Incident at Wandsworth Common 07/08/16

[SteveT]

Unless you think there is some secret cabal with nr, hsea, orr, dft and uncle tom cobley designed to upset enthusiasts!

No...but for all the efforts that some make for the charter business there will be others who, lacking in imagination, will regard it as a nuisance, upsetting their tidy order.

I'm sure most forum members have worked for an organisation that has at some time had big disagreements over certain practices. In this story there's more than one agency involved.

 

[Phoon]

An extremely sad day for the railway as an individual has been killed as a result of what is believed to have been window hanging from a Class 442 EMU, allegedly striking a piece of infrastructure.

I don't wish to be disrespectful but bringing this to attention as a warning to others to please be careful!

I remember once, when I was much younger I put my head out a window and saw a sign or something an inch away from my head and ducked back in just in time...

 

[Taunton]

I am sorry but you are not. You are utterly clueless, especially in the operation of the law.

I have quite a lot of legal background and education, and work with legal documents and legal teams daily. By the way, they think the judgement is quite inappropriate as well, but tell me this sort of hyper fine is the current fashion.

I shall inform them all that they are utterly clueless as well.

 

[mmh]

No...but for all the efforts that some make for the charter business there will be others who, lacking in imagination, will regard it as a nuisance, upsetting their tidy order.

I'm sure most forum members have worked for an organisation that has at some time had big disagreements over certain practices. In this story there's more than one agency involved.

And none of them are a charter operator.

I'm not sure I understand why the thread has gone off on a tangent about charter trains. It feels a little inappropriate - are there any indications that charter trains will stop as a result of this tragic accident that aren't individual speculation? Perhaps discussion about charters would be better in a new thread.

 

[Bromley boy]

By the way, they think the judgement is quite inappropriate as well, but tell me this sort of hyper fine is the current fashion.

Inappropriate in the sense that it is legally incorrect? I doubt it.

 

[BRX]

Inappropriate in the sense that it is legally incorrect? I doubt it.

There's not really such a thing as a "legally correct" judgement is there? It's all, by definition, a matter of judgement. When you are talking about things like "reasonable steps" there is no clear cut right and wrong but a continuum of opinion. A different court might have come to a slightly (or even substantially) different conclusion.

 

[Bromley boy]

There's not really such a thing as a "legally correct" judgement is there? It's all, by definition, a matter of judgement. When you are talking about things like "reasonable steps" there is no clear cut right and wrong but a continuum of opinion. A different court might have come to a slightly (or even substantially) different conclusion.

There most certainly is such a thing as “legally correct”. Otherwise the legal system would be completely arbitrary!

The offence will have been proved and the fine levied certainly won’t have been plucked out of thin air. It will have been decided in accordance with relevant guidelines and precedent.

 

[DarloRich]

I have quite a lot of legal background and education, and work with legal documents and legal teams daily. By the way, they think the judgement is quite inappropriate as well, but tell me this sort of hyper fine is the current fashion.

I shall inform them all that they are utterly clueless as well.

Please do. I am comfortable with my view and my experience of the law. Perhaps you could use your legal expertise and explain why this judgement is incorrect quoting statue, procedural or evidental failures or perhaps you could ask your legal team for the precedent upon which they base their view that this judgement is "inappropriate". I am sure you are talking to people experienced in dealing with cases in this area of law rather than, say, a contacting specialist.

I maintain your posts show no understanding of the law in this case. Your entire argument seems to be, essentially, because trains

Inappropriate in the sense that it is legally incorrect? I doubt it.

Correct: There is a view the fine is excessive, which considering the size and financial status of the defendant I do not agree with. However the law has been correctly applied in this case. The issue is many commenting don't actually understand the law they are commenting on!

 

[Taunton]

There most certainly is such a thing as “legally correct”. Otherwise the legal system would be completely arbitrary!

No, it's only a passing phase. An appeal commonly finds the opposite. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as an appeal.

 

[Bromley boy]

No, it's only a passing phase. An appeal commonly finds the opposite. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as an appeal.

But an appeal will only succeed if the original judgement was legally or factually incorrect, ie the original judge erred in law or procedure, or some new evidence has come to light that wasn’t previously available.

Are people on here saying that the judgement in this case was legally incorrect? I strongly doubt that it was.

 

[Taunton]

Perhaps you could use your legal expertise and explain why this judgement is incorrect quoting statue, procedural or evidental failures !

Well you could start with the Elsenham accident where the case was against the infrastructure provider, not the TOC, the reverse of here, and ask the CPS to justify why they had not gone for Network Rail this time. The Elsenham crossing gates were to spec of the time, although that was found wanting. The signal gantry at Wandsworth was out of spec. At Elsenham the TOC had set up a stupid and obviously hazardous ticketing arrangement to save money (immediately rectified after the accident) but were not touched.

 

[SteveT]

I'm not sure I understand why the thread has gone off on a tangent about charter trains. It feels a little inappropriate - are there any indications that charter trains will stop as a result of this tragic accident that aren't individual speculation? Perhaps discussion about charters would be better in a new thread.

The discussion of charter trains is entirely relevant given that the ORR ruling will apply to rolling stock used for charter trains and might well price some of the operators out of business.

And none of them are a charter operator.

This certainly is irrelevant to my general observation about professional disagreement.

 

[Bromley boy]

Well you could start with the Elsenham accident where the case was against the infrastructure provider, not the TOC, the reverse of here, and ask the CPS to justify why they had not gone for Network Rail this time. The Elsenham crossing gates were to spec of the time, although that was found wanting. The signal gantry at Wandsworth was out of spec. At Elsenham the TOC had set up a stupid and obviously hazardous ticketing arrangement to save money (immediately rectified after the accident) but were not touched.

But, unless I’m missing something, none of the above sheds any light on whether the judgement in the case we are currently discussing was legally correct or not.

 

[DarloRich]

Well you could start with the Elsenham accident where the case was against the infrastructure provider, not the TOC, the reverse of here, and ask the CPS to justify why they had not gone for Network Rail this time. The Elsenham crossing gates were to spec of the time, although that was found wanting. The signal gantry at Wandsworth was out of spec. At Elsenham the TOC had set up a stupid and obviously hazardous ticketing arrangement to save money (immediately rectified after the accident) but were not touched.

Honestly? is that your argument? NR were not prosecuted in relation to Wandsworth because they were not primarily at fault. The primary duty of care rested with GTR. GTR were at fault. It was their responsibility to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent someone from being able to lean out of the train window. They failed to do so. Any issue with NR was secondary to that failing. The failing of GTR led to the death.

At Elsenham the duty of care rested with NR. The failing was with NR. The gates might have been up to code of some such nonsense but that is for nothing if that code or procedure is found legally wanting.

This is not a new concept. It really isn't.

 

[BRX]

Honestly? is that your argument? NR were not prosecuted in relation to Wandsworth because they were not primarily at fault. The primary duty of care rested with GTR. GTR were at fault. It was their responsibility to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent someone from being able to lean out of the train window. They failed to do so. Any issue with NR was secondary to that failing. The failing of GTR led to the death.

At Elsenham the duty of care rested with NR. The failing was with NR. The gates might have been up to code of some such nonsense but that is for nothing if that code or procedure is found legally wanting.

This is not a new concept. It really isn't.

What's the process to determine who is primarily at fault in such scenarios? Is it possible to determine this without anyone's opinion or subjective judgement coming into it?

 

[mmh]

What's the process to determine who is primarily at fault in such scenarios? Is it possible to determine this without anyone's opinion or subjective judgement coming into it?

Clearly it's for the regulatory authorities and/or courts to decide. What other way could or should it be?

 

[DarloRich]

What's the process to determine who is primarily at fault in such scenarios? Is it possible to determine this without anyone's opinion or subjective judgement coming into it?

Try Donoghue v Stevenson of 1932 as a starting point.

 

[bb21]

We're off on a tangent and I think all that needs to be said about the incident has been said already.

Anyone wanting to discuss a separate topic please open a new thread.