Merseyrail guard jailed for manslaughter

Gents, I'm going to temporarily lock this thread pending discussion with the Mods and Admins. I can see that there are strong arguments on both sides - I have them myself and although it's been in the public domain for several days, it's uncomfortably close to Rule 7.2 about one-unders.

Edit:

After some thought and consultation I've reopened the thread. If commenting please keep in mind both the house style of the forum - friendly, respectful, etc. as the posters above have done and the fact that under rule 7.2 discussion of one-unders is not permitted. I'm also moving this out of the 'rant' area as, given that someone has died, I'm not sure it's appropriate. Keep it based on fact, folks, not supposition.

Mod hat off.

I have an alternative view...

To me the guard could see someone leaning on the train, yet still chose to signal to the driver that it was safe to proceed. Today, with hindsight (which we never have in real life) we believe that the girl who died had drank herself into a stupor... however what if she had had her drink spiked... what if... what if... and what if!!!

The guard was in charge... in charge or the train and in charge of the passengers travelling on that train. He owed himself, his driver and every single passenger on board and on the platform a duty of care... a very very important cornerstone of law.

Perhaps the lady who died should not have been allowed to travel on the system that night, however her family/friends have to live with the constant pain of losing her... and the driver too must live with a constant reminder of that night.

IMO unions correctly argue that railways are safer with guards... unfortunately that very valid argument was betrayed too that night...

It’s a very sad case all round as everyone has lost, but the responsibility must, IMO, lay very firmly and squarely with the person in charge of that train...

As for the length of the sentence.... how many years is a life worth... 1... 5....70 !!!?

castlebar: I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you there... The guard was not responsible for the drink or the drugs, but they weren't what killed her. The decision that he made was ultimately what killed her, so I can see exactly why what has transpired happened.

It makes a strong case to re-instate the platform emergency plungers on the Jubilee Line - Why were they disconnected in the first place - Was it so that installation costs could be cut?

Chris W is right, the duty of care was totally absent in this incident.

The following link is very interesting. Mods delete if it contravenes any rules.

www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-holroyde-r-v-mcgee.pdf

Many thanks to Tubeboy for the link: based on the text of the summing up alone - once the sadly deceased became drunk was she therefore absolved of any responsibility for her own actions?

I'm not pointing fingers anywhere, but it seems very odd to me that it hinges around the phrases: 'quite sure', 'must have known' and 'sized up at a glance' .

All judgments are ultimately subjective, including this one.

It is a very curious case, and one where there isn't precedent, as evidenced by 'there is no definitive sentencing guideline that applies to this offence' and 'in my judgement the least sentence I can pass'.

I'm sure that there is some degree of guilt apportionable to both sides - one question that I would ask - is if the sadly deceased was in possession of a ticket: did she have a contractual obligation and expectation under the conditions of carriage or (if she were without a ticket) merely trespassing?

I feel very sorry for all parties involved, and based on the summing-up I'm not that sure that justice has been truly meted out to anyone involved in this very unfortunate case.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I think you've hit the nail on the head, this is a guard with 20 years experience and as you say drunks are totally unpredictable. Did he even know that this was a drunk 16 year old girl? She may well have looked like a passenger just waving goodbye to friends through the train window. And what about these friends? Apparently the girl had got off the train by mistake so why didn't they activate the alarm if they saw what was happening? I'm sure the guard has replayed the incident in his mind thousands of times and wishes he acted differently, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I'm sure we've all seen passengers running up to trains trying to reopen the doors as they are about to depart, in the days of slammers they often did open doors and board whilst the train was pulling out.

I don't want to sound too harsh, it is tragic that a 16 year old has lost her life, but I have little sympathy generally for people who think they can go out and drink themselves into oblivion and then expect somebody else, usually the police or ambulance service, to look after them when they become incapable of doing so. If any good can come from this tragedy it is to use it to warn others about the dangers of binge drinking, all our wonderful politicians seem able to suggest is putting the price up, they've obviously not noticed that France doesn't have this binge drinking problem despite alcohol being cheaply available there.

This case seems to set a very dangerous precedent where railway staff could be held responsible for just about any accident that occurs on trains or on stations.

I also hope the guard appeals, a five year prison sentence is just ridiculous and out of all proportion, at worst he made an error of judgement, the sort that we all make from time to time. This was a tragic accident and making the guard a scapegoat for it solves nothing.

Edit by MRFS to tidy up quoting

Door closing & associated noises is not related to the "Clear to depart" signal to the driver. If I understand correctly, the doors were already closed and the guard was doing his final check before signalling the away.

I have the responsibility of inspecting the standards of Guards on a railway not a million miles from this incident; it also happened about two miles from my previous residence. I'm staying out of the general discussion on this one, but do welcome considered comment on the case.


They do indeed.

Now that the criminal case is out of the way, it will be interesting to see what the RAIB make of it with their factual/causal approach. Hopefully this will enlighten us as to what the causal and underlying factors were that lead to this terrible occurance.

Sorry Xercesfobe, I disagree. I believe the guard's job was above all else to ensure the safety of passengers, public, crew and other persons.

I’ve just spotted this thread and some of the comments are stunning.

The state of the victim is irrelevant; the same principles apply as down here on the Tube, if it isn’t safe to move the train then the train doesn’t move. We inform whoever we need to inform and go sort out the problem, safety is always, always the number one consideration. If we don’t we all know that something like this can happen and in a worst case scenario we could end up getting our collars felt by BTP.

The jury brought a unanimous verdict, according to the sentencing guidelines the maximum penalty for manslaughter by gross negligence is life so it would seem that the judge was quite lenient. The safety of passengers was his responsibility, he didn't do his job and now he's suffering the consequences.

Yet another thing that those who've never worked on the railway fail to understand.

GH - what happens in the USA or elsewhere is totally irrelevant to the case. The court was shown CCTV footage of the incident, the jury came back with a unanimous verdict and under the terms of manslaughter by gross negligence he was guilty of causing her death.

It would have been perfectly practical and reeasonable for the guard to contact the driver and/or the controller to explain the situation before going forward to investigate. if he felt that he was in physical danger he could have called for assiastance either from station staff or BTP.

There would have been a delay but as it was for safety reasons the company would have been unable to reprimand him for doing so and he would have had the full support of the union.

Instead he chose to signal that it was safe to move the train and someone died because of his actions. To say that he was unaware of how drunk the woman was is no defence and the court rejected it accordingly. When we work on the railway we take on a huge responsibility, something reflected in our rate of pay, if we chose to neglect that responsibility the penalties are equally high.

GH - how operating staff should react is simple, is it safe? If I carry a particular action is there a reasonable risk of someone getting injured and am I risking losing my job or worse? from day one of the induction at LUL the paramount importance of safety is highlighted repeatedly; if you don’t think it’s safe you don’t do it, though sometimes that seems to get lost in the pressure to keep the service going.

The unions go even further as they are trying to protect their members not run a railway so the emphasis on safety and avoiding repercussions is even greater. I myself have refused instructions from operating officials from station supervisors upwards on safety grounds and never been reprimanded once though as an ex-H&S Rep I probably know more than most managers on LUL.

So it’s simple, the guard in this case made a decision that proved fatal to the passenger and put him in prison. That is the reality of working on the railways not some vague theoretical postulation. If we make a mistake we can kill people and if we are at fault we can suffer severe penalties.

The Guard was trained how to carry out “platform duties”, he had years of experience (something that was used against him in court) and he failed to follow procedure. I haven’t seen the CCTV footage but from what I’ve read the woman was leaning on the train, if the train was equipped with a PA he should have made an announcement for her to stand clear and if she didn’t then take the safe option of investigating.