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

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

There may well be much more substance to the decision behind this guilty verdict when the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report is released from embargo and published. I believe this will be later this week, subject to some legal arguments that may still be being made. The Office of Rail Regulation and the parties involved in this criminal case have already received copies of the RAIBs full report.

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


My personal take:

This was a very tragic incident and, as I see it, both Georgia Varley and Christopher McGee were to blame. Georgia's mistakes led to her paying the ultimate price for her foolhardly actions and Christopher McGee's mistakes have led to him losing his career, receiving a criminal record and having to live with the knowledge that he was partly to blame for the death of someone. He may also lose his liberty, having been remanded in custody and told by the trial judge that he may face a custodial sentence, although a manslaughter conviction has a very wide range of sentencing options from absolute discharge up to life imprisonment.

We have a great legal system in this country and I think the verdict reached is the correct one. Others may disagree, but regardless of the 'state' someone is in, train guards in their safety critical role have a duty of care toward the public.

I'm going to quote another guard from another forum who's made some comments that I think go some way to explaining why Christopher McGee ended up being found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence:

Although I do as a fellow guard have sympathy, however if we DO NOT do our job correctly, we leave ourselves open to a worst case scenario, and this sadly is what happened, to be proved Guilty of such a serious crime of Manslaughter would mean that there would have to be shown multiple accounts of the procedures NOT being followed, not just a mistake at one stop. with OTMR^▸ (On Train Monitoring Recorder) and CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) we are constantly monitored officially or not and we are paid to do our job correctly, obviously the parents of the child who sadly died (and yes she was still a child) should take a of responsibilty for their daughters actions that led to this horrible horrible accident but sadly for the guard we have a duty of care and through not following procedures he did not show duty of care.

I do have sympathy for both parties, however they were both at serious fault and sadly again one paid with her life and the guard will have to live with it for the rest of his life.

No one can ever win in a situation like this

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1266761#post1266761

I do however disagree with Georgia Varley's mother. Her daughter WAS a liability that night. Sadly for Christopher McGee it was his misfortune to have become, by the nature of his duty of care, responsible for Georgia's safety. The law used in this case is there to protect all, regardless of the 'state' they are in. 

[LiskeardRich]

It is not illegal for a 16 year old to drink alcohol: it is illegal for them to buy alcohol.

Its also illegal to buy it for an under 18. So if they can not legally buy it, or have it bought for them, surely they cant legally have any way of drinking it.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I'm not taking sides: merely stating facts, in the interests of accuracy.

From that BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) item:

Miss Varley, from Moreton, Wirral, had been at a house party before she went into Liverpool for a night out with her friends when the tragedy happened on 22 October last year. A blood analysis following her death showed she had 236mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in her system - the legal driving limit is 80mg. She also had the drug mephedrone in her system at the time of her death.

The legal situation in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is complex. From Wikipedia:

Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937).
Between the ages of 5 and 17, it is legally permissible for children to drink alcohol at home or at a friend's house with the permission of a parent or legal guardian.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 or 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises when ordered with a meal. In England and Wales, it must be an adult who orders; however, an adult doesn't have to be present to order alcohol with a meal in Scotland. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18. (The legal age to buy liqueur chocolates is 16, but this is rarely enforced.)
Under the BBPA's Challenge 21 scheme, customers attempting to buy alcoholic beverages are asked to prove their age if in the retailer's opinion they look under 21 even though the law states they must be a minimum of 18. Many supermarket and off-licence chains display Challenge 21 notices stating that they will not serve persons who look under 21 without ID.
Supermarkets or off-licence chains that are found to have violated the law and have repeatedly sold alcohol to underage persons are then required to adopt the Challenge 25 scheme. Failing to adhere to this will result in revocation of the licence to sell alcohol. (Challenge 25 is standard procedure in Scotland and the main supermarket chains.)
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in all of the United Kingdom. This means acting as the young person's agent.

[LiskeardRich]

On another forum I visit a very interesting point that has been asked, as the girl was a minor, would there be an element of child neglect from the parents?
However my view having read through several reports today is:

It is a safety critical position, and if the guard breached safety then I am sorry to say guilty is the correct outcome. This is obviously subject to the guard undergoing correct training, and TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) records showing he has undergone the training.
I have worked in a safety critical position previously and it was made clear to me at start of employment that if the company can evidence I had taken the training, I am personally liable if my error caused any safety issue. The training was highly documented to cover the company back, and so the company would be able to proof they werent liable if i was at fault for an incident and I could be personally prosecuted.

[JayMac]

It is indeed illegal to buy alcohol for someone under 18*. But, merely giving alcohol to a child over 5, or allowing them to drink it 'at home', may not be an offence. It is perfectly legal for a child above 5 to drink alcohol at home. In the home its a parental/adult responsibility decision, not a legal one. There's no legal distinction about whose home it is either. It's perfectly possible that Georgia Varley became intoxicated at the house party she was at prior to going into Liverpool city centre. The adults in that house, or the owners if there were no adults present, wouldn't necessarily have broken any laws in regard to minors consuming alcohol there. No legal responsibility but perhaps moral and social ones....

*Exception: In England and Wales 16/17 year olds can have purchased for them and drink beer/cider/wine to accompany a table meal in licensed premises. The purchaser must be over 18 and be accompanying the 16/17 year old(s)



EDIT: chris from nailsea with that quote from Wikipedia got there before me. I'll leave my different words saying much the same thing in place though.

[trainer]

Dealing with drunks on late night services must be a nightmare for train staff.  Some time not too long ago at Nailsea and Backwell station a Paddington - Weston-s -Mare HST^▸ (High Speed Train) I was on was about to depart when a drunk man who staggered to the top of the steps too late, leapt at a door already locked before the guard could give the signal to go and tried to get on.  He shouted to be let in and kicked the door for several minutes, pleading with passengers on the train to open the door.  This was worrying to watch and rightly the doors were not unlocked, but the guard shouted from the back of the train for him to stand away.  The man continued to shout and hang on to the door until the guard walked through the train and shouted at the man to stand back or the police would be called.  He was dragged back by his companions and eventually we departed to his shouted swearing.  This caused a fairly heavy delay on the service, but the H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) implications for the perpetrator, the train crew and passengers on the train were clear to all sober observers and took precedence.  The temptation just to have started the train would have been very strong for me: which is probably why I don't work for the railways.  In that case the professionalism shone through.  The current case is a tragedy for all.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the British Transport Police press release:

British Transport Police Statement - Georgia Varley

Detective Chief Inspector Simon Taylor said: "Today's 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 today's verdict, Georgia's family can now gain some sense of closure and begin to put their lives back together."

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Georgia Varley train fall death: Guard jailed for manslaughter

A railway guard has been jailed for five years for causing the death of a 16-year-old girl who went under a train at a Liverpool station.

Georgia Varley died when she fell between the carriage and platform at James Street station in October 2011.

Christopher McGee, 45, had denied manslaughter but was found guilty at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday.

He signalled for the driver to depart as Miss Varley, who was drunk, stood on the platform leaning against the train.

During the two-week trial, the prosecution said McGee should have been able to see she was in an "intoxicated state".

McGee told the jury he did not know how drunk she had been and thought she was moving away from the train when he gave the signal to depart.

[caliwag]

Gosh...that's a harsh sentence with all the vagueness that surrounds the issue. I wonder what the on-going implications are for train dispatch for unmanned stations, let alone ones on a curve like Bristol and York!

Do we know if there be an appeal, say by his union?

[paul7575]

You possibly mean an appeal 'funded by' the union?  AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) only the defendant can actually appeal, a third party cannot do it on his behalf.

I was just thinking the main rail unions seem unusually quiet on the matter, as reported so far?

Paul

[Sprog]

A Pi$$ed up, drugged up, under age girl....if she wasnt all of these three then she wouldnt have been in a situation to fall under the unit.

What an absolute joke...

[JayMac]

Sprog. I'd say to that, "There but for the grace of God."

As I said earlier, the law is there to protect all, regardless of the condition they are in. Christopher McGee failed in his duty of care. I'm fairly sure that in his training people under the influence of drink and/or drugs were not excluded from that duty of care. The jury have listened to all the evidence presented and reached a unanimous verdict. To say it's a joke is to do a disservice, both to Miss Varley's memory and to the 12 members of the public who had to give their verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'd also say it's perfectly possible for a stone cold sober person to act in the same manner as Miss Varley did, with the same consequences.

Its no joking matter. Just a very sad situation for all concerned.

[grahame]

It's always dangerous to comment on cases such as this without having been there, and without having been in court either. There are some direct quotes from the judge in this article which went some way to informing me a bit further:

http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/local-news/1217665-father-of-georgia-varley-pays-tribute-as-train-guard-jailed-.html?

[trainer]

It is quite clear from the comments of the judge that when a member of the public comes into contact with public transport, whatever state they're in, the operator and its agents have a duty of care.  Sadly this case simply and tragically exemplifies how frail humans can cause each other unintended harm by unwise actions.  By the grace of God, indeed.  Unfortunately, the Law of the land is unable to exercise grace and neither does the Law of Nature of we abuse our bodies.  As the bereaved father say, 'There are no winners.'

[LiskeardRich]

Gosh...that's a harsh sentence with all the vagueness that surrounds the issue. I wonder what the on-going implications are for train dispatch for unmanned stations, let alone ones on a curve like Bristol and York!

Do we know if there be an appeal, say by his union?

Its a rather lenient sentence in fact for the offence he has been charged with. I somehow doubt that vagueness surrounds the issue, more so the details made public have been vague to prevent jeopodising the court case.