• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Merseyrail Guard on Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Probably the worst miscarriage of justice in this country for many years.
.

And you were there in court to hear the full prosecution and events as they happened were you to give such an informed opinion?

As I remember it that still that was released was from real time CCTV footage shown during the case - they are obviously not going to release it all to the public because its harrowing.

I would strongly suggest that some of you read back carefully what A Northern Guard has written, then digest what he has written then maybe rethink your statements.

And as for the mothers statements - would any of you people who are now,through your postings professing to be holier than thou and have never got drunk or been a little bit naughty when you were younger or even now, actually make any statement dissimilar to hers if you had just lost your daughter and had heard it be proven in a criminal court that the blame lay at the guard and his actions? WOULD YOU REALLY?

If so I dont believe you. Again, go back an d read ANGs posts, there is a lot to learn from them and its similar to what I have heard about the whole case for a long time too.

In no way am I absolving the young lady's actions as she was drunk and did have some illegal drugs inside her which obviously have led her to be leaning against it, but she was not on trial here.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Harbon 1

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
1,020
Location
Burton on Trent
What happens if the girl hadn't been drunk, but ill?

Then if she did fall, she would have fallen from a distance back, and if the train had already been moving, there may not have been enough time to stop it before she fell between it and the platform
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
See? ANG understands the legal niceties.

And I say niceties, but they are there for solid reasons. Common Law, incorrectly lambasted earlier in the thread, is there to see that Common Sense prevails (over time). And if you can kick away your prejudices you would see that the result here had to be negligence of one variety or another.

People who hold the power of life and death in their hands over other people have to be held to a higher standard of behaviour. That some of you hadn't quite understood that about "safety critical", all I can say is that you need to learn it, or you might end up in that same position as our Merseyrail colleague.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
I'm not here to fix all the ills within society, and especially decide its moral values; a task even one of the Prophets would shy away from. My comment is based on the law.

What happens if the girl hadn't been drunk, but ill?

The law is not the only thing that matters. Does the law bring that girl back? Does the law stop somebody else ending up dead in exactly the same circumstances? I wish somebody would have the guts to run a national campaign along the lines of 'this is what can happen when you get yourself into a state'. Shocking? Yes. Near the knuckle? Yes. Likely to make one or two people think a little? Maybe, maybe not. But it'd be a lot more constructive than sending that Guard to prison and pretending that's the end of the matter.

Be honest - you must realise that your statement saying that the deceased should not be criticised is disingenuous at best, and probably pure nonsense if we want to be straight talking about this (and as ever, I do!)?

Sure, I have to agree that the Guard is responsible. It's just that so was the girl, her mates who allowed her to get into that state, and more widely - society as a whole is to blame.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Then if she did fall, she would have fallen from a distance back, and if the train had already been moving, there may not have been enough time to stop it before she fell between it and the platform
Ill and drunk, often there is no discernible difference. Indeed there have been cases where party A presumed party B was drunk, but they just turned out to be ill.

Don't make an ASS out of U and ME.
 

Harbon 1

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
1,020
Location
Burton on Trent
Ill and drunk, often there is no discernible difference. Indeed there have been cases where party A presumed party B was drunk, but they just turned out to be ill.

Don't make an ASS out of U and ME.

Being drunk causes you to do things that you wouldn't normally do, being ill, your likely to want to sit down somewhere, not perch against the side of a train!
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
Sometimes I hate being honest in any forum as strong feelings are abound, especially in a case like this but as I have said time and time again there would be evidence a plenty as professionals WE have a responsibilty to keep people safe, is it right to a point absolutely NOT. HOWEVER we have the DUTY of Care any railstaff on here will tell you how much it is drummed into us, people get drunk..deal with it, we drink in those same pubs and have got drunk and made a tit of ourselves and regret it in the morning even from a silly age of 16, I Have also stated that I would not allow any of my kids to act like that, but there is still a chance they would do it and god forbid anything like that happening to them, like most guards I dread the weekend and we need eyes in the back of our heads BUT if we do our jobs CORRECTLY and someone gets hurt or worse than WE are protected as WE have followed the rules and DUTY of CARE its when we skip these that we become liable, its not nice and sometimes its not right but the buck stops with US, the sooner we get to grips with that and move on the better
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Be honest - you must realise that your statement saying that the deceased should not be criticised is disingenuous at best, and probably pure nonsense if we want to be straight talking about this (and as ever, I do!)?

Sure, I have to agree that the Guard is responsible. It's just that so was the girl, her mates who allowed her to get into that state, and more widely - society as a whole is to blame.
I didn't say that the girl shouldn't be criticised; I said that she didn't fail any duty of care.

I do not care to get into debates about society. But answer me, have you never been drunk? Have you never done anything stupid that might have led to injury or even death for someone? If so you are a remarkable man (now if you were a woman it wouldn't be quite so remarkable).
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Being drunk causes you to do things that you wouldn't normally do, being ill, your likely to want to sit down somewhere, not perch against the side of a train!
I've been ill and leaned up against the side of a building. Is that really any different to a train? When you are feeling really ill you don't worry what it is you're doing, you just do whatever you have to.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
Nothing in this picture shows that she was remotely leaning against the door.
...

The picture shown was just one frame from a 30sec CCTV clip.

From the DM report in OP:
Mr Johnson (proseucuting QC) played the jury a 30 second CCTV video of Georgia which he claimed shows that she was leaning against the train when it moved out.

Without actually seeing the clip I am not sure that any of us here can say.

What we can say is that the young lady was very sadly killed by the train.

Deep sympathy to all involved in this case.

Regretably it is now common for youngsters to drink and then go out rather than go out and drink. It is a bad indictment on our society that too many both want to and are able to do this. Society needs to somehow deal with this.

I hope that the relatives of the poor girl will in time be able to reconcile a balanced view.

It would be helpful if Merseyrail and (other TOC's) could have an overt plan to deal with drunkenness on The Railway (quite apart from the bye-laws).
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
I didn't say that the girl shouldn't be criticised; I said that she didn't fail any duty of care.

You said 'Only those who have never, ever been drunk could even begin to criticise the poor cow' - I don't think I need to add anything to that.

I do not care to get into debates about society. But answer me, have you never been drunk? Have you never done anything stupid that might have led to injury or even death for someone? If so you are a remarkable man (now if you were a woman it wouldn't be quite so remarkable).

I've never been totally ratarsed. I'm a relative lightweight and accept the fact, so I have my few pints of ale and leave the pub. Simples!

As for not caring to get into debates about society, why not? Maybe, just maybe that's part of the reason this happened. It's easy to bury one's head in the sand and not confront the issues...........
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
Ill and drunk, often there is no discernible difference. Indeed there have been cases where party A presumed party B was drunk, but they just turned out to be ill.

Don't make an ASS out of U and ME.

There are a vast number of conditions that can manifest themselves with the patient simply looking drunk. It makes it hell trying to assess any drunk patient. Not sure how this is all relevant to the discussion though.

The guard, ultimately, has to ensure the safety of passengers. In this case, the right away was given, if I am not mistaken with someone leaning onto or banging the windows of the train. Ultimately, the guard was negligent and ahas to take the rap for it.

It's also true to say that if she wasn't drunk then it may not have happened. But, people get drunk. Regularly. It's not like this was a surprising occurrence.
 

Harbon 1

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
1,020
Location
Burton on Trent
I'm sorry, but that is worse than bollocks. I've been ill and leaned up against the side of a building. Is that really any different to a train? When you are feeling really ill you don't worry what it is you're doing, you just do whatever you have to.

So, if you were ill, you would lean against a train, after all the doors are closed, and the locking lights go off? Buildings don't move, trains do. Would you lean up against the side of a bus or a lorry at a set of lights?
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
There are further details still to come out in the open (Friday I hear when the full RAIB is released).

You would all do well to listen to ANG (first time for everything!).

I can only agree with HH and ANG. Guards - you have nothing to fear if you demonstrate that you work by procedure and in a safe manner consistently. Take short cuts and not work to the rule book, and what could be conceived as a one-off bad call becomes the result of consistent sloppy practice and unsafe working.

From the limited details I've learnt of the case, I agree with the sentence. But there also appears to be a case of bad line management which could be interpreted to have let this bad practice become standard and unchallenged. I certainly wouldn't want to be in MRs offices on Friday...
 

ANorthernGuard

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Messages
2,662
There are further details still to come out in the open (Friday I hear when the full RAIB is released).

You would all do well to listen to ANG (first time for everything!).

I can only agree with HH and ANG. Guards - you have nothing to fear if you demonstrate that you work by procedure and in a safe manner consistently. Take short cuts and not work to the rule book, and what could be conceived as a one-off bad call becomes the result of consistent sloppy practice and unsafe working.

From the limited details I've learnt of the case, I agree with the sentence. But there also appears to be a case of bad line management which could be interpreted to have let this bad practice become standard and unchallenged. I certainly wouldn't want to be in MRs offices on Friday...

I'm opinionated and stand my ground, however when it comes to the rules and regs they are clear. I get paid reasonably well to follow them (which I do 99.5% of the time, the other 0.5% well nobodys perfect), joking apart you follow the rules and regs you are safe, if you don't, enough said.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
So, if you were ill, you would lean against a train, after all the doors are closed, and the locking lights go off? Buildings don't move, trains do. Would you lean up against the side of a bus or a lorry at a set of lights?
Guy, when you're ill you don't think; you do. Just like when you're drunk.
 

Harbon 1

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
1,020
Location
Burton on Trent
Guy, when you're ill you don't think; you do. Just like when you're drunk.

When I'm ill, I still know that a train will move. If I'm ill, I either won't travel, or find a bench to sit on while I'm waiting, if you decided to lean up against A TRAIN because you 'didn't know what you were doing' and your ill, you should probably be in a hospital ward.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
You said 'Only those who have never, ever been drunk could even begin to criticise the poor cow' - I don't think I need to add anything to that.
Well yes you do. I didn't say that she couldn't be criticised, which she clearly could (but it's irrelevant to the case at hand). I was just saying, "Cast out the mote in thine own eye..." to some of the posters in this forum.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When I'm ill, I still know that a train will move. If I'm ill, I either won't travel, or find a bench to sit on while I'm waiting, if you decided to lean up against A TRAIN because you 'didn't know what you were doing' and your ill, you should probably be in a hospital ward.
You probably should. But some people are more ill than others; some may not realise that they're ill.
 
Last edited:

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
So, if you were ill, you would lean against a train, after all the doors are closed, and the locking lights go off? Buildings don't move, trains do. Would you lean up against the side of a bus or a lorry at a set of lights?

Have you seen someone suffering a diabetic 'hypo' (hypoglycemia)? Often the manifestation of that is the appearance of being intoxicated through drink or drugs.

I worked with a diabetic who was badly injured after he walked into traffic. Witnesses thought he was drunk.
 

507 001

Established Member
Joined
3 Dec 2008
Messages
1,855
Location
Huyton
At the end of the day we can't make a proper judgement on whether the sentence was right or wrong till the RAIB report is released.

Personally I don't see how the guard felt it was appropriate to give the RoW when he did, the CCTV shows the girl, fairly obviously leaning or at least touching the train, with the door indicator lights off, with him looking directly at her. Its not as if his view was obscured by anything. At the very least he should have given a stop code on the bell.

Maybe there should be a way for the guard to drop the brakes from his dispatch position? I know that on the heritage railway where I work as a guard the setter has come in handy quite a few times after giving the RoW.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I've edited some posts and deleted some more that were dragging us off topic. Can we please stay on topic from now on as this is something worth discussing in a reasonable manner. Thanks.
 

313103

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2006
Messages
1,595
I can see this thread being locked as it is decending into anarchy. Can we keep to the subject matter in hand rather then have a slanging match?

It is a big issue and deserves more reasoned and rational comment then what is currently going on.

As a Guard myself this a subject quite close to me. The Guard DID do something wrong, he failed to carry out instructions for dispatch of trains. The Girl DID something wrong she got intoxicated and i am sure many of us have been there. We dont know what had gone on before or even if words had been previously exchanged between the two. What we do know is that a Girl is dead, and a member of staff is facing Gaol.

I am hoping that more clearer guidelines come from the Train Operating Companies. A incident like this focuses the mind and makes you think that little bit more. I hope to not be involved in any incident especially where it is something i could have prevented.

Please Guys dont get this thread locked.
 

the sniper

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2007
Messages
3,500
HH, I'm a Guard and agree that this Guard was guilty of the offence, but you're beginning to come across like you're on the wind up.

Have you never done anything stupid that might have led to injury or even death for someone? If so you are a remarkable man (now if you were a woman it wouldn't be quite so remarkable).

No, I haven't to the best of my knowledge. I'm curious to know how you've nearly killed someone though?

I'm sorry, but that is worse than bollocks. I've been ill and leaned up against the side of a building. Is that really any different to a train? When you are feeling really ill you don't worry what it is you're doing, you just do whatever you have to.

Is this a joke? Unless it was some kind of mental illness, I can't envisage that a normal person would just lean against anything, regardless of how dangerous it was. I imagine for most people, if they were so extremely ill that they had no perception of anything going on around them, would just drop to the floor.

Guy, when you're ill you don't think; you do. Just like when you're drunk.

Speak for yourself. If getting drunk or ill really gets you into that kind of state, you should be very, very careful about how you live your life.

Maybe there should be a way for the guard to drop the brakes from his dispatch position? I know that on the heritage railway where I work as a guard the setter has come in handy quite a few times after giving the RoW.

There always is. If dispatching from the cab many units have the emergency brake plunger easily accessible to the Guard while standing at the door, or only a short way away from it. The Guard can also give one on the buzzer to the driver to stop the train.

In the worst case scenario on some units when dispatching from a passenger door where the door panel deactivates over a certain speed (thinking of Class 350), the guard can pull the passcom or egress to stop the train.

EDIT: I'm sure I read somewhere that in this instance that the Guard in question did apply the brakes, presumably when she fell down the gap. Can anyone confirm that?
 
Last edited:

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
It is a safety critical position, and if the guard breached safety then I am sorry to say guilty is the correct outcome. This is obviously subject to the guard undergoing correct training, and mersey rail records showing he has undergone the training.
I have worked in a safety critical position previously and it was made clear to me at start of employment that if the company can evidence I had taken the training, I am personally liable if my error caused any safety issue. The training was highly documented to cover the company back, and so the company would be able to proof they werent liable if i was at fault for an incident
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
At the end of the day we can't make a proper judgement on whether the sentence was right or wrong till the RAIB report is released.
I agree. We also need to bear in mind the offences the Guard was charged with: Manslaughter or Failing to take reasonable care contrary to the Health and Safety at Work Act. The first requires Gross Negligence; the second is a lower duty of care. That's why the second offence was discharged when a guilty verdict was returned on the first offence.

Do those commenting on the condition of the girl really think it's ok to kill or injure someone because they are drunk? Yes, it may not have happened had she been sober but on the facts as presented so far that is irrelevant when considering the actions of the Guard. He was judged as not just failing in his duties, but seriously failing to perform them. To say it serves the girl right because of her condition is no better than the comments made by the family.

The RAIB report may make things clearer. I hope the Guard appeals; this case probably needs that further consideration by a more senior court to ensure that the law is seen to be properly applied.
 

Harbon 1

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
1,020
Location
Burton on Trent
EDIT: I'm sure I read somewhere that in this instance that the Guard in question did apply the brakes, presumably when she fell down the gap. Can anyone confirm that?

I'm sure that will come to light when the RAIB release their report
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do those commenting on the condition of the girl really think it's ok to kill someone because they are drunk?

I don't think anyone here is thinking that. But it was (in my eyes) certainly the girls fault that the incident happened in the first place
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
At the end of the day we can't make a proper judgement on whether the sentence was right or wrong till the RAIB report is released.

Couple of points today (14/11/12) the Jury delivered their verdict, the Judge will pass sentence tomorrow.

The RAIB report will no doubt reveal much information but it is not of significance to the verdict.

The trial was a criminal trial held in the Liverpool Crown Court and the purpose and the nature of the evidence is not the same as the RAIB report. It was for the jury who actually heard all the evidence presented to decide on guilt or innocence not a bunch of railway enthusiasts &/or staff.
 

507 001

Established Member
Joined
3 Dec 2008
Messages
1,855
Location
Huyton
The RAIB report will no doubt reveal much information but it is not of significance to the verdict.

The trial was a criminal trial held in the Liverpool Crown Court and the purpose and the nature of the evidence is not the same as the RAIB report. It was for the jury who actually heard all the evidence presented to decide on guilt or innocence not a bunch of railway enthusiasts &/or staff.

Of course it is of significance to the verdict! I would guess most of what the RAIB report discusses relates directly to the evidence heard in court. Until we read the RAIB report we don't know anything. Just rumours and speculation, therefore we cannot comment on the jury's decision. The RAIB report is the closest we are going to get to reading/seeing the evidence available to the jury.

There's nothing wrong with debating something
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Do those commenting on the condition of the girl really think it's ok to kill or injure someone because they are drunk?
No-one has said that, and no-one killed or injured the girl because she was drunk. It was her actions as the primary cause, combined with the failure of the Guard to act correctly, that caused her death.

Yes, it may not have happened had she been sober but on the facts as presented so far that is irrelevant when considering the actions of the Guard. He was judged as not just failing in his duties, but seriously failing to perform them. To say it serves the girl right because of her condition is no better than the comments made by the family.
Unless I've missed it, no-one has said it "serves the girl right".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top