Improper use of escalator and offence

[rail-britain]

Some people might have seen the case on tonights BBC Crimewatch
A person has pressed the emergency stop button on an escalator at Edinburgh Waverley station
As a result of this another passenger already on the escalator was injured
What offence would this person be charged with?
The offender has now been identified

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Depends on the injury, and the defendant really. There is too little detail to even be able to give a ballpark offence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Was the emergency stop pushed frivolously or maliciously, or out of genuine need?

 

[the sniper]

Assault by recklessness. Probably common assault, but I don't know the extent of the injury.

If no one was injured or there was no victim, it could be dealt with under the byelaws, misuse of railway equipment.

EDIT: I'm assuming there was no emergency...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Assault by recklessness. Probably common assault, but I don't know the extent of the injury.

If no one was injured or there was no victim, it could be dealt with under the byelaws, misuse of railway equipment.

EDIT: I'm assuming there was no emergency...

Assault requires someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. I doubt in this case it exists. It's either battery (although that requires the application of force, so I am still thinking about that one!) or ABH depending on the injuries sustained.

To even be able to make a guess we need to know what injuries were sustained, and what the defendant was thinking. To prove the mens rea for recklessness we follow the test from R v Cunningham, which requires us to show that there was an unjustified risk and that the defendant for-sore the risk.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Depends on the injury, and the defendant really. There is too little detail to even be able to give a ballpark offence.

Couldn't agree more!
I suspect that there may be both a Criminal Offence committed and grounds for a Civil Claim against the perpetrator.
We must also remember that Scots Law will apply.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Couldn't agree more!
I suspect that there may be both a Criminal Offence and a Civil Claim against the perpetrator.
We must also remember that Scots Law will apply.

Good point. I had completely missed that!

 

[michael769]

Unless there was evidence that it was done with deliberate intent to injure it would normally be a civil matter (shops usually permanently ban offenders from their premises), and injured parties could (in theory at least) claim damages.

But in this case are there any byelaws that would apply, such as interfering with the safe operation of the railway or passengers comfort?

 

[fairysdad]

Deleted

 

[rail-britain]

I have now found that the offender has been charged under Section 5 (Public Order) and Byelaw (9(5)) at Blackburn Police Station (nearer Livingston than Edinburgh)
The defendent had no cause to use the stop button

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006ppmq
Time 19:53 to 20:39

 

[cdonnigan]

Could of come under endangering the life of other travellers if you wanna look at it by stopping it they have technically blocked off a exit from the station.

 

[Crossforth]

Assault by recklessness. Probably common assault, but I don't know the extent of the injury.

If no one was injured or there was no victim, it could be dealt with under the byelaws, misuse of railway equipment.

EDIT: I'm assuming there was no emergency...

Assault requires someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. I doubt in this case it exists. It's either battery (although that requires the application of force, so I am still thinking about that one!) or ABH depending on the injuries sustained.

To even be able to make a guess we need to know what injuries were sustained, and what the defendant was thinking. To prove the mens rea for recklessness we follow the test from R v Cunningham, which requires us to show that there was an unjustified risk and that the defendant for-sore the risk.

Am I correct in saying you have studied AS law?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Am I correct in saying you have studied AS law?

That and an unhealthy interest in law.

 

[the sniper]

Assault requires someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. I doubt in this case it exists. It's either battery (although that requires the application of force, so I am still thinking about that one!) or ABH depending on the injuries sustained.

Sorry I don't know where my head was when I wrote that last post, my law hat was well and truly off! I meant to suggest the offence of Common Assault by way of battery (the charge is 'assault by beating' I believe), though on reflection I can't see how it could be classed a battery anyway...

A classic example of failing to think before posting!

To prove the mens rea for recklessness we follow the test from R v Cunningham, which requires us to show that there was an unjustified risk and that the defendant for-sore the risk.

Yeah, I should have explained that. In spending time doing so I might have noticed that what I'd posted was rubbish.

I have now found that the offender has been charged under Section 5 (Public Order) and Byelaw (9(5)) at Blackburn Police Station (nearer Livingston than Edinburgh)
The defendent had no cause to use the stop button

Thanks for that. Well at least I got the byelaw offence. S.5 POA makes sense too considering the circumstances.

Could of come under endangering the life of other travellers if you wanna look at it by stopping it they have technically blocked off a exit from the station.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can't see that one sticking, especially as there's a specific law covering the offence.

 

[island]

If it's in Scotland, a breach of the peace should cover things nicely.

 

[dieselbashdave]

I'd say delict as under Scot's law he has a duty of care to his neighbours and he thereby breached it by committing an act that could be reasonably foreseen to cause harm, there was causation by the delinquent's actions and there may be seriousness of risk.

However it's been a few months since I studied law so I might be talking complete and utter guff it has to be said!

 

[ChrisCooper]

Could of come under endangering the life of other travellers if you wanna look at it by stopping it they have technically blocked off a exit from the station.

No. There will always be altenative exits from the stations, afterall escalators fail from time to time. If it was the case then London Underground would be endangering passengers every time an escalator failed.

Actually that is one of the problems in a case like this. If the idiot who pressed the stop is liable for the injury, then London Underground could be liable for an injury if an escalator stopped due to a fault. If it was a powercut, the electricity company could be liable, or perhaps London Underground for not maintaining backup power.

From a criminal point of view it seems the injury wasn't taken into account. The byelaw offense would be incorrect use of the stop button. The public order offense is likely as he knew (or should have known) that pressing the button would cause disruption. Whether the latter will stand in court though is another matter.

From a civil liability point of view, I would expect some liability would be placed on the injured party, afterall I find it hard to believe if they were following the correct proceedure, i.e standing on the right and holding the handrail, then an injury would have occured, infact were they running down the right hand side as many do it could be argued that they may have been injured regardless.

 

[jon0844]

If the power fails, does an escalator stop as abruptly as someone pressing the emergency button (which I presume triggers a brake) that could jolt enough to cause an injury?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've been on an escalator ( on the tube in London ) when someone pressed the button once and it certainly didn't stop instantly; it was more a gentle stop over 3 - 4 seconds. It took about another 2 - 3 seconds before everyone realised it had stopped and started trudging upwards...

Presumably the slightly drunken specimen who was arguing with three staff who were surrounding him preventing his escape by the time I had walked to the top was the one who pressed the button...

 

[ChrisCooper]

I've been on an escalator ( on the tube in London ) when someone pressed the button once and it certainly didn't stop instantly; it was more a gentle stop over 3 - 4 seconds. It took about another 2 - 3 seconds before everyone realised it had stopped and started trudging upwards...

Presumably the slightly drunken specimen who was arguing with three staff who were surrounding him preventing his escape by the time I had walked to the top was the one who pressed the button...

I've been on one that stopped too, due to some idiots sliding down the middle and one of them accidently kicking the stop button at they passed. Again it was a gentle stop and everyone just stood still until I shouted "it's not starting whilst people are on it, let's get moving" at which point people did, probably thinking I was staff. Actually that is one of the big problems with escalators being stopped whilst in use, they can't be re-started whilst they are being used, so it requires them to be cleared and closed off before they can be re-started. Especially at a fairly busy station with just 1 escalator each way, or 3, 2 of which are going the wrong way, I imagine that's a right pain. I imagine in a lot of cases they would probably be left off until it was quieter and they could be turned back on easier.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely it would be an offence under a relevent bylaw "Thou shall not press the stop button of the escalator without good cause"?

 

[island]

I'd say delict as under Scot's law he has a duty of care to his neighbours and he thereby breached it by committing an act that could be reasonably foreseen to cause harm, there was causation by the delinquent's actions and there may be seriousness of risk.

However it's been a few months since I studied law so I might be talking complete and utter guff it has to be said!

A delict is the Scots law term for a tort, or a civil wrong — they are not criminal matters.

 

[PaulLothian]

Not a website I often frequent, but this probably give an overall picture! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...lf-in-after-crimewatch-appeal-86908-23442821/

Scots Law will of course apply. Most of Part 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 (including Section 5) does not apply to Scotland. I am not clear which particular Bylaw (9(5)) is being quoted here.

Wikipedia defines it more neatly than I could:

"The mens rea for assault is simply "evil intent", although this has been held to mean no more than that assault "cannot be committed accidentally or recklessly or negligently" as upheld in Lord Advocate's Reference No 2 of 1992 where it was found that a "hold-up" in a shop justified as a joke would still constitute an offence."

In this case, unless it is possible to prove that the intended outcome was the harming of another person, I supect that achieving any conviction with a charge relating to assault would be difficult.

Culpable and reckless conduct might be easier to prove.

 

[michael769]

Culpable and reckless conduct might be easier to prove.

Either that or "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace".

EDIT: Another option up here is the offence of "malicious mischief".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have just found the text of Railway Byelaw 9(5):

(5) No person shall move, operate or stop any lift or escalator except:
(i) in an emergency by means of equipment on or near which is a
notice indicating that it is intended to be used in an emergency;
or
(ii) in case of a lift, by means of any of the controls intended for
use by that person.

That would pretty much cover it is all else fails.

 

[island]

Either that or "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace".

If it's in Scotland, a breach of the peace should cover things nicely.

Indeed.