Girl dies after falling between train and platform in Liverpool - 22 October 2011

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From a further British Transport Police press release, issued after sentencing:

Train guard jailed for manslaughter

A train guard who ^displayed an appalling disregard for safety^ has been jailed for five years today following the death of 16-year-old Georgia Varley at James Street station, Liverpool, on 22 October 2011.

Christopher McGee, aged 45 of Edenhurst Avenue, Wallasey, was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence following a trial at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday, 14 November.

Detective Chief Inspector Simon Taylor said: "The verdict brings to a close a year-long investigation which has been extremely difficult for all involved. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the officers and staff who have worked tirelessly to bring this case to court.

"I would also like to thank Georgia's family for the strength and courage they have shown during the traumatic events of the past 12 months.

"Georgia died in tragic circumstances and it is right and proper that the details surrounding her death were examined by a court and jury.

"Train guards sometimes work in extremely challenging circumstances, but it is important to remember they have a duty of care to those who travel on their rail services.

"When this duty of care is not satisfactorily met, it is our duty to present the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service who, where necessary, refer the matter to the courts.

"I hope, following the verdict, Georgia's family can now gain some sense of closure and begin to put their lives back together."

Sentencing today (Thursday, 15 Nov) Mr Justice Holroyde said: ^You displayed an appalling disregard for Georgia Varley^s safety, and she paid with her life.^

[Brucey]

Full text of the sentencing remarks: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-holroyde-r-v-mcgee.pdf

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for posting that link, Brucey.  I found those four pages of text to be very sombre reading.

This unusual case has clearly raised emotions among many commentators, and I'd like to thank our members here for their restraint in posting on this forum.  Some things I've read elsewhere on the internet have been really inappropriate in the tragic circumstances of this case.

Whatever our personal views on the circumstances may be, the facts of this case are clear.

The trial at Liverpool Crown Court ran over two weeks, from 5 November to 14 November: during that hearing, the jury of 11 lay people heard all of the evidence presented to them in open court.  They took over two hours in deliberation before reaching a unanimous verdict of guilty on the more serious charge manslaughter by gross negligence - they were then discharged from having to reach a verdict on the alternative, lesser, charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

While many of us will have our own views on the case, we need to bear that in mind: this conviction was not decided on a mere whim, but on the solid basis of all the facts being presented in court.  Mr Justice Holroyde's explanation of the sentence he imposed is crystal clear.

My personal view is that of Georgia's father, Paul Varley: "There are no winners here."

Chris. 

[JayMac]

The full RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report into this incident will be published on 27th November 2012:

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2012/report222012.cfm

[Chris from Nailsea]

The Rail Accident Investigation Branch have now published their full report on their website:

Summary

At 23:29 hrs on Saturday 22 October 2011, sixteen year-old Georgia Varley was struck and killed by the train she had left 30 seconds earlier. She was leaning against the train as it began to move out of the station and when she fell, the platform edge gap was wide enough for her to fall through and onto the track. Her post-mortem toxicology report recorded a blood alcohol concentration nearly three times the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) legal drink drive limit and she was wearing high heeled shoes at the time of the accident.

The guard dispatched the train while the young person was leaning against it. It is possible that he did this because he had seen her but expected her to move away before the train moved. It is also possible that he looked briefly in her direction but did not see her (^looked but failed to see^ is a known phenomenon in routine, repetitive tasks). It is also possible that he did not see her because his attention was on his control panel and a large group of people on the platform.

By the time the guard warned the young person to stand back she had been leaning against the train for approximately eleven seconds. It is not known when the guard saw her during this time or, if he saw her, whether he delayed taking action in the expectation that she would move away. Platform video camera footage shows him warning her to stand back in the moments before the train departs and it is likely he did this because he thought that it would be immediately effective and because he had no direct and immediate way to stop the train.

While the rail industry^s overall safety record has improved in recent years, accidents at the platform/train interface have increased, even when accounting for an increased number of passenger journeys over a period of time which saw a known industry hazard (trains with slam doors but no central locking) withdrawn from service. This indicates that the industry^s focus on operational matters has not delivered improved safety at the platform/train interface, which suggests that there is a need to consider technical solutions to reduce the risk.

This report makes three recommendations. The objective of recommendation one is for Merseyrail to reduce train dispatch accident risk by improving the way in which it operates its trains. The objective of recommendation two is for Merseyrail to reduce the likelihood of falls through the platform edge gap. The objective of recommendation three is for the Office of Rail Regulation to ensure that the findings of this report are taken into account in published guidance.

[ReWind]

Looks like the guard is appealing his sentance;

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/01/01/georgia-varley-merseyrail-guard-christopher-mcgee-to-lodge-appeal-against-jail-term-100252-32524190/

[JayMac]

I wonder on what grounds the appeal will be made. As Christopher McGee pleaded not guilty he could appeal the conviction and/or sentence. If he'd pleaded guilty then he would only normally be able to appeal against the sentence.

If he is just appealing the sentence as this article in the Liverpool Echo infers then that would rather indicate that his legal advisor(s) believe the conviction itself is sound.

So the grounds for an appeal against the sentence? Merely being a 'severe' sentence is unlikely to be grounds. That leaves errors in law, procedural errors, irrelevant factors included in sentencing remarks, and departure from sentencing guidelines producing a manifestly excessive sentence.