Hatfield execs let off manslaughter charges.

[Scarlett]

Just spotted the following on the BBC

Rail Killing Manslaugter charges thrown out

I'm a bit suspicious about this one based on the judges comment.

Five months into the trial, Mr Justice Mackay ordered the jury to find the men not guilty.

"It is not open to you to convict any of the six defendants on charges of manslaughter," he told the jury on Thursday morning.

He was not permitted to give reasons for his decision, he said.

"I must ask you to accept my ruling, which does not affect one way or the other the important decisions you will have to make when considering verdicts on the health and safety counts."

Hmm, Pressure from above so that it doesn't put off companies investing in PFI/Rail ? or they don't want to see this go to appeal and the Gov lose out then...

I think we should be told!

Scarlett

[NitroNutter]

At the very least speed restrictions should have been inforce like in any track section that is in disrepair, still that would mean more late trains, incurring losses in rail revenues, tax losses all round etc,etc. so what the heck this is Britain and Britains motto is money first lives later, and government will cover their asses anyway.

Originally Posted by Scarlett

Just spotted the following on the BBC

Rail Killing Manslaugter charges thrown out

I'm a bit suspicious about this one based on the judges comment.



Hmm, Pressure from above so that it doesn't put off companies investing in PFI/Rail ? or they don't want to see this go to appeal and the Gov lose out then...

I think we should be told!

Scarlett

No reason to be suspicious of the judge's silence. A lot of legal argument cannot be heard in front of a jury. This jury still has to decide on a number of charges brought under health and safety legislation. If the judge gave his reasons for directing them to acquit the men of manslaughter at this stage, it might compromise the fairness of the rest of the trial. We will doubtless find out when it's all finished.

[makikomi]

Originally Posted by Chris T

No reason to be suspicious of the judge's silence. A lot of legal argument cannot be heard in front of a jury. This jury still has to decide on a number of charges brought under health and safety legislation. If the judge gave his reasons for directing them to acquit the men of manslaughter at this stage, it might compromise the fairness of the rest of the trial. We will doubtless find out when it's all finished.

Fair point, but it doesn't seem quite right somehow. I agree that pressure from the government is the reason I thought of for this happening.

It could be some time before the trial has ended, by which time people may have forgoten about this aspect of the case...

[BBKing]

Result of the H&S charges - Network Rail found guilty, individual managers found not guilty. Balfour Beatty pleaded guilty.

So the companies get the whack, the fine on Network Rail will come out of the taxpayer's pocket, Balfour Beatty shareholders will take a slight hit and one of the most appalling cases of negligence in British transport history ends with no one getting put in jail (and believe me, someone deserves to be).

Bleagh.

Does anyone else think it faintly ridiculous that Network Rail, effectively a State-owned company, has to pay cash from funds given to it by the State into the Court, which is another organ of the State?

Given that NR has no profit incentive, this fine is not going to hurt any shareholders (there aren't any), it's just going to reduce the amount of cash available to spend on the rail network.

[BBKing]

Quite, Chris. Several commentators on rail newsgroups have pointed this out already.

Going into rabid revolutionary mode, I'd like to see the following pay up:

1) Ministers in the last Conservative Government (including Saint Ken Clarke, whose idea it was to privatise Railtrack, which was originally going to remain public). They got £1.9bn for Railtrack, incidentally, but handed out £629m to put the Bill through Parliament and £1.74bn in subsidy in the first year of private ownership against £930m the year before. Since it was really worth £6.4bn, that's about 6.4-1.9+.63+1.74-.93 billion quid they owe us, which comes to £5.94bn , or £100 for each of us. I'll take a cheque.

2) Treasury mandarins like Sir Steve Robson (now a leading PFI advocate at Partnerships UK, evidently making a good living from wasting public money).

3) The consultants who talked Railtrack into believing that the West Coast could be upgraded for peanuts, which led to massive cost overruns and was the real reason behind Railtrack's collapse

4) The management at Railtrack, now thankfully long gone, who distrusted engineers and sacked most experienced staff, only to find that surprisingly enough the network disintegrated and there was no one to call. This resulted in the extra £4bn a year subsidy it's all costing us now to put it right, a lot of which is Hatfield recovery five years later (we've only just got back to pre-Hatfield levels of punctuality, which were nothing to write home about even in 2000).

5) The current government for not sticking to their guns while in opposition and renationalising 8 years ago.

6) Railtrack's shareholders, who bleat about the nasty old government when they were quite willing to make a fat buck out of the country's wealth when the going was good. They have the brass neck to expect us to pay up for their shares plus paying for repairing the mess the company they part-owned caused plus the fines.

The shame here is that NR is a good company, engineering led, state funded and with a solid record of improvement and innovation. It's scandalous that they should be paying up when the real culprits can preen about how clever they are and how market solutions are the only way. Humbugs.

[BBKing]

The fines:

Network Rail - £3.5m
Balfour Beatty - £10m

Quite a lot, really.