Man who died after restraint by Metrolink contracted security staff is ruled to have been unlawfully killed.

[rg177]

I'm not entirely sure why they thought it appropriate to even chase the bloke across Manchester in the first place.

Preventing travel and getting them off Metrolink property is one thing but this guy ran away. Surely that's the immediate issue resolved and the police can be contacted? Yes they were assaulted by a bag but it's hardly a serious incident?

Giving chase is only opening staff up to further harm as well. Why on earth you'd then go one step further and restrain him when your own life is absolutely not in danger is another thing.

The fact that its then caused this man to die is absolutely disgraceful. How they've managed to avoid facing any charges at all is baffling.

 

[43066]

It is perfectly acceptable. You can use as much force as you genuinely believe (crucially, even if it is later proven to be an incorrect, but truly held belief), to be necessary, including intentionally killing that person if you believe that was what it took to defend yourself or prevent other harms. However, I cannot see that anybody would have intentionally tried to even cause minor harm, never mind death. I suspect that the real aim was to detain the suspect.

I wouldn’t like to be the defendant in a murder case, pleading not guilty by reason of self defence, explaining to the jury that I’d chased the bloke for ten minutes in a taxi before killing him. As for detaining him, where was the need? Surely calling the police would have been sufficient for most reasonable people.

Again, don't judge other people by what you would do in unique and stressful circumstances.

Speaking honestly, in that situation I’d have lamped the bloke immediately. But I have the good sense to moderate my base instincts when I’m at work - and I’m not a professional security guard!

reventing travel and getting them off Metrolink property is one thing but this guy ran away. Surely that's the immediate issue resolved and the police can be contacted? Yes they were assaulted by a bag but it's hardly a serious incident?

Giving chase is only opening staff up to further harm as well. Why on earth you'd then go one step further and restrain him when your own life is absolutely not in danger is another thing.

Completely agree.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I'm not entirely sure why they thought it appropriate to even chase the bloke across Manchester in the first place.

Preventing travel and getting them off Metrolink property is one thing but this guy ran away. Surely that's the immediate issue resolved and the police can be contacted? Yes they were assaulted by a bag but it's hardly a serious incident?

Giving chase is only opening staff up to further harm as well. Why on earth you'd then go one step further and restrain him when your own life is absolutely not in danger is another thing.

The fact that its then caused this man to die is absolutely disgraceful. How they've managed to avoid facing any charges at all is baffling.

100% this. Once the group left the station, they were no longer the problem of Metrolink staff and the police should've been contacted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Preventing travel and getting them off Metrolink property is one thing but this guy ran away. Surely that's the immediate issue resolved and the police can be contacted?

Agreed. This strikes me as the fisticuffs version of shooting a burglar in the back as they run away - something that definitely will have you up for murder (or attempted murder, as appropriate) in the UK.

Speaking honestly, in that situation I’d have lamped the bloke immediately. But I have the good sense to moderate my base instincts when I’m at work - and I’m not a professional security guard!

I think calling a lot of security guards "professional" is often pushing the definition - they are so much more so in mainland Europe.

But that aside, hitting someone who is a threat to you is probably reasonable force - chasing after them when they run away rather less so.

 

[Hey 3]

Makes sobering reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-56203332

This is just stupidty from the GMP, a bit of a comparable example is George Floyd, and why would Metrolink staff run down Deansgate?

 

[backontrack]

This is murder.

 

[Hey 3]

This is murder.

Agreed and it was not justified.

 

[backontrack]

Agreed and it was not justified.

Of course. Murder never is.

 

[Mojo]

This case does seem to give a prime example of the reason security staff in the UK so often get referred to as "rent-a-thugs". For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case in other European countries, there does seem to be a much higher level of professionalism.

Agreed, although we seem (rightly so in my opinion) to not give private security guards any kind of equipment unlike other countries - I’ve seen one or two of the “street warden” types with handcuffs but that’s it.

Remember being on a Renfe Cercanías train in Spain meanwhile where a security guard boarded with a gun clipped to his belt and a scary looking dog patrolling alongside him!

 

[ExRes]

This is just stupidty from the GMP, a bit of a comparable example is George Floyd, and why would Metrolink staff run down Deansgate?

What do the GMP have to do with this case?

 

[Hey 3]

What do the GMP have to do with this case?

Ah, I misunderstood, they have nothing to do with it, it is Metrolink that has though.

 

[185]

Have asked the moderators to amend the thread title to reflect that the staff involved were
- Security Employees of the Metrolink-contracted firm "Palladium Associates Limited" and not Metrolink CSRs.

- The real Metrolink CSRs were subject to an enhanced DBS check at the time of the incident and subject to a hands off policy.

- Palladium staff were not subject to any "hands off walk away policy" at the time of the incident. Part of the investigation may find the policy the Palladium Security staff were (allegedly) subject to was introduced the day after the incident with a somewhat inaccurate date on the document.

- 'Turn up and work' Palladium were also observed filling in application forms several hours into their first shifts. TfGM's manager however, responding to CSRs concerns at the time of Palladium's contract starting claimed those staff would "all be SIA badged and come from the security industry".

As usual, totally reactionary and after the event, TfGM then announced weeks after the death, that their decision to remove the Metrolink GM Police Unit made in 2008 would be u-turned and reintroduced as the Transport Security Unit of GM Police. Bit late.

 

[PG]

Have asked the moderators to amend the thread title to reflect that the staff involved were
- Security Employees of the Metrolink-contracted firm "Palladium Associates Limited" and not Metrolink CSRs.

I wonder if Palladium Associates Limited (PAL) may have some questions to answer? Of course they may manage to avoid doing so...

As an aside, I note that one individual is both the secretary and sole director and owns 75% (or more) of the shares in PAL. Said individual also is a director of another 14 companies; is a designated member of a Limited Liability Partnership and lists their occupation as a Solicitor.

 

[scrapy]

Agreed, although we seem (rightly so in my opinion) to not give private security guards any kind of equipment unlike other countries - I’ve seen one or two of the “street warden” types with handcuffs but that’s it.

Remember being on a Renfe Cercanías train in Spain meanwhile where a security guard boarded with a gun clipped to his belt and a scary looking dog patrolling alongside him!

I've seen somebody jump the ticket barriers on the Palma Mallorca metro only to be taken to the ground and given a beating with batons once on the floor by 2 security guards (may have been cops, they dress similar). Locals just walked on as it seemed a normal everyday occurrence. Didn't look exactly professional but was probably a good deterrent. I know if that happened here it would be (rightly) deemed wrong and straight on social media, so I don't think we can say everything is so much better in Europe.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

I've seen somebody jump the ticket barriers on the Palma Mallorca metro only to be taken to the ground and given a beating with batons once on the floor by 2 security guards (may have been cops, they dress similar). Locals just walked on as it seemed a normal everyday occurrence. Didn't look exactly professional but was probably a good deterrent. I know if that happened here it would be (rightly) deemed wrong and straight on social media, so I don't think we can say everything is so much better in Europe.

There are doubtless numerous examples of overseas security personnel (both Police and private) being harsher in their approach than their British counterparts as the local laws allow them to. As an example I well remember being on a local train in Cape Town when the revenue inspectors got on to check tickets. By the end of the inspection I was the only person left in my carriage, the others being without valid tickets so were removed and held on the platform. Doubtless the fact that the revenue inspectors openly carried guns helped with quiet alighting of said passengers.

The key point here is, however, were the Metrolink staff acting within British law and the norms this creates. In Britain passengers are more likely to ignore a barrier jumping far evader and not expect revenue staff to do what happened on the Palma metro, simply because it is the norm here that revenue staff are not issued with weapons of any description.

 

[greyman42]

How they've managed to avoid facing any charges at all is baffling.

Should the CPS not have to explain itself in cases such as this?

 

[43066]

I think calling a lot of security guards "professional" is often pushing the definition - they are so much more so in mainland Europe.

Agreed.

I always respect people for doing any job they can in order to earn a living (especially at the moment), but security guarding does seem to attract a certain “type”...

 

[GB]

Lots of emotive language being used here. Given that none of us are privy to the investigation and what evidence there is (or isn't), I am not sure how anyone on here can categorically state this was "murder".

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Should the CPS not have to explain itself in cases such as this?

Absolutely not.

Any person, including yourself, is free to commence their own private prosecution if you think there's sufficient evidence and a realistic prospect of conviction.

I am sure the family of the deceased will already be looking into that, but I doubt their legal advisors will reach a different opinion.

 

[ta-toget]

Absolutely not.

Any person, including yourself, is free to commence their own private prosecution if you think there's sufficient evidence and a realistic prospect of conviction.

I am sure the family of the deceased will already be looking into that, but I doubt their legal advisors will reach a different opinion.

I note that the CPS apparently there was "not sufficient evidence to prosecute", and I don't really see what more information they could give by way of explanation. The article also quotes the CPS as saying that they will review / are reviewing the Coroner's verdict.

I am of the opinion that the incident should never have happened. There was a level of aggression displayed by the act of pursuing the now deceased that I consider to be unacceptable. I wonder if charges could be more easily proven of some form of harm/assault rather than manslaughter/murder if these are not considered sufficiently provable.

 

[bramling]

I note that the CPS apparently there was "not sufficient evidence to prosecute", and I don't really see what more information they could give by way of explanation. The article also quotes the CPS as saying that they will review / are reviewing the Coroner's verdict.

I am of the opinion that the incident should never have happened. There was a level of aggression displayed by the act of pursuing the now deceased that I consider to be unacceptable. I wonder if charges could be more easily proven of some form of harm/assault rather than manslaughter/murder if these are not considered sufficiently provable.

Yes it’s ridiculous that he was chased. A group was formed up, which then pursued him from one side of Manchester city centre to the other. Whilst that isn’t strictly connected to what ultimately killed him, it doesn’t look good, especially when it’s quite clear he was running away.

To be brutally honest it doesn’t come across much different to when a pack of dogs home in on something like a rabbit. No wonder Metrolink are distancing themselves from it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes it’s ridiculous that he was chased. A group was formed up, which then pursued him from one side of Manchester city centre to the other. Whilst that isn’t strictly connected to what ultimately killed him, it doesn’t look good, especially when it’s quite clear he was running away.

To be brutally honest it doesn’t come across much different to when a pack of dogs home in on something like a rabbit. No wonder Metrolink are distancing themselves from it.

Well, quite. As a bare minimum they should certainly be sacked and be banned from holding an SIA licence permanently. This is all very much like the kind of corrupt, thuggish, misbehaving door industry that used to exist (even more so) before SIA. Interestingly Manchester piloted the SIA concept, with "Manchester DoorSafe" in the 1990s.

But the whole thing smacks of the US Police incident of putting knees on mens' necks.

 

[talltim]

Does anyone know why it’s taken so long to hold the inquest?

 

[185]

Notable that TfGM have categorically stated that the staff were not following procedure.

Upon being hired, there was mention, by bosses from both Metrolink TfGM of Palladium Security being hired with the specific intention of them being hands on to tackle a surge in staff assaults.

(amended)

 

[bramling]

Well, quite. As a bare minimum they should certainly be sacked and be banned from holding an SIA licence permanently. This is all very much like the kind of corrupt, thuggish, misbehaving door industry that used to exist (even more so) before SIA. Interestingly Manchester piloted the SIA concept, with "Manchester DoorSafe" in the 1990s.

But the whole thing smacks of the US Police incident of putting knees on mens' necks.

Manchester does seem to have a bit of a culture of more-aggressive-than-average security staff, IME.

Some of the revenue at Piccadilly have certainly come across as pretty aggressive at times. It’s curious how London seems to avoid much of this, most of the London termini are pretty relaxed by comparison (Euston ticket inspections aside?!).

Having said that, the worst “security” I’ve encountered has been Glasgow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of the revenue at Piccadilly have certainly come across as pretty aggressive at times. It’s curious how London seems to avoid much of this, most of the London termini are pretty relaxed by comparison (Euston ticket inspections aside?!).

London barrier staff are generally TOC employees, aren't they? That said I have at times noticed an underlying tone of aggression in some Southern and Southeastern barrier staff that appears not to exist on the LNR side of things. I wouldn't even say that the "problem" Virgin/Avanti staff are aggressive, they're just incompetent/poorly-trained and so refuse travel for spurious reasons at times.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I note that the CPS apparently there was "not sufficient evidence to prosecute", and I don't really see what more information they could give by way of explanation. The article also quotes the CPS as saying that they will review / are reviewing the Coroner's verdict.

I am of the opinion that the incident should never have happened. There was a level of aggression displayed by the act of pursuing the now deceased that I consider to be unacceptable. I wonder if charges could be more easily proven of some form of harm/assault rather than manslaughter/murder if these are not considered sufficiently provable.

Chasing an offender is not aggression. It is lawful, and we even have explicit statutory rights to allow (forceful) detention by the public. It rests on what happened when they caught up with him, and the reason they felt it was necessary to chase.

I maintain that there is a very wide gap between what you as an individual might do in a situation (and what might be the most sensible thing to most people) and what is permitted by law.

There are a variety of alternative offences which could have been utilised in this case. The fact none whatsoever have been charged with any offences, as far as we know, suggests that either a tragic accident occurred or what they did was perfectly lawful, if perhaps unwise.

Anyone who thinks the CPS just rubber stamps a decision not to prosecute a death is in fantasy world. The CPS is heavily flawed in many ways, but this particular incident will have been through several reviews at a variety of seniority levels, conferences with the police, conferences with pathologists/medical professionals, interaction with the family of the deceased, and more than likely interaction with the solicitors of the security guards.

Anyone who disagrees with the decision to not prosecute using public funds can bring, and fund, their own private prosecution.

 

[AlterEgo]

Lots of emotive language being used here. Given that none of us are privy to the investigation and what evidence there is (or isn't), I am not sure how anyone on here can categorically state this was "murder".

Quite.
Whatever happened was outrageous and wrong but I am surprised the CPS haven’t charged anyone with this.

 

[185]

As stated above the person owning Palladium is a solicitor. He was the lawyer in the McCanns v Northern & Shell Media (aka Daily Star, Express) successful libel case.

Would not be surprised if the CPS are treading very carefully to avoid any loopholes being created by errors in investigation.

 

[ta-toget]

Does anyone know why it’s taken so long to hold the inquest?

The inquest can only be held when the Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed it does not intend to prosecute, and then it was schedules for early last year, but was delayed (part way through, I think) until this year due to you-know-what.

---

edit:

Chasing an offender is not aggression. It is lawful, and we even have explicit statutory rights to allow (forceful) detention by the public. It rests on what happened when they caught up with him, and the reason they felt it was necessary to chase.

I maintain that there is a very wide gap between what you as an individual might do in a situation (and what might be the most sensible thing to most people) and what is permitted by law.

There are a variety of alternative offences which could have been utilised in this case. The fact none whatsoever have been charged with any offences, as far as we know, suggests that either a tragic accident occurred or what they did was perfectly lawful, if perhaps unwise.

Anyone who thinks the CPS just rubber stamps a decision not to prosecute a death is in fantasy world. The CPS is heavily flawed in many ways, but this particular incident will have been through several reviews at a variety of seniority levels, conferences with the police, conferences with pathologists/medical professionals, interaction with the family of the deceased, and more than likely interaction with the solicitors of the security guards.

Anyone who disagrees with the decision to not prosecute using public funds can bring, and fund, their own private prosecution.

Chasing someone is aggression. It may be legal or it may be illegal, but that does not change the fact that it is aggression. It was not unprovoked aggression, but it was arguably unnecessary. Especially so given that the staff were acting under the policy of not pursuing people outside of the platform. The fact that two of them got into a taxi shows a level of premeditation, and they could have just called the Police, especially since the incident that led to the chasing was them accosting the now deceased following an earlier altercation.