CPS prosecutes Merseyrail Guard

[Philip Phlopp]

In this case, the jury would be deciding whether other railway guards, faced with the same situation, would act in the same way.

If that is how a guard is trained to do their job, then they would have to do it in the same way, which leads to the obvious conclusion there's no chance of a conviction, it's a waste of taxpayers money, and CPS are not competent to be doing this anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A reasonable person would, in all honestly, do as they've been trained and instructed to do by their employer, who holds a passenger train operating licence and who has been assessed as being competent to hold that licence by the regulator of the railways.

And that is the "reasonable person" test that the jury will be considering when they come to decide on this case, should it get to trial. It isn't "man off the street", it is "trained and qualified person for that role".

If the evidence is that a competent guard would have done the same thing the the guard will be acquitted.

If the evidence is that a competent guard would not have done the same thing then the guard will be convicted.

I don't want workers being injured or killed, passengers being dragged under trains or significant damage to the railway itself occurring because our staff are dodging the CPS Perry Mason squad, and doing things in a way which is unsafe but keeps the CPS happy.

The CPS, when deciding whether to prosecute, must pay regard to whether the evidence they have gives them a reasonable chance of conviction. In a case like this some of that evidence would be an expert view on the situation.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If that is how a guard is trained to do their job, then they would have to do it in the same way, which leads to the obvious conclusion there's no chance of a conviction

If the guard did nothing wrong, fully following his training at every stage, he will be acquitted.

For the CPS to decide to prosecute there must be evidence that it isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to be saying.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If the guard did nothing wrong, fully following his training at every stage, he will be acquitted.

For the CPS to decide to prosecute there must be evidence that it isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to be saying.

The TOC are quite convinced he followed his training to the letter, the union you can take with a pinch of salt, but to have the full legal support of your employer in this case is indicative of how badly wrong the CPS have got this matter.

I must find out if they've got a professional report and who wrote it, because in light of Mark Whitby's behaviour concerning the Ordsall Chord, I'd be enormously wary of professional reports being worth the paper they're written on.

 

[misterredmist]

poor Guy, it's the passenger that requires prosecution not the employee

and some of the comedians in the CPS should be sacked , they have rapidly become a laughing stock...........

 

[Domh245]

It added: “Criminal proceedings are active and Mr Zee has the right to a fair trial, therefore, it is extremely important that there should be no commentary or reporting which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

Seeing as Mr Zee isn't due in court until the 28th, I fear that until then we may just be going round in circles, again.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The TOC are quite convinced he followed his training to the letter, the union you can take with a pinch of salt, but to have the full legal support of your employer in this case is indicative of how badly wrong the CPS have got this matter.

And if that is the case then the guard will be acquitted.

None of us on here know what really happened. All we know is that an 89-year-old woman suffered serious head injuries after falling between the train and platform, possibly as the doors were closing. It will be the court that will decide based on the actual evidence, not preconceptions or guesses about what may or may not have happened.

The CPS must have some evidence to show things aren't as clear cut as you make out, otherwise they would not either not be prosecuting or (if it was the procedure itself at fault) would be prosecuting Merseyrail under health and safety legislation.

My point is not to say that the CPS are right to prosecute (I don't know, all I know is what was in the Echo) but that they wouldn't be prosecuting if it was all as cut and dried as many on here (who know as much as I do) seem to be saying.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seeing as Mr Zee isn't due in court until the 28th, I fear that until then we may just be going round in circles, again.

Well quite.

Let's wait and see what the evidence is before we start calling for the CPS prosecutor's head on a spike...

 

[DarloRich]

If the CPS don't believe the dispatch procedure is correct, it's something they need to take up with the ORR and the licence holder (MerseyRail), not some poor guard who was doing everything he was told to do by his employers, who in turn were doing everything required of them by ORR.

There's a very real risk that train operating procedure is going to be dictated by the CPS and the requirements they're effectively setting to avoid prosecution, rather than appropriate, safe procedures as drawn up by people who actually know what they're doing.

Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with the above the key phrase is here is wilful omission or neglect. That is a slightly different thing to saying the operating procedures are flawed.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with the above the key phrase is here is wilful omission or neglect. That is a slightly different thing to saying the operating procedures are flawed.

If there's wilful omission or neglect, MerseyRail should know about it, there should be disciplinary procedures, and if there isn't, ORR should be investigating as to why a TOC is allowing wilful omission or neglect without taking action against the member of staff AND supporting wilful omission or neglect by supporting the member of staff in the court.

What's happening, and what lots of people on the railway are uneasy with, is the hidden conflict between TOC, ORR and CPS - TOC and/or ORR not taking action which they would need to take it CPS are right, CPS taking action they shouldn't be taking if TOC and/or ORR are correct.

 

[najaB]

The union should be supporting their member, regardless of whether they think the member is in the right or in the wrong. I wouldn't read anything into it.

If there was clear evidence of wrongdoing I don't believe the union would back him - certainly not as strongly as they have. It isn't in the best interest of the rest of members to defend the indefensible.

The purpose of a union is to defend and promote the rights of workers who are doing their job correctly, not to promote incompetence.

 

[Don King]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-due-court-after-10750754

Merseyrail guard due in court after passenger, 89, fell off Hamilton Square platform

A railway worker has been ordered to appear before a court after an 89-year-old passenger suffered head injures when she fell off the platform.

Merseyrail train guard Martin Zee, 32, faces a charge of endangering railway passengers by wilful omission or neglect, which can mean up to two years in jail if he is found guilty.

The passenger also suffered four broken ribs after losing her balance while trying to board the train at Wirral’s Hamilton Square station as the doors were closing, falling between the carriage and platform edge.

The RMT railway workers’ union, which is paying Zee’s legal fees, previously criticised the decision to bring charges against him.

The union said Zee was cleared by a Merseyrail safety probe after the incident in July last year.....

Good luck to Merseyside guard Martin Zee over this disgraceful prosecution. If he is found guilty then all staff are at serious risk of unemployment / prison every time someone behaves like an idiot by the platform.

 

[fishquinn]

For goodness sake! It's obviously the passengers fault at getting on the train as the doors were closing! Good luck to the guard and I have to say that the people who thought that this was the guards fault really need to get a brain.

 

[exile]

For goodness sake! It's obviously the passengers fault at getting on the train as the doors were closing! Good luck to the guard and I have to say that the people who thought that this was the guards fault really need to get a brain.

Let's see what evidence is given in court, shall we?

 

[Domh245]

Let's see what evidence is given in court, shall we?

Quite, the thread has been closed a few times because of the somewhat circular nature of the arguments. People argue that if anything Merseyrail should be prosecuted, others say lets wait till we hear the facts, others point out that discussing the case whilst it is ongoing is a bit of a legal grey area, repeated ad infinitum.

I hope that the outcome is good, and that we all learn something from it, and I will leave it at that.

 

[harz99]

Am I the only person wondering if the age of the lady involved (89), may have had a bearing on why the accident happened at all?

 

[455driver]

Am I the only person wondering if the age of the lady involved (89), may have had a bearing on why the accident happened at all?

No you are not but you are not allowed to mention it in case you are branded being ageist.

 

[matchmaker]

No you are not but you are not allowed to mention it in case you are branded being ageist.

Exactly!

 

[hounddog]

Am I the only person wondering if the age of the lady involved (89), may have had a bearing on why the accident happened at all?

Are you arguing for or against the guard there?

 

[455driver]

Are you arguing for or against the guard there?

I think he is stating that this (pathetic) prosecution wouldn't be happening if the injured person was several years younger.

 

[ComUtoR]

I think he is stating that this (pathetic) prosecution wouldn't be happening if the injured person was several years younger.

A person several years younger would have jammed something (probably hands) into the doors and prevented them from closing. The Guard would not have got interlock and another door mech breaks even further.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

As an active guard/train manager/conductor of a northern TOC I steadfastly refused to be a union member as a result of my belief the representative for York had his own agenda at heart over the needs of the people he represented, and because i believed the actions of the one represented that of the union he represented I refused to join until he was outed. However, this case has scared me to the core. Unlike James Street, or Newcastle, this guy was acknowleged by RAIB to have done nothing wrong, yet still faces prosecution.

Why arent the actions of the individual not taken into account? I have seen first hand, and been held accountable for the actions of people who cannot simply board a train in the correct and safe manner. I have refused travel for the same, and yet its through nothing I have done but for the simple lack of connon sense we do not hold as individuals these days as a result of promotion of the rights and not the responsibilities that go with those rights....

As I have said often on this forum before.....

 

[HLE]

Well I for one wish him the very best of luck today. Quite why he needs luck is another matter....

 

[185]

However, this case has scared me to the core. Unlike James Street, or Newcastle, this guy was acknowleged by RAIB to have done nothing wrong, yet still faces prosecution.

I've (myself) directly pressed the RAIB, asking for their assessment of this incident, earlier this month. They have explained that under the set levels of incident criteria, this one falls outside of the (upper) levels of incident they deal with. In laymans terms, the incident was not deemed serious enough (involving the normal movement of trains, found to be in safe working order) for them to become involved.

In my opinion, that alone should have been enough for the CPS to have backed off.

Further, I emailed a manager from CPS North West to explain why they were proceeding with a case when another public, (government) body have effectively stated the train was in working order. They stated they obviously do not comment on individual cases but.... generally must bring a case when it is in the public interests of justice.

My head hurts.

 

[PHILIPE]

Learnt from another Forum referred up to Crown Court. Have the CPS got any Rail expertise within their ranks ?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

There are a lot of rail staff watching this very closely. The implications of this will be far reaching......

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Learnt from another Forum referred up to Crown Court. Have the CPS got any Rail expertise within their ranks ?

Rail expertise ? I'm not convinced they've got any legal expertise. They might get on better at Zippo's circus. Their recent rank incompetence frightens me.

There's a strikingly parallel case from earlier this week, where the CPS took a consultant and his NHS authority to court for manslaughter by gross negligence and corporate manslaughter, respectively. The judge took one look at it and dismissed it, with the CPS deciding not to appeal.

The judge's considered the consultant's actions to be "as far removed from a case of gross negligence manslaughter as it's possible to be" and that there was "no case to answer".

That case once again raises the question about why MerseyRail hasn't been prosecuted.

 

[DarloRich]

Rail expertise ? I'm not convinced they've got any legal expertise. They might get on better at Zippo's circus. Their recent rank incompetence frightens me.

Although, of course, successfully putting away criminals and scum bags on a daily basis doesn't make quite as juicy reading does it?

There's a strikingly parallel case from earlier this week, where the CPS took a consultant and his NHS authority to court for manslaughter by gross negligence and corporate manslaughter, respectively. The judge took one look at it and dismissed it, with the CPS deciding not to appeal.

The judge's considered the consultant's actions to be "as far removed from a case of gross negligence manslaughter as it's possible to be" and that there was "no case to answer".

We must hope for the same here.

Whilst I do not agree with you that criminal liability should be absolved via contributory negligence of the victim ( unless gross), following orders or having the acts in question cleared by a civil, non guilt finding, governmental body I do agree that this guard, on the face of it, seems to greatly put upon and unjustly treated.

I hope he is released from this ordeal ASAP. The alternative is greatly concerning for all who work under an assumed safe system of work.

That case once again raises the question about why MerseyRail hasn't been prosecuted.

Agreed - Is it easier to make personal liability stick?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Although, of course, successfully putting away criminals and scum bags on a daily basis doesn't make quite as juicy reading does it?

I'd question how competent they are at doing that, plenty of friends in the police service astonished at what the CPS decides to prosecute and more importantly, what (and who) they fail to prosecute.

They're frequently left with the impression some cases are only pursued so their friends in the legal system can earn legal aid fees, others are dropped purely because they're too difficult and silly cases are taken forward for reputation building (or destroying) reasons.

If you have the misfortune to attend A.N University with a Faculty of Law, you'll know full well some of the snake oil salesmen who are attracted to law, they're some of the people who are playing the legal system for all they can get out of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A wider point, but is there merit (politically) in abolishing the CPS entirely and having the Police take on the role?

 

[Oswyntail]

A wider point, but is there merit (politically) in abolishing the CPS entirely and having the Police take on the role?

No. Even if the CPS are a bunch of muppets, the competence and reliability of the police frequently makes them look like consummate professionals.

 

[najaB]

A wider point, but is there merit (politically) in abolishing the CPS entirely and having the Police take on the role?

No. Crime detection and prosecution of crime should be separate functions. The police should investigate all crime reports, regardless of if they are likely to result in a prosecution. If they were also responsible for deciding which cases are to be prosecuted they might well be accused of only investing detection resources into the cases that they feel are 'worth' a prosecution.