Tram overturns in Croydon - 7 killed, 51 injured - 9 Nov 2016

[whole diary]

[Bmblbzzz]

There's been a tram accident in Poznan, Poland, today, in which the driver is also thought to have "fallen asleep or fainted" before the tram derailed on a bend. He was sober and had been driving for 15 years without incident. Only the driver was injured, despite a couple of cars and a shop being damaged. http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/56,114883,22859075,tramwaj-wypadl-z-torow-sunal-jezdnia-i-chodnikiem-na-koniec.html

[JayMac]

The Crown Prosecution Service have today announced that the driver of the tram that overturned will not face prosecution.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50212531

[grahame]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57164860 ... feels incredibly late ...

The driver of a tram that crashed in Croydon, killing seven people, could have been "disorientated" following a micro-sleep, an inquest jury has heard.

Simon French, of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch)), said there was evidence the driver thought he was travelling in the opposite direction.

Mr French earlier described the event of November 2016 as "fast and violent".

It was "absolutely clear within hours" the crash was caused by excessive speed, he added.

He told the inquest if there had been a micro-sleep, "it is quite possible that the driver was fatigued", which could be a result of "cumulative sleep deprivation and insufficient sleep the previous night".

He also showed the hearing a video reconstruction of the crash.

The film, of a tram emerging from a tunnel at 78km/h (48mph) before slowing down to 73km/h (45mph), was shown first in slow motion and then at full speed.

[stuving]

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have initiated prosecutions of the driver, Transport for London (TfL^» (Transport for London - about)) and Tram Operations Limited (TOL^» (Tram Operations Limited - website)) for breaches of health and safety law. From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Mr Dorris, then aged 42, is accused of "an alleged failure as an employee to take reasonable care of passengers whilst employed at work driving the tram", the ORR said.

If found guilty, he could face a penalty of up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. TfL and ToL could also face an unlimited financial penalty.

[TonyK]

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have initiated prosecutions of the driver, Transport for London (TfL^» (Transport for London - about)) and Tram Operations Limited (TOL^» (Tram Operations Limited - website)) for breaches of health and safety law. From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Mr Dorris, then aged 42, is accused of "an alleged failure as an employee to take reasonable care of passengers whilst employed at work driving the tram", the ORR said.

If found guilty, he could face a penalty of up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. TfL and ToL could also face an unlimited financial penalty.

More than five years after the event. That seems a very long time, given that the CPS ruled out manslaughter charges more than 2 years ago, but this will have been a very complex investigation.

[TaplowGreen]

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have initiated prosecutions of the driver, Transport for London (TfL^» (Transport for London - about)) and Tram Operations Limited (TOL^» (Tram Operations Limited - website)) for breaches of health and safety law. From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Mr Dorris, then aged 42, is accused of "an alleged failure as an employee to take reasonable care of passengers whilst employed at work driving the tram", the ORR said.

If found guilty, he could face a penalty of up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. TfL and ToL could also face an unlimited financial penalty.

"Up to two years imprisonment" - seems a pretty light penalty for 7 lives lost? (if found guilty)

[TonyK]

"Up to two years imprisonment" - seems a pretty light penalty for 7 lives lost? (if found guilty)

Had the charge been manslaughter (or even murder), then the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. For reasons I haven't read anywhere, neither of those two offences seems to have been committed (according to the CPS), so two years max it is, if convicted.

I am not entering into speculation here, just considering one possible reason. The companies are also being prosecuted, which suggests that the CPS will argue that there were failings at corporate level, sufficient to clear the bar for  prosecution. A charge of manslaughter could be argued by them as showing that the driver was solely to blame, so precluding corporate charges. There may well be other reasons, but I'm not even a qualified barrack-room lawyer, so will wait to hear them.

[JayMac]

"Up to two years imprisonment" - seems a pretty light penalty for 7 lives lost? (if found guilty)

More serious charges were largely precluded after the inquest  returned verdicts of accidental death for the seven victims. Relatives of the dead called that inquest an "expensive farce" after the coroner refused to allow witness statements from other passengers, from TfL^» (Transport for London - about), Tram Operations Ltd, other drivers, or the driver involved. He was deemed unfit to give evidence on medical grounds. The coroner relied almost solely on the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report to direct the jury. An odd decision given that the RAIB doesn't apportion blame nor decide whether or not victims were unlawfully killed.

I sympathise with the relatives. The inquest did seem to be a rubber stamp exercise. A speeding driver, possibly asleep at the wheel. Poor risk management. No overspeed mitigation equipment. Unlawful killing at the very least.

The companies are also being prosecuted, which suggests that the CPS will argue that there were failings at corporate level, sufficient to clear the bar for  prosecution.

It's the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) prosecuting, not the CPS.

[eightonedee]

"Up to two years imprisonment" - seems a pretty light penalty for 7 lives lost? (if found guilty)

There's a lot that this statement. It is easy for those of us who spent a working life sat at a desk when the worse thing that a moment's inattention could cause is knocking your coffee over your keyboard to make a statement like this. This person did not set off to work intending to cause injury, and quite likely did not realise what danger had arisen immediately before the accident - although if he was (for example) playing with a mobile device instead of concentrating on his job, or under he influence of drink or drugs, that would be different.

Personally, I get more upset when a psychopath beats the living daylights out of some unfortunate who gets in their way when their blood is up gets away without a jail sentence. We sadly have a tabloid culture which whips up a revenge culture against those involved in accidents, when what we really need to do is to make sure as far as possible the risk of a recurrence is reduced or eliminated.  We would be a better society if grieving relatives were made to feel some consolation if this happens, rather than encourage a culture baying for revenge against someone whose "crime" might be just a few moments inattention when they were tired.

What we should be getting upset about is that in this modern and apparently safety pre-occupied world we ended up with a rail based mode of transport that could hurtle towards a bend this sharp at this speed.

  

[TonyK]

It's the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) prosecuting, not the CPS.

You are absolutely correct, I've let retirement get to me.

It is still the same overall point, though, albeit for a different reason. ORR (and HSA and other statutory bodies with prosecution powers) can only start proceedings for offences that can be tried either summarily or "either way". More serious offences can only be tried on indictment, that is in a Crown Court, so ORR could not start a manslaughter case on their own, at least not without the agreement of the Attorney General or DPP, which is hypothetical in a case like this. CPS decided for whatever reason, which could include my offering, that they would not pursue the more serious charges available, and let ORR take over.

What we should be getting upset about is that in this modern and apparently safety pre-occupied world we ended up with a rail based mode of transport that could hurtle towards a bend this sharp at this speed.

It could well be that this view is shared by CPS and ORR, who have chosen a path that can better include corporate failings. We'll find out one day.

[TaplowGreen]

"Up to two years imprisonment" - seems a pretty light penalty for 7 lives lost? (if found guilty)

There's a lot that this statement. It is easy for those of us who spent a working life sat at a desk when the worse thing that a moment's inattention could cause is knocking your coffee over your keyboard to make a statement like this. This person did not set off to work intending to cause injury, and quite likely did not realise what danger had arisen immediately before the accident - although if he was (for example) playing with a mobile device instead of concentrating on his job, or under he influence of drink or drugs, that would be different.

Personally, I get more upset when a psychopath beats the living daylights out of some unfortunate who gets in their way when their blood is up gets away without a jail sentence. We sadly have a tabloid culture which whips up a revenge culture against those involved in accidents, when what we really need to do is to make sure as far as possible the risk of a recurrence is reduced or eliminated.  We would be a better society if grieving relatives were made to feel some consolation if this happens, rather than encourage a culture baying for revenge against someone whose "crime" might be just a few moments inattention when they were tired.

What we should be getting upset about is that in this modern and apparently safety pre-occupied world we ended up with a rail based mode of transport that could hurtle towards a bend this sharp at this speed.

  

I haven't spent my working life sitting at a desk, and in the construction/R & M industry we are sadly familiar with bad decision making, carelessness or inattention causing serious injury or death.

I didn't suggest at any point that there was any intent involved on the part of the tram driver, I very much doubt even those who drive recklessly intend to cause harm to others.  I was merely giving an observation on the maximum sentence he faces - Bignosemac has provided some useful clarification on that.

[Electric train]

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have initiated prosecutions of the driver, Transport for London (TfL^» (Transport for London - about)) and Tram Operations Limited (TOL^» (Tram Operations Limited - website)) for breaches of health and safety law. From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Mr Dorris, then aged 42, is accused of "an alleged failure as an employee to take reasonable care of passengers whilst employed at work driving the tram", the ORR said.

If found guilty, he could face a penalty of up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. TfL and ToL could also face an unlimited financial penalty.

Proportionally the Tram Driver could end up with a more severe sentence than TfL as any fine impacts directly any public services, TOL part of the defence is the fact they have or are since the accident implementing fatigue management and monitoring.  The Tram Drive and I'm not saying his actions are not reprehensible, but he is going to live with the consequences of that morning on his mind for the rest of his life,   TfL and TOL will have corporate amnesia 

[TonyK]

Proportionally the Tram Driver could end up with a more severe sentence than TfL^» (Transport for London - about) as any fine impacts directly any public services, TOL^» (Tram Operations Limited - website) part of the defence is the fact they have or are since the accident implementing fatigue management and monitoring.  The Tram Drive and I'm not saying his actions are not reprehensible, but he is going to live with the consequences of that morning on his mind for the rest of his life,   TfL and TOL will have corporate amnesia 

You can't lock a company up, and the people running it now may not be the same people who were running it then. Any fine will come out of the budget or be passed on in higher fares.

[grahame]

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

Passengers were "flung around" as if in a washing machine during a tram crash in Croydon that killed seven people, a court has heard.

Sixty-one passengers were also injured, 19 seriously, when the tram derailed in south London on 9 November 2016.

The Old Bailey heard passengers were flung about when the driver attempted a curve at more than three times the speed limit.

The trial is set to last for up to 5 weeks.

[Electric train]

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

Passengers were "flung around" as if in a washing machine during a tram crash in Croydon that killed seven people, a court has heard.

Sixty-one passengers were also injured, 19 seriously, when the tram derailed in south London on 9 November 2016.

The Old Bailey heard passengers were flung about when the driver attempted a curve at more than three times the speed limit.

The trial is set to last for up to 5 weeks.

I am assuming the case is being prosecuted by the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) and not the CPS.