£4m fine on Network Rail over railway crossing death at Needham Market, Suffolk, Aug 2011

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From The Telegraph

Network Rail fined £4m over death of actress killed at railway crossing

Network Rail has been fined £4 million for a string of safety failures after a former actress was struck and killed by a train on a railway foot crossing.

Olive McFarland, who was a regular in TV dramas and films from the 1950s to the 1970s, died on the crossing near Needham Market, Suffolk, in August 2011.

The 82-year-old was hit by a train travelling at nearly 100mph on a section of track that a Network Rail employee said should have been restricted to 55mph, but this safety work was not done, Ipswich Crown Court heard.

At an earlier hearing at Ipswich Magistrates' Court, Network Rail admitted being an employer in breach of a general duty of care for a period spanning from January 1999 to the day of Mrs McFarland's death in 2011.

The company was sentenced at Ipswich Crown Court on Wednesday.

A fine of £4 million was imposed with Network Rail granted 28 days to pay, and it was ordered to pay costs of £35,857.

[snip]

In a statement issued after the hearing, Richard Schofield, route managing director at Network Rail, said: "We are truly sorry for the death of Miss McFarland.

"Since this tragic accident we have improved safety by introducing a speed restriction on the line and reducing the crossing distance by straightening the crossing and re-positioning the gates.

"However, this is not a permanent solution.

"We believe that removing the level crossing is the safest option and we are continuing to work with the local community to get their support to close this crossing.

"In the year following Miss McFarland's death, the executive directors turned down their bonus entitlement and instead chose for this money to be reallocated to a safety improvement fund for level crossings.

"Since 2010 we have closed over 1,000 crossings and we are spending £100 million across the country improving level crossing safety."

[grahame]

Also covered elsewhere such as The Guardian

[grahame]

From Out-law.com

'Eye-watering' Network Rail fine just the start for largest health and safety offenders, says expert
The record fine imposed on Network Rail for its culpability in the death of an 82-year-old woman on a level crossing is "likely to be only the tip of the iceberg" for large businesses sentenced for health and safety offences under new guidelines, an expert has said.23

Health & safety Corporate Regulatory Health and safety and corporate manslaughter Transport Infrastructure UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Europe
Network Rail was fined £4 million at Ipswich Crown Court this week for its role in the death of Olive McFarland at the Gipsy Lane crossing in Needham Market, Suffolk in August 2011, according to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page). The fine would have been £6m had the company not pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, the BBC said.

As we have in the past, I find myself wondering where the money to pay fines such as this 4 million really comes from and where it really goes to.  The article quoted in the Guardian / Telegraph just above in this thread talk about Network Rail managers forgoing rises / bonuses,  so it's not a total case of "it's all back on the public".  And the articles also talk about a (re)allocation of spend to deal with level crossing safety, so the fine may have had a warning / behaviour-changing effect.  Yet still there's a vague feeling in my mind that we have a very odd system where the public owned rail infrastructure business is found to be wanting and needing money spent to 'put things right', and the public run court system's reaction is to remove a substantial sum of money that could be spent on putting things right from that public owned rail infrastructure business.

[Billhere]

The article quoted in the Guardian / Telegraph just above in this thread talk about Network Rail managers forgoing rises / bonuses,

Not just the Managers. The bonus system is based on annual performance of the company as a whole ending on the last day of July each year and is paid to each employee on a percentage basis.

However some peoples bonus are rather larger than others, but rather a matter of a few pounds in my case rather than thousands, but equally important to me. If I remember correctly my bonus this year was about 30% of the maximum figure available.

[grahame]

The article quoted in the Guardian / Telegraph just above in this thread talk about Network Rail managers forgoing rises / bonuses,

Not just the Managers. The bonus system is based on annual performance of the company as a whole ending on the last day of July each year and is paid to each employee on a percentage basis.

However some peoples bonus are rather larger than others, but rather a matter of a few pounds in my case rather than thousands, but equally important to me. If I remember correctly my bonus this year was about 30% of the maximum figure available.

A pair of very difficult subjects indeed.

a) Where I've worked through / with a bonus scheme, it's been effective where the work of the individuals to whom the bonus is paid can have a significant effect on that bonus. Do you feel, Billhere, that your 30% bonus was significantly influenceable by your own work (which it might have been had it been based on local performance), or was it a regional or company wide thing where the amount really wasn't effected by what you did?  Are others at a higher managerial level able to have such an effect, and if they are, does the spreading of the bonus to those who have little or no influence somewhat mitigate the effect on them of poor actions?

b) What's the intent of a fine on a publicly owned company?  Is it really intended to make those responsible for the fineable behaviour pay that fine?  Is it there to shock the organisation into a behaviour change?  Or is it to a great extent there to satisfy the public's demand that something must be done?

I'm very conscious that I'm asking questions and not providing answers nor constructive suggestions of alternatives ...

[TaplowGreen]

Charge Network Rail with Corporate Manslaughter.......there's a constructive alternative for you.

[ellendune]

Charge Network Rail with Corporate Manslaughter.......there's a constructive alternative for you.

How would that work?

Corporate Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.

So the courts would take more than £4 million? Then it can spend even less on safety improvements.  Or bankrupt the company so it what closes or bis taken over by the government - who already own it anyway. 

[TaplowGreen]

Charge Network Rail with Corporate Manslaughter.......there's a constructive alternative for you.

How would that work?

Corporate Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.

So the courts would take more than £4 million? Then it can spend even less on safety improvements.  Or bankrupt the company so it what closes or bis taken over by the government - who already own it anyway. 

For one thing it enables the Court to impose a remedial order on the organisation to take action to remedy its management failures and publish details of this order to enable them to be held to account if they fail to do so.

It wouldn't stop gross negligence manslaughter charges against individuals if appropriate, which may concentrate a few minds.

[ellendune]

For one thing it enables the Court to impose a remedial order on the organisation to take action to remedy its management failures and publish details of this order to enable them to be held to account if they fail to do so.

But HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) can impose a similar order anyway under the Health and Safety at Work Act without even having to wait for a conviction. 

It wouldn't stop gross negligence manslaughter charges against individuals if appropriate, which may concentrate a few minds.

OK, but experience suggests, that it is very difficult to prove such a case against  a senior manager of an organisation of this size. Much easier to bring a conviction under the Health and Safety at Work Act. 

When it has been individual manslaughter cases are brought it is usually against some junior who has little influence on company policy. 

Litigation takes time and delays the proper enquiry process.  The legal the delay in the Southall enquiry due to the police investigation of a possible prosecution went on so long that the public enquiry was so late that it failed to stop another similar accident at Ladbroke Grove.

The silence of staff who feared prosecution means we will probably never know what caused the Potters Bar accident.

it was realised that getting to the truth was a more effective way of stopping future accidents than the law.

That is why RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) was set up.  The system has worked well in the airline industry for decades. 

Do you want just want retribution or do actually want to stop an accident happening again. 

Prosecution has its place, but if it leads to people being so frightened to talk that we cannot prevent it happening again it will be a very sour revenge.