Merseyrail Guard on Trial

[185]

This was raised today in our work, over a platform edge vs person fatality three months ago, in that case it was a service arriving into a station... concerns were raised about 'what next.... could a driver be prosecuted for not anticipating a passenger falling off the edge as you approach?'

Much in our dumb legal system nowadays is not about common sense but 'legal precedents' and case law citings of irrelevent junk like 'Potato Factory v Smith, 1881'.

...and crucially, this sets a precedent.

As I mentioned earlier, the RAIB report has legal standing and much off it could be used against the CPS's arguments which I feel were quite ill-informed and unfair. The CPS's desperation to secure a conviction does seem to have gone too far here.

The RAIB have a requirement to objective and fair, and I wonder if their report makes recommendations about the company's own current station procedure rules.

 

[Mojo]

Hate to bring it up but what are going to be the implications for DOO? Once past the mirror/monitor how is the driver going to know what has happened? Surely that potentially makes any DOO dispatch potentially dangerous going from this case?

Surely it's not just DOO; there are plenty of trains where guards dispatch from a passenger door which is interlocked and thus cannot see the full length of the train (e.g. Pacers, Pendolinos, Voyagers, etc.)

On the Underground, where trains are fitted with in-cab CCTV, the Train Operator can view images from the OPO (One Person Operation) platform CCTV cameras whilst the train is pulling out of the platform. There is also a rule that whilst still in station limits, if the train stops and the train operator cannot view the entire platform-train interface then a member of staff must also be provided to perform assisted dispatch.

I know that some Bombardier stock is fitted with bodyside cameras for use during DOO self-dispatch but I've heard that they switch off above a certain speed?

 

[SWTCommuter]

Have there been any moves to prosecute those who supplied her with so much alcohol or is the guard going to have to take all the blame?

After all, she was two years under the legal age limit.

 

[185]

Pendos and Voyagers generally have despatchers.

142s, as you give two on the buzzer, you can normally see through the saloon windows.

15x stock are ones that I agree have quite limited visibility.

SWTCommuter, the mother, in my view should face some threat of charges.

 

[HH]

Have there been any moves to prosecute those who supplied her with so much alcohol or is the guard going to have to take all the blame?

This is somewhat disingenuous. Regardless of her alcohol intake the train should have not departed while she was leaning against it. The words "safety critical" in a job description aren't there for decoration. They mean something.

At best the guard made a mistake in a safety critical aspect of his job, for which they might be several reasons, including inadequate training. At worst he might have given the off deliberately, for some of the reasons already expressed in this thread (and really people you ought to think about where such reasons can lead to).

It matters not that she was drunk, under-age, flashed her bra, or might have puked over people or even abused passengers and staff. She was owed a duty of care, and those of you not acknowledging that are doing nobody any favours.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

This is somewhat disingenuous. Regardless of her alcohol intake the train should have not departed while she was leaning against it. The words "safety critical" in a job description aren't there for decoration. They mean something.

At best the guard made a mistake in a safety critical aspect of his job, for which they might be several reasons, including inadequate training. At worst he might have given the off deliberately, for some of the reasons already expressed in this thread (and really people you ought to think about where such reasons can lead to).

It matters not that she was drunk, under-age, flashed her bra, or might have puked over people or even abused passengers and staff. She was owed a duty of care, and those of you not acknowledging that are doing nobody any favours.

Very sad, but very true

 

[185]

This is somewhat disingenuous. Regardless of her alcohol intake the train should have not departed while she was leaning against it. The words "safety critical" in a job description aren't there for decoration. They mean something.

At best the guard made a mistake in a safety critical aspect of his job, for which they might be several reasons, including inadequate training. At worst he might have given the off deliberately, for some of the reasons already expressed in this thread (and really people you ought to think about where such reasons can lead to).

It matters not that she was drunk, under-age, flashed her bra, or might have puked over people or even abused passengers and staff. She was owed a duty of care, and those of you not acknowledging that are doing nobody any favours.

Was she leaning against it continuously, or was she only leaning against it in the still picture the CPS produced? I believe she was intermittently leaning on the window and gesturing though the window.

The CPSs claims made on the basis of a still picture should be slung out straight away.

 

[HH]

Was she leaning against it continuously, or was she only leaning against it in the still picture the CPS produced? I believe she was intermittently leaning on the window and gesturing though the window.

The CPSs claims made on the basis of a still picture should be slung out straight away.

Agreed that in this case the result will be different; however should the train leave if it was ON-OFF-ON-OFF-ON-OFF or was it reasonable to expect another ON? This is why I mention training.

In any case the CPS should still bring the prosecution. Justice must not just be done, it must also be seen to be done.

 

[amcluesent]

Prosecutors say the picture shows Georgia Varley, 16, from Wallasey, clearly leaning on the carriage as guard Christopher McGee signalled it was safe for the train to move.

Can't see any extenuating circumstances for failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. Perfectly clear view along platform etc.

 

[GB]

A picture says a 1000 words but those words are open to interpretation. I fail to see how the picture shows conclusively the girl leaning against the train.

 

[8J]

I think that Merseyrail are dealing with this situation poorly. Those terrible events on 508139 last year were tragic, but lessons need to be learnt. And the only difference that I've seen with the dispatch is that guards have whistles that they use.

Surely the guards should look out of the local door or a cab window. Merseyrail use the passenger doors as an interlock door outside the tunnel, but in the tunnel, it is prohibited because of evacuation necessities.

 

[robertclark125]

If there is a duty of care, it works both ways. She should've showed duty of care, by not actually getting into such an intoxicated manner in the first place. Also, perhaps those on the barriers at James Street could've prevented her even accessing the lifts to get to the platforms.

And before anyone states how would a person can get home drunk if they're denied access to a train station, then also consider that they should think about that before getting drunk.

 

[michael769]

Is that the guard's head sticking out the window looking straight at her?

 

[Ferret]

Very sad, but very true

In part, very true indeed. BUT, anyone who believes the Guard is solely to blame isn't doing anyone any favours either. If that girl hadn't got ratarsed and off her face on drugs, would the incident have happened? Just blaming the Guard is an easy option; it enables society to absolve itself of all blame for this ludicrous culture we have where losing control of yourself is acceptable and the norm.

I just hope this serves as a lesson to others that getting into that kind of state can have fatal consequences. And let's face it, ultimately, the fact that this Guard will now go to prison as a result of the blame game makes no difference to what happened to that girl. It doesn't bring her back for another go at life.

 

[185]

I think that Merseyrail are dealing with this situation poorly. Those terrible events on 508139 last year were tragic, but lessons need to be learnt. And the only difference that I've seen with the dispatch is that guards have whistles that they use.

Surely the guards should look out of the local door or a cab window. Merseyrail use the passenger doors as an interlock door outside the tunnel, but in the tunnel, it is prohibited because of evacuation necessities.

(i) Local door has to be closed before giving two on the bell (since 2001, rules changed.) Previously they all shut the door at about 3/4 way down platform, at about 10mph. Nice clear view eliminated.

(ii) No droplight 'opening' cab window (concerns raised by guards in 2001 after rules were changed) Only a (utterly poor) view out of a narrow cab door (non opening) window. Poor view created.

 

[MadCommuter]

Solely, based on the picture released and shown above, could it be safe for the guard to assume that the person 'leaning' against the train would move away on hearing the audible door alarm and also once the train started moving? If I was leaning against something that started moving, I would back away.

Ultimately, blame lay with multiple parties and I hope a suspended sentence is handed down.

 

[bb21]

Can't see any extenuating circumstances for failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. Perfectly clear view along platform etc.

Nothing in this picture shows that she was remotely leaning against the door.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

If there is a duty of care, it works both ways. She should've showed duty of care, by not actually getting into such an intoxicated manner in the first place. Also, perhaps those on the barriers at James Street could've prevented her even accessing the lifts to get to the platforms.

And before anyone states how would a person can get home drunk if they're denied access to a train station, then also consider that they should think about that before getting drunk.

Trouble is legal wise it doesn't thats why The guard was convicted, its a load of cr*p but its the law, and if I was told was right (until the report comes out we will never know), The Guard was proven (in the eyes of the law and not experience or common sense) to be found guilty of Gross Negligence, OTMR/CCTV/Witness statements would have been used to come to the conclusion. Personally my opinion is there is a culture in Merseyrail from Management down to staff that if its the norm thats its ok, well its not! we as safety critical staff have not only a professional duty but a moral duty to do our job correctly, when in doubt STOP! assess the situation and do what you feel is correct, I will hold a train until I feel it is safe to move, I have never been asked why and what reasons as we have plenty of stations where it is deemed unsafe to move while view is obstructed or high passenger count let alone problems with drunks, all we have to do is be assertive whether there is pressure or not, and I to this date have never been pressured into risking peoples lives.

 

[HH]

If there is a duty of care, it works both ways.

You clearly don't understand duty of care. Just to save anyone else the trouble of typing it in their browser of choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

Even this article doesn't convey the key aspects: essentially the guard owed a duty of care to the girl. The girl was doing nothing that endangered other people's lives, so she didn't fail her duty of care. She wasn't driving a car, or anything else likely to endanger other people. She was endangering her own life. This happens from time to time, and we expect those in a position of trust to look after us.

Only those who have never, ever been drunk could even begin to criticise the poor cow.

EDIT: I often don't agree with our Northern Guard, but here he and I are in absolute agreement. When it comes to safety there are no second chances; you do it safely or you don't. That it works out OK in 99.99% of cases is not sufficient cause to do it wrong.

 

[GB]

Solely, based on the picture released and shown above, could it be safe for the guard to assume that the person 'leaning' against the train would move away on hearing the audible door alarm and also once the train started moving? If I was leaning against something that started moving, I would back away.

Ultimately, blame lay with multiple parties and I hope a suspended sentence is handed down.

I think most people who are in possession of all their faculties would move away when something started moving. The fact that this girl didn't only confirms to me that her state was at the very least a factor in the accident.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

In part, very true indeed. BUT, anyone who believes the Guard is solely to blame isn't doing anyone any favours either. If that girl hadn't got ratarsed and off her face on drugs, would the incident have happened? Just blaming the Guard is an easy option; it enables society to absolve itself of all blame for this ludicrous culture we have where losing control of yourself is acceptable and the norm.

I just hope this serves as a lesson to others that getting into that kind of state can have fatal consequences. And let's face it, ultimately, the fact that this Guard will now go to prison as a result of the blame game makes no difference to what happened to that girl. It doesn't bring her back for another go at life.

Thats the problem someone has to be to blame, and it very rarely is the public, its not right but its the way things are nowadays, thats why chances cannot be taken, this is the outcome, si it right? certainly not but it is the way it is, the main problem I have with all this is if what i got told was right the download showed he skipped procedures for numerous stations beforehand (again that will/not be in the report) if he has skipped procedures than he only has himself to blame, however IF it is down to management pressure that is a hell of a can of worms that can have repurcussions not seen for many a year, a mistake can be explained however a consistant lack of following procedure cannot, that hopefully will be cleared up when the RAIB report comes out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You clearly don't understand duty of care. Just to save anyone else the trouble of typing it in their browser of choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

Even this article doesn't convey the key aspects: essentially the guard owed a duty of care to the girl. The girl was doing nothing that endangered other people's lives, so she didn't fail her duty of care. She wasn't driving a car, or anything else likely to endanger other people. She was endangering her own life. This happens from time to time, and we expect those in a position of trust to look after us.

Only those who have never, ever been drunk could even begin to criticise the poor cow.

EDIT: I often don't agree with our Northern Guard, but here he and I are in absolute agreement. When it comes to safety there are no second chances; you do it safely or you don't. That it works out OK in 99.99% of cases is not sufficient cause to do it wrong.

I know its painful but I am sure normal service will be resumed soon enough lol

 

[185]

Solely, based on the picture released and shown above, could it be safe for the guard to assume that the person 'leaning' against the train would move away on hearing the audible door alarm and also once the train started moving? If I was leaning against something that started moving, I would back away.

Ultimately, blame lay with multiple parties and I hope a suspended sentence is handed down.

The noise a 508 makes when starting to move is loud. Noisy compressor, air brakes coming off and noisy as hell 'moaning' traction motors. Obvious train would be moving to be honest.
Video, audio...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVTRJggt64Q&feature=related

 

[Ferret]

She was endangering her own life. This happens from time to time, and we expect those in a position of trust to look after us.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I bemoan what is wrong with society today. When all is said and done, the person responsible for your life is you. Harsh reality isn't it, and one that we seem reluctant to confront, as a society? Imagine you could talk to that dead girl and ask her if she'd known that she might be killed if she took drugs and got extremely drunk, and then you ask her what she'd have done differently. I bet she'd say she'd not have acted as she did that night. That tells us all we need to know.

 

[GB]

. When it comes to safety there are no second chances; you do it safely or you don't. That it works out OK in 99.99% of cases is not sufficient cause to do it wrong.

I don't think anyone has questioned that. But when your at the sharp end determining what is safe and what is not can be a judgement call.

 

[HH]

Ultimately, blame lay with multiple parties and I hope a suspended sentence is handed down.

There should be no doubt on the instructions given to guards - that where drunk 'passengers' are concerned they must take steps to ensure that they are safe above all else.

If those instructions were not given, then you are undoubtedly correct.

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

I don't think anyone has questioned that. But when your at the sharp end determining what is safe and what is not can be a judgement call.

Yes there are occasions when it will be. Here though I believe that there ought to be standing instructions. Still, if there were not, part of your safety critical training should be all about recognising hazardous conditions, and what actions you take to ensure safety.

I don't know all the facts here, but the court seems to have taken the view that the guard did not act in the manner which he should have, with these strictures in mind.

 

[Jordeh]

Probably the worst miscarriage of justice in this country for many years.

That's no doubt the worst exaggeration in this country for many years. Yesterday a supposed terrorist was released, I consider that far worse.

There's what you would probably call "miscarriages of justice" every day, although I think your definition is somewhat wrong. At the end of the day, he failed to do his job correctly and therefore someone lost their life.

 

[185]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I bemoan what is wrong with society today. When all is said and done, the person responsible for your life is you. Harsh reality isn't it, and one that we seem reluctant to confront, as a society? Imagine you could talk to that dead girl and ask her if she'd known that she might be killed if she took drugs and got extremely drunk, and then you ask her what she'd have done differently. I bet she'd say she'd not have acted as she did that night. That tells us all we need to know.

I'm in total agreement with you here.

I remember one case of drug use where an overdose led to someone jumping from the 12th floor of a tower block in Manchester. I wonder could the extreme drunkeness and heavy drugs use be considered irrelevent in that case, and the landlord prosecuted for 'duty of care' in not building a bungalow? Where does it end?

 

[HH]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I bemoan what is wrong with society today. When all is said and done, the person responsible for your life is you. Harsh reality isn't it, and one that we seem reluctant to confront, as a society? Imagine you could talk to that dead girl and ask her if she'd known that she might be killed if she took drugs and got extremely drunk, and then you ask her what she'd have done differently. I bet she'd say she'd not have acted as she did that night. That tells us all we need to know.

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?

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

I'm in total agreement with you here.

I remember one case of drug use where an overdose led to someone jumping from the 12th floor of a tower block in Manchester. I wonder could the extreme drunkeness and heavy drugs use be considered irrelevent in that case, and the landlord prosecuted for 'duty of care' in not building a bungalow? Where does it end?

You're talking bollocks. The landlord didn't drive his block of flats away from the tenant. If you cannot tell the difference then you should certainly not be doing a safety critical job.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I'm in total agreement with you here.

I remember one case of drug use where an overdose led to someone jumping from the 12th floor of a tower block in Manchester. I wonder could the extreme drunkeness and heavy drugs use be considered irrelevent in that case, and the landlord prosecuted for 'duty of care' in not building a bungalow? Where does it end?

It all comes down to one thing, and one thing only

did the guard give the Ready to start while the girl was leaning onto to the train?

If the answer was yes, then guilty but a mistake if all procedures previously had been followed (even to a point) then its negligence and a fine or suspended sentence

If the answer was yes, then guilty but procedures previously had been skipped then its GROSS Negligence which then opens the realms of a length prison sentence.

for me it looks a lot more like option 2, if it was just on mistake it would never have been classes as Gross Negligence, OTMR and CCTV are the key and thats what would have helped towards the decision.

 

[amcluesent]

Are the actual rules which are guards are trained to follow published online? The ORR and Railway Group Standards are more general.