Merseyrail Guard on Trial

[Flamingo]

The level of weighting to each constituent part of the circumstances that ended with this tragic incident matters not one jot. It's just that it in my opinion, it's remiss of us not to understand that there are several factors that resulted in that girl's death, the Guard's criminal negligence being the one that was dealt with yesterday and today.

I can't help feeling that it will be the only factor that may be dealt with, though.

 

[Monty]

Quite agree with DarloRich, people still keep confusing morality, personal responsibility and legal responsibility. The law is quite clear, McGee was negligent.

I would be interested to see how the following situation might now play out (and be in no doubt that it will happen tonight somewhere on the network). Someone who appears underage and is under the influence of alcohol/drugs falls over on a platform, gets up and then attempts to board a train. Do we turn them away as per the byelaws? Doing so could result in another guard being in the dock for failing in their responsibility to a 'vulnerable person' (child in this instance). Or does the guard take them and any associated risk that goes with it. If the guard takes them and the person then ends up asleep at journeys end there is the further possibility of 'he touched me inappropriately' claims when trying to get them off the train.

I don't think I've ever seen such a big can of worms.

I'm inclinded to agree with Matt on this, being a guard myself a part of me didn't want to believe a colleague of mine had got it wrong. But the evidence is damning, and while we can all argue others maybe indirectly responsible for the young girls death. But it was direct actions of Guard McGee that caused it, there is no arguing that and the buck must stop somewhere.

 

[Ferret]

I can't help feeling that it will be the only factor that may be dealt with, though.

Me too.

 

[amcluesent]

As the Judge said, 'As the guard of the train, you were in complete control of the movement of the train. That control carries with it the direct and personal responsibility for the safety of passengers.' (my emphasis)

Could pax who were delayed now seek compo to recover costs and damages from the guard in civil actions?

 

[Monty]

As the Judge said, 'As the guard of the train, you were in complete control of the movement of the train. That control carries with it the direct and personal responsibility for the safety of passengers.' (my emphasis)

Could pax who were delayed now seek compo to recover costs and damages from the guard in civil actions?

I sincerely hope that is a joke, one in poor taste at that...

 

[Ferret]

I sincerely hope that is a joke, one in poor taste at that...

Why does everything revolve around compensation these days?! Something else that's a scourge of modern society......

 

[pemma]

Could pax who were delayed now seek compo to recover costs and damages from the guard in civil actions?

Why does everything revolve around compensation these days?! Something else that's a scourge of modern society......

TOCs have policies on issuing vouchers/refunds when trains are delayed/cancellation and if the total delay experienced exceeds the minimum then they will pay out. Issuing such vouchers encourages people who may be put-off rail travel after a frustrating delay to travel by train again. However, it's not really relevant to this thread.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Hopefully more staff and better training to staff will come out of this, and a mass culling of Merseyrail manglement as well. Thats probably the only good thing that could come out of this horrendous situation, 5 years for a 2 second severe error of judgement is a hell of a long time, yes he was guilty but 5 years? damn..

 

[tony6499]

Very few stations have working barriers past 10pm, the guard is often the last line of defence.

The only line of defence the way the numbers of station staff are being culled

 

[richw]

Not true - speeding does not carry a prison sentence.

To be jailed they have to prove Dangerous Driving - which carries a much higher standard of proof.

Someone I know was recently jailed for 56 days for speeding. Already had 9 points, and got caught on a dual carriageway in excess of double the speed limit!

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I'm inclinded to agree with Matt on this, being a guard myself a part of me didn't want to believe a colleague of mine had got it wrong. But the evidence is damning, and while we can all argue others maybe indirectly responsible for the young girls death. But it was direct actions of Guard McGee that caused it, there is no arguing that and the buck must stop somewhere.

Imo the buck should stop at the top.
They are responsible for monitoring, training and updating best practices etc

 

[ainsworth74]

They are responsible for monitoring, training and updating best practices etc

And if it's found that they were properly monitoring their staff, providing proper training and keeping best practice up to date?

Assuming that the judges comments are accurate (and I don't see why they wouldn't be) then it seems clear that the buck is stopping in the right place. There are plenty of other casual factors but I'd imagine that the guard giving the RA was the direct cause.

Either way we'll know tomorrow when the RAIB deliver their report which I'm sure will have a neat breakdown of the causal factors and the lessons to be learned.

 

[sonorguy]

But you're presumably doing that because you like chocolate - not deliberately trying to make yourself ill.

I manage a whole hospital full of people who'd do exactly that if we let them, and there are a much larger number than you would think out in the community, anyone who frequently overdoses is a good example.

However that isn't what happened her, there's no evidence that she either drank or took drugs to make herself ill.

 

[WCMLaddict]

Hopefully more staff and better training to staff will come out of this, and a mass culling of Merseyrail manglement as well. Thats probably the only good thing that could come out of this horrendous situation, 5 years for a 2 second severe error of judgement is a hell of a long time, yes he was guilty but 5 years? damn..

First of all I just want to applaud your attitude and what you have written in this whole thread.

I'm pretty sure that there will be much more coming out of this. Lets use York station as an example.
It is well known that what is going on there on Friday and Saturday evenings/nights will sooner or later lead to someone's death. TOC's using this station have been in a long dispute with East Coast about securing it properly on these occasions. EC is constantly rebuffing the issue with simple "we don't see a problem". Now I can't see them repeating this.

 

[DarloRich]

First of all I just want to applaud your attitude and what you have written in this whole thread.

I'm pretty sure that there will be much more coming out of this. Lets use York station as an example.
It is well known that what is going on there on Friday and Saturday evenings/nights will sooner or later lead to someone's death. TOC's using this station have been in a long dispute with East Coast about securing it properly on these occasions. EC is constantly rebuffing the issue with simple "we don't see a problem". Now I can't see them repeating this.

what on earth are you talking about?

York is a well staffed station with a manned BTP station.

 

[WCMLaddict]

what on earth are you talking about?

York is a well staffed station with a manned BTP station.

I don't want to take this off topic. All I can say is that all TOCs have been asking for other ways of dealing with drunks to be implemented and EC refuses to. This incident only puts more leverage in their hands.

 

[87015]

I don't want to take this off topic. All I can say is that all TOCs have been asking for other ways of dealing with drunks to be implemented and EC refuses to. This incident only puts more leverage in their hands.

Rubbish. If they were that concerned they would be providing their own platform and security staff over anything EC do, as happens elsewhere.

 

[bb21]

I'd been interested to see the legislation that backs up that assertion.

I was under the impression that it was not illegal for someone aged 5 and over to drink alcohol in the home or other private premises. Nothing I can see in current legislation that requires parental, or even adult, supervision.

OK I seem to have read off some information incorrectly. That said, someone over the age of 5 and under 18 can only drink alcohol legally with parental consent, not supervision. So, was she given consent by her parents or was she drinking illegally? Who supplied her with the alcohol?

Either way, it no longer matters to this case as she is under the influence of illegal drugs so my arguments still stand.

And if they kill someone they get charged with causing death by dangerous driving!

Guard will be free on parole in a couple of years, Paula Redmond has a life sentence without her only child.

So you don't think the guard will have a life sentence to contend with mentally? What an insensitive remark.

and maybe even the mother who I've criticised.

She will, because deep down she knows either she gave her child consent to drink alcohol which partly contributed towards her death or that her daughter did something wrong and was partly responsible for her death. Either way, it is not a nice feeling to have to contend with for life.

This really is a horrible case, and I hope I never see anything similar again. Alas I know I will...........

This is the only thing about this case that I am sure of.

 

[bnm]

OK I seem to have read off some information incorrectly. That said, someone over the age of 5 and under 18 can only drink alcohol legally with parental consent, not supervision.

Again. I'm struggling to find the legislation that backs up this assertion, be it consent or supervision. You use the word 'legally'. Could you provide a link to the piece of legislation where this is stated?

 

[MadCommuter]

This is probs going a bit OT and apologies if it is seen that way. Clearly the jury / judge believe that the guard has made an error, but is it one that is punishable by a prison sentence? He did not intend to destroy any lives when he went to work that day and has made a split second decision which has unfortunately lead to devastating consequences.

For me, a prison sentence is for someone that is a danger to the public or has repeatedly carried out an offence (s). In this instance a community service order would have been more suitable.

 

[Phil6219]

Nice to see the media are omitting some facts from this when reporting...

Real XS (formerly Rock Radio) fail to mention that the girl was 3 times over the drink drive limit and on illegal drugs. Since it's news team is split with Real Radio and Smooth Radio I'd say it's a fair guess that those stations are using the exact same reports.

Phil

 

[GB]

. Clearly the jury / judge believe that the guard has made an error, but is it one that is punishable by a prison sentence?

Short answer is yes.

 

[Brighton Bill]

Safety used to be the absolute priority for the railway - officially it still is, but it is now more apparent that performance and reducing delays is paramount.
I think that Guards (and Drivers) will no longer take any chances with performance over safety after this terrible incident and will not dare leave a station until it is absolutely safe to do so even if it's a bunch of drunken yobs refusing to move away (which does frequently happen!)
I'm sure that the Guard in this case had the train being delayed at the back of his mind.

As I understand it it is also down to a Signaller or Controller to impose/arrange a caution on receipt of information of a trespasser on the line. It is purely a judgement call. Arranging a caution/isolation at somewhere like East Croydon would cause mammoth delays - if the staff member took no action (as can happen for the best of reasons) and the person trespassing got fried or mowed down by a train would the staff member be in serious trouble? Quite likely.

The upshot of this case is that railway staff cannot afford to take any chances and there will be more cautions imposed/trains delayed as a direct result of this sad case.

Bill

 

[HH]

Short answer is yes.

Slightly longer answer is that such cases carry a prison term to dissuade people from making the decision that this guard made, that resulted in a loss of life.

Is it fair? I don't presume to know. What I do know is that if someone I loved was in a similar situation to this girl then I'd want someone in such a position as the guard to do everything possible to ensure their safety. And I think that most parents would feel the same, regardless of how certain they are that their "little angel" would never do such things.

Onto another point, when my daughter was 16 and went to a party, I drove her there and picked her up. And she well knew that if she got back in the car drunk she would have been grounded for months. I have to join others in condemning the attitude of this girl's parents, but still I wouldn't wish their 'punishment' on anyone.

 

[Anvil1984]

I concur with many of the posts and feel 5 years is a bit harsh BUT if the guard knew the lady was leaning against the doors prior to him closing his local door (which I presume is the case but I havent seen the clip to judge) then the guard made an unnecessary risk and neglected his number 1 duty at the time. At this point it doesnt matter about the state of the person, there is a person in contact with the unit, you just don't go in that situation.

However another thing to be addressed is if it was train of newer standards we mightn't be in this situation as the guard would have had a window to look out of as all new stock seems to have a window to open at the local door located in the cab, on units like the 507 / 508s (and the mk3 mus with the exception of the 150/1s) once you close the door the view is horrendous 158s being particularly bad. It's the.one plus.point of working a 14x and having large windows throughout. The main reason seemingly is the guards massive balls up and the state of the girl but there's other tiny factors in the picture

 

[HH]

Safety used to be the absolute priority for the railway - officially it still is, but it is now more apparent that performance and reducing delays is paramount.

Poppycock. The railway is safer than it's ever been. Some of the TOCs take Safety to absurd lengths; even the poorer ones take it pretty seriously compared to general industry.

If you can find me a manager who will tell me that performance is more important than safety, then I'll show you his P45.

 

[reb0118]

Was catching up on the thread about the derailment at Inverkeilor. If caught do you think that the culprits would get 5 years?

 

[amcluesent]

He did not intend to destroy any lives when he went to work that day...

That's why it was manslaughter and not a murder charge

Imo the buck should stop at the top.
They are responsible for monitoring, training and updating best practices etc

The employer could evidence they had provided training....

The jury trying a Merseyrail guard, accused of manslaughter after a teenage passenger fell beneath his train, has heard he received training highlighting the risks of such an incident just months earlier.

The judge reminded McGee that he had been repeatedly trained and instructed in matters of safety and must have known anyone falling between the platform and train was likely to be killed.

He added: “It follows that any risk you took in that area was a risk to the life of the passenger.

“You were not distracted at the vital moment, or required to turn away in order to operate controls. You had a continuous and perfect view of her.

“In the horror of what you had done you may later have persuaded yourself that you thought she was moving away, but I do not believe you did think that at the time.”

 

[DarloRich]

This is probs going a bit OT and apologies if it is seen that way. Clearly the jury / judge believe that the guard has made an error, but is it one that is punishable by a prison sentence? He did not intend to destroy any lives when he went to work that day and has made a split second decision which has unfortunately lead to devastating consequences.

For me, a prison sentence is for someone that is a danger to the public or has repeatedly carried out an offence (s). In this instance a community service order would have been more suitable.

Not in the eyes of the Law or the Court.

I think some people fail to understand the severity of the offense that the poor guard was convicted of. Manslaughter by gross negligence is a very serious offense.

Manslaughter by gross negligence is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is ostensibly acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter may arise where the defendant has caused death but neither intended to cause death nor serious bodily harm and thus lacks the mens rea (literally guilty mind or malice aforethought if you will) of murder.

It is not necessary to show an unlawful act has occurred. It can be said to apply where the defendant commits a lawful act in such a way as to render the actions criminal. The offense can also be committed by omission.

If i recall my studies correctly the test for this offense was set out in the case of R v Bateman:

1)the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased;
2)the defendant breached this duty;
3)the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
4)the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

Case law has removed the requirement to show recklessness to leave only the objective test set out above. I would suggest you look out the case of R v Adomoko for further information.

As has been said there are no winners in this tragedy. Everybody is the loser.

I will await the RAIB report to see what impact this will have on the dispatch of trains by platform staff and regarding on train operations for both drivers and guards.

To my mind any recommendation must be followed to the letter by all levels of railway staff. Standards, operational and management procedures must change to ensure this can never happen again.

The most worrying thing is that this could happen again tonight.

 

[richw]

That's why it was manslaughter and not a murder charge



The employer could evidence they had provided training....

The jury trying a Merseyrail guard, accused of manslaughter after a teenage passenger fell beneath his train, has heard he received training highlighting the risks of such an incident just months earlier.

The judge reminded McGee that he had been repeatedly trained and instructed in matters of safety and must have known anyone falling between the platform and train was likely to be killed.

He added: “It follows that any risk you took in that area was a risk to the life of the passenger.

“You were not distracted at the vital moment, or required to turn away in order to operate controls. You had a continuous and perfect view of her.

“In the horror of what you had done you may later have persuaded yourself that you thought she was moving away, but I do not believe you did think that at the time.”

As long as Merseyrail can evidence they have provided the training to the employee, it removes the liability of the company for any trained employee making a error such as this case. My company keeps highly documented evidence of training we have undertaken.