Airport links Legal
The repercussions of a split second judgement
The prosecution of former Merseyrail guard, Christopher McGee, has significance for all railway employees who are trained to show a duty of care to others, as well as rail employers. Kennedy’s lawyers Daniel McShee and Kamal Chauhan consider the facts
O
n 14 November 2012, Christopher McGee, a train guard who was at the time employed by Merseyrail, was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence following a two week trial at Liverpool Crown Court.
McGee was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the part that he played in the tragic death of Miss Georgia Varley, who was 16 at time of the incident. Whilst each case turns on its own facts, the prosecution has some significance for railway employees in similar positions with duties of care to others, where an error lasting only a few seconds can nonetheless be characterised as grossly negligent.
The facts as reported Miss Varley was on a night out with friends in Liverpool on 22 October 2011. She was intoxicated through drink and drugs. She had mistakenly left the train at James Street station and leaned against the carriage as she realised her friends were still on board. As she did so Mr McGee signalled to the driver by means of the train’s internal bell system that the train could move away from the platform. Miss Varley was tragically killed as she fell beneath the moving train.
The law To find a defendant guilty of gross negligence manslaughter the jury must be satisfied that: • A duty of care existed between the defendant and the victim;
• The duty has been breached; • The breach caused the death of the victim;
• The breach should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime. Whether negligence is gross depends on the seriousness of the breach in all the circumstances in which the defendant was placed when it occurred. The jury has
FEBRUARY 2013 PAGE 33
to consider whether the extent to which the defendant’s conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him, involving as it must have done a risk of death to the victim, was such that it should be judged criminal. While this involves an element of circularity the jury is effectively left to decide how far conduct must depart from accepted standards to be characterised as criminal.
Gross negligence manslaughter is judged against the criminal standard of proof which requires the jury to be sure and convinced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the offence has been committed.
Aggravating and mitigating factors Mr Justice Holroyde in his sentencing comments accepted that: • Mr McGee’s gross negligence occurred over a few seconds and was not a prolonged course of risk taking;
• He had no relevant convictions; • He had served the railways conscientiously for 20 years;
• In consequence of what happened
he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder; and
• A sentence of imprisonment would be difficult for him to bear.
However, he went on to state that: • Mr McGee had been repeatedly trained and instructed in matters of safety including the risk of accidents at the platform/train interface and knew that anyone falling between a moving train and the platform edge was likely to be killed;
• He had sole control of the train’s movement and his actions determined whether Miss Varley was safe from risk;
• He knew that Miss Varley was intoxicated by her behaviour at a previous station, and seeing her unsteady on her feet before leaning on the train;
• He had a clear view of Miss Varley and was not distracted. She was not moving away from the train and was leaning on it when he pressed the bell signal to depart;
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100