Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 15:15 28 Mar 2024
- Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Jet2 launches first flight from Liverpool airport
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
13:26 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
13:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
15:10 Newquay to Par
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
15:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
16:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
16:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
17:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
14:05 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Delayed
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
13:57 Exmouth to Paignton
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 15:28:41 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[142] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[80] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[56] Return of the BRUTE?
[46] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[43] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[34] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
Author Topic: Train crash at Br^tigny-sur-Orge - multiple fatalities - 12 July 2013  (Read 41816 times)
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2016, 14:01:20 »

The criminal investigation of this accident is still going on, and Le Canard Enchain^ is today suggesting that SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) (now with added RFF) is schooling its staff in what to say to the prosecutors. On the evidence, it's pretty clear that SNCF/RFF are guilty of some kind of manslaughter. If there is still something SNCF fear, it is probably that the current charge (accidentally causing death) is replaced by one of recklessness or wilful causing death.

Is this a shock horror scandal story, or just the French way of doing things? It's hard to say, though some of its features (prosecutors tapping witnesses' phones, the leaking of what should be secret prosecution details to the press) are very French.

I can imagine that an employer would want to warn staff about what to expect - along the lines of:
  • Just answer the questions. You'll have enough difficulty dealing with that, without volunteering information on extra topics.
  • Be very careful what you say and how you say it. If you later correct something that's not quite right, they may still keep coming back with your incorrect version and saying it's "the truth" and the rest is all lies.
  • Stick to what you know directly, and never mention rumours or things that "everyone knows".
  • If you are asked about rumours, morale, or that kind of subjective stuff, make clear in every reply that it is just your impression and may be wrong.
  • Remember that prosecutors are not objective, they have their own agendas - political, internal office politics, various prejudices, personal ambition, etc.
(The first of those was mentioned in the story as being part of the manipulation.)

Of course that could easily then go on to rehearsing the "story" and editing its text, which I guess we'd all call manipulation (or perverting of the course of justice, if wearing a suit). SNCF have refused to comment on a story based on leaked documents.

Le Canard Enchain^ is resolutely old-fashioned, and its accommodation of the internet age extends just far enough to put a facsimile of its front page on line. This story isn't on the front page, so there's only the like of this second-hand version.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: January 28, 2016, 00:37:52 »

I read the French article about the accident, and agree, stuving. This doesn't look like the English way of doing things - a judge bugging the phone calls between an accused person and his company's lawyers? I know that major criminal matters are investigated by a judge in France, but I cannot imagine a Detective Chief Superintendent even asking for an intercept warrant from the Home Secretary in such a case.

As for coaching the witnesses, I can't see much wrong with what was said - "Come with nothing - you should wait for their questions" is probably what every solicitor tells every defendant before any court case. I spent a fair bit of time in courts, mainly magistrates, but Crown on more than a few occasions. I was told by the judge on one such occasion to answer the question, and only the question, telling the court only what I myself knew with certainty, not what I thought everyone knew. Apart from anything else, it saves the court time that could be spent arguing what was and what was not admissible. I had to explain this myself to witnesses in cases I was involved in, and it was nothing untoward. Manipulation of the evidence, or asking someone to give false evidence is another matter, never crossed my mind, and isn't alleged against SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways).

This is a huge case in France, but unless the judicial rules are vastly different to ours, this seems much ado about nothing. I assume that, like here, there is a fine distinction between "dangerous" and "careless" in driving offences, and between "negligent" and "dangerous" actions leading to manslaughter. The difference in sentence can be measured in years. This is before the company's reputation is called into question. I would be surprised if the employees had not been advised by the company's lawyers.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 23:05:20 by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: January 28, 2016, 01:33:12 »

I read the French article about the article, and agree, stuving. This doesn't look like the English way of doing things - a judge bugging the phone calls between an accused person and his company's lawyers? I know that major criminal matters are investigated by a judge in France, but I cannot imagine a Detective Chief Superintendent even asking for an intercept warrant from the Home Secretary in such a case.

Bugging supposedly privileged phone calls with a lawyer is exactly what was done to Sarkozy - but that did smell strongly of political motivation. Examining magistrates still have the power to hold people in custody just for interview, which were almost unlimited before the recent(!) introduction of something like habeas corpus.

It is exactly at this initial instruction phase that the French system is so different. It is led by the examining magistrate, who is a judge but on loan to the prosecutor's office (parquet). Normally the leg-work is done by the Police Judiciare but in this case most of that's been done by BEA-TT. So they are nowhere near court yet, and the comparison is with an employer advising staff before a - rather formal - police interview.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: January 28, 2016, 10:04:50 »


It is exactly at this initial instruction phase that the French system is so different. It is led by the examining magistrate, who is a judge but on loan to the prosecutor's office (parquet). Normally the leg-work is done by the Police Judiciare but in this case most of that's been done by BEA-TT. So they are nowhere near court yet, and the comparison is with an employer advising staff before a - rather formal - police interview.

Thanks for the clarification, stuving. We are talking similar to the Interview Under Caution here. I have conducted many of these. Some of those where the suspect was accompanied by a legal representative led to the answer "No comment" to every question except name and date of birth. All perfectly legal, given that I had just told the unfortunate subject of my attentions that he did not have to say anything, slightly frustrating, but I wouldn't be interviewing if I didn't think the evidence merited at least an explanation, and on more than one occasion disadvantageous to the suspect.

As it is nowhere near court yet, I can't see what advantage these recorded conversations could give to the prosecution. They remain no more than advice by a lawyer to a client, albeit with a rather fruity turn of phrase on one occasion.
Logged

Now, please!
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2019, 13:54:53 »

Le Parisen reported this morning that one of the three SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) (then RFF) employees implicated in the case, and previously "witnesses under caution", has been mis en examen - charged with a criminal offence, roughly. The prosecutors' office at Evry has confirmed only that step about an unnamed SNCF employee.

The newspaper report says more, that it was the local track maintenance manager (the other two being his direct reports). He did the last inspection before the accident, and the independent engineering reports said (based largely on the state of the fracture surfaces) that the relevant trackwork damage was present at that time.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: June 12, 2020, 19:35:00 »

Le Parisen reported this morning that one of the three SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) (then RFF) employees implicated in the case, and previously "witnesses under caution", has been mis en examen - charged with a criminal offence, roughly. The prosecutors' office at Evry has confirmed only that step about an unnamed SNCF employee.

The newspaper report says more, that it was the local track maintenance manager (the other two being his direct reports). He did the last inspection before the accident, and the independent engineering reports said (based largely on the state of the fracture surfaces) that the relevant trackwork damage was present at that time.

It was announced today by the prosecutors that the case (for manslaughter, more or less) against both SCNF and the individual already charged will go to court next year.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 23:50:34 by stuving » Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2020, 23:09:38 »

It was announced today by the prosecutors that the case (for manslaighter, more or less) against both SCNF and the individual already charged will go to court next year.

I know it's a complex matter, but eight years is a long, long time to have the sword of Damocles over your head.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 09:51:52 by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
GBM
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1468


View Profile Email
« Reply #67 on: June 18, 2020, 09:47:14 »

Our UK (United Kingdom) system doesn't take that long to bring cases forward do they?
It seems the French system drags on far longer than ours, so are their systems more effective than ours; which could mean we convict when perhaps we should take longer to investigate?
Logged

Personal opinion only.  Writings not representative of any union, collective, management or employer. (Think that absolves me...........)
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: June 18, 2020, 10:08:12 »

Our UK (United Kingdom) system doesn't take that long to bring cases forward do they?
It seems the French system drags on far longer than ours, so are their systems more effective than ours; which could mean we convict when perhaps we should take longer to investigate?

I can remember a time when the UK system, or at least England and Wales, did drag on and on. I think it was back in the 1980s that a series of legal reforms were introduced to speed things up without detriment to the accused, mostly by making more things triable in Magistrates' Courts rather than Crown, and tidying up the administration. There are many more paid judges in the lower court these days, which helps. Cases are sent to Crown Court at an earlier stage, with progress directed by the judge rather than by magistrates. All that, of course, can only happen once the investigation has been completed and a prima facie case established for someone to answer. I struggle to think of any aspect of this that could have taken 7 years to establish.
Logged

Now, please!
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: June 18, 2020, 10:50:59 »

Our UK (United Kingdom) system doesn't take that long to bring cases forward do they?
It seems the French system drags on far longer than ours, so are their systems more effective than ours; which could mean we convict when perhaps we should take longer to investigate?

Remember that this is a high-profile corporate liability case, and against a nationalised industry too. In France individuals are commonly cited in these, and they do drag on for reasons that are hard to see - commissioning lots of expert reports into expert reports is part of that, I think. I don't think France is particularly bad in this respect, but maybe it is in the length of time it takes for the appeals processes to (almost always) eventually overturn personal convictions.

In this country such cases have generally not happened, and guilty verdicts have been rare - and I'm not sure how much that has changed, though police investigations are now usual. Even with a big press campaign to get a case started, and another to get a prosecution, liability for manslaughter could not be proved against an organisation without finding a "single controlling mind". So corporate manslaughter was invented*, but proving “senior management failure” has been so hard that convictions are still rare. And of course individuals are in effect still excluded.

*The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: June 18, 2020, 11:20:13 »


Remember that this is a high-profile corporate liability case, and against a nationalised industry too. In France individuals are commonly cited in these, and they do drag on for reasons that are hard to see - commissioning lots of expert reports into expert reports is part of that, I think. I don't think France is particularly bad in this respect, but maybe it is in the length of time it takes for the appeals processes to (almost always) eventually overturn personal convictions.


I appreciate all that, and agree with your thoughts. Corporate manslaughter here would not preclude the prosecution of an individual if they were to perform a criminal act or omission, but yes, companies have to be brought to book if they do wrong in telling employees what to do or how to do it.

The expert reports will have been commissioned by both sides, or course, with the winner being the one with the more expensive experts as a general rule of thumb. The court in England and Wales, and the investigator in France, will work through these with both sides, holding in effect trials of the evidence and looking for the areas where both sides agree, so that the eventual trial will focus only on what remains in dispute, what actually happened, and why it happened. That takes time, and lots of arguments, but leaving it to rumble on for so long runs the risk of people growing old, infirm or dying, with the possibility of a whole new set of arguments about whose memory of the events is the most accurate. Justice may prevail, but it might look a little pale by the time it is done.
Logged

Now, please!
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2022, 12:30:46 »

Le Parisen reported this morning that one of the three SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) (then RFF) employees implicated in the case, and previously "witnesses under caution", has been mis en examen - charged with a criminal offence, roughly. The prosecutors' office at Evry has confirmed only that step about an unnamed SNCF employee.

The newspaper report says more, that it was the local track maintenance manager (the other two being his direct reports). He did the last inspection before the accident, and the independent engineering reports said (based largely on the state of the fracture surfaces) that the relevant trackwork damage was present at that time.

It was announced today by the prosecutors that the case (for manslaughter, more or less) against both SCNF and the individual already charged will go to court next year.

The court case starts today. There may be some Covid delay involved, but I suspect it's mostly the usual legal sort.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: October 26, 2022, 12:28:04 »

The court has - at last - just handed down its verdicts: Guilty for SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) (SNCF Infra at the time) with a fine of €300,000, not guilty for the individual PW (Permanent Way) engineer at SNCF and for SNCF Réseau (the infrastructure manager, was RFF). The specific charge sounds odd outside France , but implies negligence in its duty to ensure safety, plus being a repeat offender (adds a third to the fine) - fair enough, in the sense that it's not the first time such an accident has happened. The fine recognises the much greater cost to SNCF of compensating the victims and families.

No word of any appeal, and I can't really see why SNCF would want to. And if that's it, it's less than ten years end to end - not slow at all, as these things go!
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: October 26, 2022, 13:49:01 »

Here's a report of that in English from Euronews:
Quote
French rail operator SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) fined over fatal 2013 train crash near Paris Access to the comments Comments
By AFP  with Euronews  •  Updated: 26/10/2022 - 13:29

France’s national rail operator has been convicted of manslaughter over a deadly train crash near Paris nine years ago.

SNCF was found criminally responsible for the accident, which killed seven people and injured more than 400 others.

The 3657 Intercity Paris-Limoges train derailed at Brétigny-sur-Orge station, south of the French capital, on 12 July 2013.

Investigators later found that a broken metal bar had caused the train to leave the tracks and hit the station platform.

On Wednesday, the court in Evry found SNCF guilty of involuntary injury and manslaughter and fined the French state company €300,000.

But former SNCF employee Laurent Waton and SNCF Réseau, a subsidiary company responsible for managing the railway line, were cleared by the court. Waton had carried out the last surveillance of the track eight days before the accident.

Victims’ associations had accused SNCF of failing to maintain the track, which led to "the decay of the suburban network".

The French company had acknowledged its “moral responsibility” for the derailment but claimed that the accident was caused by an undetectable defect in the steel.

But the court found that the metal bar had been damaged since 2008 and had been poorly maintained for five years.

"This negligence in monitoring the core is definitely linked to the derailment," the judge said on Wednesday.

The verdict can be appealed.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page