• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

CPS prosecutes Merseyrail Guard

Status
Not open for further replies.

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,885
And someone was complaining on this forum about a driver calling a passenger an idiot for not standing behind the yellow line before he could see to close the doors and depart.

Is it any wonder...?!

http://www.rmt.org.uk/about/health-and-safety/health-and-safety-circulars/martin-zee--guard-merseyrail121115/

Our Ref: HSR/5/8
Head Office Circular: NP/220/15
11th November 2015

The Secretary
ALL BRANCHES
ALL REGIONAL COUNCILS

Dear Colleague

Martin Zee – Guard Merseyrail

Following a resolution from our Wirral Branch the General Grades Committee have considered the case of our Guard’s Grade member Martin Zee.

Martin was involved in an incident at Hamilton Square on 8th July 2015 in which a member of the public was injured when she tried to board the train after the door closure procedure had commenced when the door closing alarm was sounding. The individual concerned received a number of injuries after falling between the train and the platform. Our member, by following the training he has received from the company, was instrumental in assisting the train driver in isolating the electrical supply to the third rail by placing the short circuit bar on the running and conductor rail. Martin then lowered himself between the platform edge and the train and offered assistance and reassurance to the member of the public until the emergency services arrived.

Merseyrail’s investigation into the incident and the company’s response to the findings of that report is exemplary. The company have taken no action against our member and all of the recommendations in the report are addressed to system risk issues rather than individual failings. This is in line with RMT’s campaign of fair culture programme in the investigation of incidents.

What is beyond belief is that the Crown Prosecution Service has now commenced a prosecution of our member under Section 34 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. This statute allows for the prosecution of staff on the railway who endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway. The maximum penalty under the Act is two years imprisonment.

On giving consideration to the resolution from Wirral Branch the General Grades Committee have adopted the following Decision:

That we note the resolution from our Wirral Branch and agree with the sentiments contained within.

We note our Member Brother Martin Zee has been disgracefully charged under section 34 of the offences against persons act 1861 for performing nothing more than a door procedure in line with Merseyrail's training standards, this unfortunately resulted in minor injuries to a passenger who opted to ignore the hustle alarm, warning her that it was unsafe to board, instead choosing to board the service whilst the doors were in the process of closing whilst it was unsafe to do so.

This GGC notes that Merseyrail carried out their own full and detailed investigation following the incident, further we note Merseyrail's findings following the completion of their investigation amounted to nothing and they advised our Member that he had carried out the "Power operated door procedure" as per the company standard, that he would not face any disciplinary sanctions following the outcome of their findings which proved his innocence beyond doubt ,without any failings on his part.

Additionally we note Brother Zee has been provided full legal assistance from the RMT in an attempt to clear his name and ensure justice is sought. This GGC recognises and welcomes the support Merseyrail have provided for our Member during this difficult time, firstly for the offer of providing legal assistance for our Member and secondly for working together with our Union in an attempt to ensure police charges were not brought against Brother Zee although unfortunately this turned out not to be the case.

This GGC believes if the CPS do not withdraw these charges against our Member, then this could result in grave consequences for the Rail Industry in general, leaving our Members receiving no level of protection whatsoever, regardless if they follow agreed company training procedures whilst carrying out door operating procedures which could ultimately result in police prosecutions should a member of the travelling public choose to ignore warnings not to board a service whilst Train doors are closing, potentially resulting in injury.

We therefore instruct the General Secretary to write to Merseyrail seeking assurances over our Members future employment status regardless of the out-come of these charges, we
further instruct the General Secretary to raise this matter directly with the ORR, seeking clarification on approved power operated door training standards requesting information as to who or whom, if anyone? is protected in circumstances such as these and whether the wider rail industry is aware that police charges may be brought against rail workers even in circumstances when procedures are carried out as per the agreed company standard.

Finally the General Secretary is instructed to request that this is an item for discussion to be raised through our Parliamentary Group members to build a high profile political awareness around this case and to place pressure on the CPS to do the decent thing and withdraw the charge against our Member, any further developments to be placed back before this GGC.

Relevant Branches and Regional Councils to be advised.

I am acting in accordance with this Decision and will update you as appropriate. Please bring the contents of this circular to the attention of all relevant members.

Yours sincerely

Mick Cash
General Secretary
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
This seems most bizarre. If the guard followed company procedure correctly then how the heck could the guard be prosecuted?
 

FQ

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
4 Oct 2013
Messages
6,645
Location
-
It's the passengers own fault for attempting to board the service while the doors were closing. From what I read, the guard did what he should have. How can he be prosecuted?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,607
Location
Scotland
This seems most bizarre. If the guard followed company procedure correctly then how the heck could the guard be prosecuted?
I agree that following company procedure should be enough to provide protection from prosecution, however the CPS can bring a prosecution if they believe there is evidence that a crime has been committed.

Sadly, in this case they obviously believe that such evidence exists.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
najaB said:
I agree that following company procedure should be enough to provide protection from prosecution, however the CPS can bring a prosecution if they believe there is evidence that a crime has been committed.

Sadly, in this case they obviously believe that such evidence exists.
But the whole point of the procedure is that it should be the agreed safe method of working. If the guard has concerns about aspects of it, then these can be raised and procedure changed. However, if the guard followed the prescribed routine then how the heck can they be guilty if (and that's if) the procedure itself is unsafe? I think the CPS will be making a fool of themselves if they seriously bring the guard to court.

Unless there's something else here that's been missed out, of course.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,607
Location
Scotland
Unless there's something else here that's been missed out, of course.
The fact that MerseyRail's investigation resulted in no further action makes me believe that there isn't anything more to the story.

I think it is just the CPS responding to the 'someone has to pay' mob mentality.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
I hope it falls flat and CPS get ridiculed again after persuing journalists and celebrities despite them being cleared at the end of the day.
 

D1009

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2012
Messages
3,166
Location
Stoke Gifford
There must have been some evidence of wrongdoing to cause the CPS to take this action. Until we know what the evidence is there is little to be gained from further speculation.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,498
Location
Norwich
The fact that both the RMT and Merseyrail have offered legal protection to the guard in question would imply they both agree that this is a joke. if it is all as reported here then I cannot see what the CPS can see or are doing.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
22,747
Location
West of Andover
I hope it falls flat and CPS get ridiculed again after persuing journalists and celebrities despite them being cleared at the end of the day.

Completely agreed.

Hopefully if it gets to court, the judge will laugh at the CPS at being completely idiotic in wasting the court's time and public's money with a pointless prosecution.

Is the member of public who dashed for the train after the doors started closing related in any way to the CPS?
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
Is the member of public who dashed for the train after the doors started closing related in any way to the CPS?

I don't think making insinuations like that is helpful is it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Seems a strange decision by the CPS but can't really have a proper discussion without hearing both sides

Exactly, CPS don't normally proceed unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. As D1009 said is there any point in discussing this further without knowing the full facts?
 
Last edited:

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,528
Location
Liskeard
Merseyrail confirmed he followed correct procedure. The only grounds for wrong doing is if the correct procedure doesn't comply with the law, very unlikely.
CPS are generally speaking not fit for purpose,
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
6,059
Location
Sheffield
And someone was complaining on this forum about a driver calling a passenger an idiot for not standing behind the yellow line before he could see to close the doors and depart.

Is it any wonder...?!

This case seems very strange, but it has nothing at all to do with a driver calling someone an idiot.

Exactly, CPS don't normally proceed unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. As D1009 said is there any point in discussing this further without knowing the full facts?

There would be very little discussion on any internet forum if people needed to know the full facts before joining in :o. Anyone who wishes to await emergence of the full facts before commenting is at liberty not to post.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
There would be very little discussion on any internet forum if people needed to know the full facts before joining in :o. Anyone who wishes to await emergence of the full facts before commenting is at liberty not to post.

In matters of law knowing the full facts before passing judgement is generally preferable!
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,904
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Were BTP involved in the original incident?
Has a member of the public complained to the police, or is claiming damages?
If referred by the police, the CPS has to consider all aspects, not just whether company procedures or railway bylaws were followed.
The railway is not above the law.
I'm not suggesting the member of staff did anything wrong.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
*Disclaimer about not knowing both sides of the story and lack of full details yadda yadda, also about not having any legal knowledge*

Clearly, the CPS have taken issue with something here, presumably after the woman involved went to the police, and eventually this made it to the CPS. If Merseyrail and the RMT are backing the guard here, the implication is that everything he did was above board and legal, as far as they are concerned. The CPS clearly don't see it the same way, so either:

a) The guard has done something illegal outside of the dispatch procedure (which would seem unlikely given his support)

or

b) The CPS don't agree with the dispatch procedure, in which case surely they should be taking Merseyrail to court
 

whoosh

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,885
This case seems very strange, but it has nothing at all to do with a driver calling someone an idiot.

But it does have everything to do with some passengers making life difficult for the person who has the responsibility for the safe dispatch of trains weighing heavily on their shoulders.
 

turboslug

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2013
Messages
51
The RAIB investigated this incident & found the guard did nothing wrong, if the guard is prosecuted over this then you will see timekeeping on the railway fall apart as no driver or guard will move their trains if passengers are near their trains for fear of ending up in prison, after the james street incident merseyrail & the RAIB will have gone through this investigation with a fine tooth comb looking for the slightest thing wrong & for merseyrail to back him up speaks volumes to me
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
I am surprised it took so long for this to appear here. Without knowing both sides i am not prepared to comment further other than to say that on the presented facts the decision to prosecute seems extremely strange.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
I am surprised it took so long for this to appear here. Without knowing both sides i am not prepared to comment further other than to say that on the presented facts the decision to prosecute seems extremely strange.

It's simply the Crown Prosecution Service not understanding the legislation that surrounds the railways - hell, half the people who work on the railway and are are paid to know about it in detail can only just decipher the mess of Acts of Parliament that allow things to be as they are, the CPS, for all the will in the world, simply don't have a clue about it.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,806
The RAIB investigated this incident & found the guard did nothing wrong, if the guard is prosecuted over this then you will see timekeeping on the railway fall apart as no driver or guard will move their trains if passengers are near their trains for fear of ending up in prison, after the james street incident merseyrail & the RAIB will have gone through this investigation with a fine tooth comb looking for the slightest thing wrong & for merseyrail to back him up speaks volumes to me

Thats a very fair point.

Wonder if RMT would seek legal costs should litigation fail.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
Could it be that the victim may have made a claim against the TOC/Guard ?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
It's simply the Crown Prosecution Service not understanding the legislation that surrounds the railways - hell, half the people who work on the railway and are are paid to know about it in detail can only just decipher the mess of Acts of Parliament that allow things to be as they are, the CPS, for all the will in the world, simply don't have a clue about it.

i am afraid that, with respect, is just incorrect - they are paid to understand legislation and will understand that legislation very well. The legislation itself is really quite simple actually:

Legislation.gov.uk:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 S34: Doing or omitting anything to endanger passengers by railway.

Whosoever, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years,

Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/34

The interpretation and application of that section of the act is the problem. Like i said, I think this is most odd and will rest on willfull omission or neglect.
 
Last edited:

14xxDave

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2011
Messages
201
Location
Gateshead
Could it be that the victim may have made a claim against the TOC/Guard ?

That is more the likely thing, or ambulance chasing solicitors are involved. The CPS have shown themselves up to be a bit rubbish in very many situations and while the person who said they had a sister working for them didn't tell us what she did, tea lady, clerk, secretary etc. I do think they need to up their game somewhat.

My two pennies worth.

D.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
That is more the likely thing, or ambulance chasing solicitors are involved. The CPS have shown themselves up to be a bit rubbish in very many situations and while the person who said they had a sister working for them didn't tell us what she did, tea lady, clerk, secretary etc. I do think they need to up their game somewhat.

My two pennies worth.

D.

this is a criminal case - no ambulance chasers involved! Try this:

CPS: The decision to prosecute

Source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/resources/prosecution.html
 

14xxDave

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2011
Messages
201
Location
Gateshead
this is a criminal case - no ambulance chasers involved! Try this:



Source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/resources/prosecution.html

Do you think this is where it stems from?

In deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, prosecutors should take into account any views expressed by the victim regarding the impact that the offence has had. In some cases, prosecutors should take into account any views expressed by the victim's family. But the prosecution service does not act for victims or their families in the same way as solicitors act for their clients, and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.

D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top