.

I also suspect it's this that has caused the charge of assault to be brought.

As for Mr. Main we'll have to wait for the PF to decide whether he wants to proceed or not.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Unfortunately that's not all the big man did, and what he did is clearly visible in the video. He grabbed him round the neck/upper body, spun him round and threw him off the train and onto the platform. I suspect it's this that resulted in the damage to Main's face, which looks very like the gravel rash you see on bikers.

I also suspect it's this that has caused the charge of assault to be brought.

As for Mr. Main we'll have to wait for the PF to decide whether he wants to proceed or not.

Ive seen harder shoves at rush hour when people tried to board trains, If Mr Main wasn't so aggresive in the 1st place Mr Pollock would not have got involved, all a consequence of Mr Mains' actions and if Mr pollock gets prosecuted as said it will open one hell of a can of worms

 

[sonorguy]

Ive seen harder shoves at rush hour when people tried to board trains, If Mr Main wasn't so aggresive in the 1st place Mr Pollock would not have got involved, all a consequence of Mr Mains' actions and if Mr pollock gets prosecuted as said it will open one hell of a can of worms

To repeat, it isn't the shove that's the problem, it's the second intervention in which he's picked up off the ground and thrown onto the platform.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Quite a few other passengers showed, with their approval, that they deemed the actions to be "reasonable" - and they were there from before the filming started.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus defence (or whatever it is in Scotland)

 

[Old Timer]

However what it doesn't do is give the person who is coming to aid the right to commit a crime in removing the person ie assault someone...

Please define "assault" ? The Act and other Legislation gives a person acting with legal right (as in the 1840 Act) to detain any person using whatever force is necessary in the circumstances. A broadly similar right applies to shop security staff who are arresting under a Citizens Arrest.

...If you take your justification to a slightly far-fetched conclusion he would have been OK to kill Mr. Main as it was assisting a railway official. .

Yes this is rather far fetched and serves only to undermine your point.

the fact that the act doesn't state an amount of force able to be used means that this must remain within the law. If he's been charged with it and the PF is proceeding, and if it's anything like the rest of the UK with the CPS, there must be a greater than 60% chance of securing a conviction.

This would suggest that the PF's view is that the force used was neither within the terms of the act or reasonable/proportionate..

No-one can be certain as to the circumstances under which the "Big Man" was reported. In such situations it is normal for the Police to provide a full report and for the Prosecuting authority to determine if the force used was reasonable given the circumstances. Until and unless the " Big Man" is actually Prosecuted and found guilty can it be said that he used unreasonable force.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

To repeat, it isn't the shove that's the problem, it's the second intervention in which he's picked up off the ground and thrown onto the platform.

He's picked up and ejected onto the platform, to be honest I would be surprised if he got found guilty of Assault, not only legally (from what a lot have said on here) also from a moral and political view, whoever decides will have alot of pressure on them

 

[Tin Rocket]

So the youtube footage could do for the "big man"??,if i were in his boots i would'nt be best pleased about it being filmed and uploaded for the world to see.

 

[Old Timer]

To repeat, it isn't the shove that's the problem, it's the second intervention in which he's picked up off the ground and thrown onto the platform.

I suspect that this is indeed the case, in which case I would expect the charge to be along the lines of "assault causing actual bodily harm" or the Scottish equivalent. The defence would be whether or not the second intervention - good word that - was such that it required that level of response, the Court could well decide that it did. Remember that the differential in size is not always clear cut. Many of the most violent people I have known have been small, and this does tend to be a trait I have to say, and have been the most vicious - quick to flare up and kick out. It always seems to be the small ones who try to cause trouble with bigger people, all to do with the Napoleon syndrome I believe.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So the youtube footage could do for the "big man"??,if i were in his boots i would'nt be best pleased about it being filmed and uploaded for the world to see.

looks like someone with good intentions and could not foresee what would happen.

 

[the sniper]

Section 16 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1840 confers the ability and legal right of a person to come to the aid of a Railway official. It is set out clearly in a much earlier post.

OT, I respect you're opinion, but I've already explained why I don't think that is applicable to this incident. Fair enough, you've ignored my opinion, as you're entitled to do, but it seems BTP Scotland also don't agree with your cross interpretation of the RRA 1840 and byelaws powers. I personally haven't yet found anyone who agrees with your interpretation.

It'll be interesting to see whether it is raised as a defence in court, if he's even prosecuted.

EDIT: And you wouldn't get ABH out of what happened to Sam Main, unless the charging standards are different in Scotland. He hasn't to my knowledge required stitches or even hospital treatment, so it's unlikely it'd be deemed enough for ABH.

 

[Tin Rocket]

looks like someone with good intentions and could not foresee what would happen.

indeed,the chap must be feeling pretty rotten if does go pear shaped for the "big man" though

 

[sonorguy]

Please define "assault" ? The Act and other Legislation gives a person acting with legal right (as in the 1840 Act) to detain any person using whatever force is necessary in the circumstances. A broadly similar right applies to shop security staff who are arresting under a Citizens Arrest.

Yes this is rather far fetched and serves only to undermine your point.


No-one can be certain as to the circumstances under which the "Big Man" was reported. In such situations it is normal for the Police to provide a full report and for the Prosecuting authority to determine if the force used was reasonable given the circumstances. Until and unless the " Big Man" is actually Prosecuted and found guilty can it be said that he used unreasonable force.

Any force used must be reasonable and proportionate, NOT 'whatever force necessary'. In any case and as discussed earlier that doesn't apply in this instance as Pollock and the guard made no attempt to detain Main, they were simply ejecting him. There's no attempt at a citizen's arrest. And whatever the Act does state it won't allow a member of the public to assault someone on the say so of a conductor.

It isn't as far fetched as all that, seeing as Main is clearly upended in the video and landed on his face. If this were to happen again there's a small but nevertheless existent possibility that he may have landed differently and hit his head/broken his neck. Unlikely, but there's more than one bouncer been convicted of manslaughter when they've ejected a punter in this manner and they've died. There's the 'eggshell' skull argument that's relevant to this discussion too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EDIT: And you wouldn't get ABH out of what happened to Sam Main, unless the charging standards are different in Scotland. He hasn't to my knowledge required stitches or even hospital treatment, so it's unlikely it'd be deemed enough for ABH.

Agreed, it's a common assault if it's anything.

 

[Old Timer]

OT, I respect you're opinion, but I've already explained why I don't think that is applicable to this incident. Fair enough, you've ignored my opinion, as you're entitled to do, but it seems BTP Scotland also don't agree with your cross interpretation of the RRA 1840 and byelaws powers. I personally haven't yet found anyone who agrees with your interpretation.

It'll be interesting to see whether it is raised as a defence in court, if he's even prosecuted.

Well I have posted the wording, which seems quite clear to me, and this Act and its application by Railway staff was discussed when I received training in Railway Legislation from the BT Police at Leeds back in the 1970s. This Act is still in force and indeed appears in the new CrossRail legislation.

Here is the linkto the Government website. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/3-4/97/section/16

I seem to remember reading quickly somewhere that Main was being charged under the 1840 Act but that could of course be wrong

As I have just posted above, it may well be judged that the second intervention is the one where an assault occurred because after that, Main did appear with an injury. My money would be on that.

 

[jon0844]

So the youtube footage could do for the "big man"??,if i were in his boots i would'nt be best pleased about it being filmed and uploaded for the world to see.

That may be so, but if you don't want to be filmed or photographed in public, best stay at home.

 

[Old Timer]

EDIT: And you wouldn't get ABH out of what happened to Sam Main, unless the charging standards are different in Scotland. He hasn't to my knowledge required stitches or even hospital treatment, so it's unlikely it'd be deemed enough for ABH.

Fair point and of course quite correct. I wasn't completely clear on what the injuries were, they just looked more than they obviously were.

In which case as you rightly say it would be simple assault or the Scottish equivalent.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

CPS guidelines say any injury less than GBH can suffice for ABH but you'd really struggle getting ABH for a graze.

 

[Tin Rocket]

That may be so, but if you don't want to be filmed or photographed in public, best stay at home.

or don't push people onto station platforms,the viewing public might be interested to watch it if you do.

 

[90019]

If this were to happen again there's a small but nevertheless existent possibility that he may have landed differently and hit his head/broken his neck.

There's a small but nevertheless existent possiblity that due to the delay the train might have been hit by a meteorite, which could have hit and killed him.

But it didn't, so it's completely irrelevant to the argument.

 

[Chapeltom]

There's an awful lot of rubbish on this thread, let's hope for the sake of society Main gets prosecuted and Pollock doesn't. As a poster above says, this case opens a whole of worms.

 

[sonorguy]

There's a small but nevertheless existent possiblity that due to the delay the train might have been hit by a meteorite, which could have killed him.

But it didn't, so it's completely irrelevant to the argument.

That's just the point, these small possibilities are legally very relevant, and one of the people who died at the hands of bouncers had a thin skull, which resulted in his death and a manslaughter conviction for the bouncer. Not knowing is no excuse.

It's up to the person carrying out any restraint to be aware of any physical condition that may affect the person being restrained and mean that this might be dangerous.

All of which means unless you've been specifically trained how to do it safely (ie police, people who work in mental health units, prison officers and some forces people who deal with PWs), don't grab hold of people unless you absolutely have to. Mr. Pollock didn't have to. I'm fully C&R trained and I wouldn't grab hold of anyone in the manner shown on that video.

 

[WillPS]

I don't know what to think personally, but I agree with others who say this is going to be a massive can of worms.

If the jury find the Big Man innocent, the case would become cited as an example of vigilantes being favoured in the court. Conversely, if he's found guilty, then it'll be seen as a victory for fare dodgers, who will then feel licensed to sit on a train and know pretty much if no BTP staff are present then there's nothing which can be done.

My hope is that the Big Man is found innocent but great emphasis is placed on the reasoning behind this, specifically citing the 1840 act and the fact that he asked the Conductor if he required assistance and the Conductor accepted.

 

[valenta]

Only just watched this video and I think that the behaviour of the inspector was a disgrace.
Fair enough, the lad shouldn't have been on the train without the correct ticket and the ticket inspector had a right to tell him to leave the train, but surely it was obvious that constantly saying "off" was not going to encourage him to leave the train.
As for the so called "big man" there is absolutely no way that he should have been allowed to physically push someone off the train, the lad had done something wrong but this offence does not warrant somebody being pushed off the train.
It shows a huge lack of proffesionalism on Scotrail trains, (the conductor watching this happen and seemingly happy about this happening). I hope that this inspector and "big man" are dealt with correctly.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's just the point, these small possibilities are legally very relevant, and one of the people who died at the hands of bouncers had a thin skull, which resulted in his death and a manslaughter conviction for the bouncer. Not knowing is no excuse.

Quite. The thin skull rule is very clear, however the only injury sustained was a graze, so I doubt the thin skull rule would be called into question here.

 

[sonorguy]

Quite. The thin skull rule is very clear, however the only injury sustained was a graze, so I doubt the thin skull rule would be called into question here.

I was stretching point a long way to make a point about the dangers of evicting people in this manner, but it isn't relevant in this particular instance.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Quite. The thin skull rule is very clear, however the only injury sustained was a graze, so I doubt the thin skull rule would be called into question here.

we don't even know if the graze happened during the ejection onto the platform, I would be surprised if Mr Pollock was prosecuted and would be even more surprised if Mr Main aka Potty Mouth wasn't!

 

[the sniper]

Well I have posted the wording, which seems quite clear to me, and this Act and its application by Railway staff was discussed when I received training in Railway Legislation from the BT Police at Leeds back in the 1970s. This Act is still in force and indeed appears in the new CrossRail legislation.

I don't doubt the powers of the Act, but I just don't think it's applicable to this situation. The Act allows for an officer or agent, or any person whom he may call to his assistance, to seize and detain a person so they can be taken by the Police.

My problem, which I suppose is also that of BTP Scotland, is that there was no intention on the part of either the conductor or the big man to detain Mr Main, he wasn't detained at any time and no effort was made to do so. The video shows this and I'm sure the statements of the conductor and big man would too. As such, I don't see how they can use the powers in RRA 1840 not to detain, but to cover the action taken to enforce a byelaw offence.

Maybe the interpretation of the '70's is the correct one and I'm wrong, in which case I'll gladly apologies and thank you for making me aware of this, but with BTP Scotland seemingly not identifying it as a reasonable excuse, I can only stick with my interpretation. I'll endeavour to get a definitive answer, but we may have to wait until this (possibly) goes to Court for that!

I seem to remember reading quickly somewhere that Main was being charged under the 1840 Act but that could of course be wrong

If it was on this thread, than it was me, I think. I'm guessing that is the trespass offence they've gone for, as it's easy to prove from the video and is the main applicable offence, unless there's a Scottish trespass offence that is better. Mr Main was asked to leave, he refused, RRA 1840 offence is complete.

EDIT:

...the lad had done something wrong but this offence does not warrant somebody being pushed off the train.

Well, the law would have permitted the guard to chuck the kid off the train for it... If the big man had been a railway employee, he'd have done nothing wrong (apart from maybe broken TOC policy, but that's another story).

 

[90019]

we don't even know if the graze happened during the ejection onto the platform, I would be surprised if Mr Pollock was prosecuted and would be even more surprised if Mr Main aka Potty Mouth wasn't!

It didn't occur during the initial ejection, as you can see when he tries to reboard that there is no mark on his face.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Just spotted this http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fare-dodger-assault-man-charged.html

makes interesting reading