Train Driver in hospital after yobs hurl brick through windscreen (04/02)

[Spartacus]

Legal deterrents are somewhat of a myth. People who were serving serious sentences for various crimes big and small were polled and 100% said the punishment was of no concern, they only did the crime because they felt certain they wouldn’t get caught.

Ah, but what you never can poll is the people who decided not to commit the crime due to the deterrent, simply because they never committed it in the first place.

There'll always be people who are either happy to take the punishment, don't think they'll be punished, or in the heat of the moment don't given it a second's thought. Then there's those at the other end who'll never do it, no matter whether there's a punishment or not, and there's those in the middle who'll stop and think better of it. Those are perhaps the hardest to identify as even if you do ask them, they're likely to say they wouldn't have committed the offence regardless, and they're likely to believe that too, because they didn't do it, but might not recall why they didn't do it.

 

[MrS99]

Not the first instance. Northern offered a similar reward for information on a similar offence which resulted in a brick being dropped onto the middle cab of a pair of 331's, I'm not sure anything came of it!

 

[XAM2175]

I would hazard a guess that most of the people lobbing bricks at trains are doing so in the knowledge that they're highly unlikely to be caught unless they're at it every night, or thick enough to be identifiable on CCTV. There's no shortage of things to charge them with once they're nicked.

 

[furnessvale]

Legal deterrents are somewhat of a myth. People who were serving serious sentences for various crimes big and small were polled and 100% said the punishment was of no concern, they only did the crime because they felt certain they wouldn’t get caught.

I tend to take a poll of known criminals about the most effective way to stop their activities with a pinch of salt!

 

[Donny_m]

I tend to take a poll of known criminals about the most effective way to stop their activities with a pinch of salt!

Well that’s your opinion but if you asked someone why they sold $25 of drugs knowing they were on strike 3 of the 3 strike law meaning automatic 10+ years in jail and they said because they were sure they could do so without being caught then I would tend to believe them. Same with any form of shoplifting or vandalism. No one would willingly trade those few seconds of ‘fun’ for years off their life.

Without getting personal im
Suprised a current / ex officer so often needs obvious flaws in certain legal frameworks explained to them on the forum.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I tend to take a poll of known criminals about the most effective way to stop their activities with a pinch of salt!

I don't think you can... they'd just steal the salt!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

And things worse than bricks...In the 1970s (or early 80s), I was on a train between New Cross & London Bridge when what was probably an air-rifle bullet hit a window about 2-3 feet away from me.

This happened to a WMR train about 2 years ago, to say the driver was distressed would be an obvious understatement. This was someone in an adjoining field in pitch black so impossible to find the culprit, not the BTP turned up in time anyway.

These sort of incidents happen a lot in certain areas or near certain stations, whereas are very rare in others thankfully

 

[Starmill]

The CPS has details of the offence on their website:

Casting stone etc. upon railway carriage with intent to endanger passengers

- Intentionally

- Endangering people’s safety

- By unlawfully and maliciously throwing objects at trains/carriages etc.

- Contrary to Section 33 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Method of Trial: Indictable only

Maximum penalty: Life imprisonment/unlimited fine

Additional comments: This prohibits any direct attack on the train itself (including carriages etc.) where the intent is to injure people on it or endanger their safety

There's also an offence under Section 56 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 which is more about damage to property resulting from throwing stones at equipment which could include trains. This is only a Summary offence and carries a maximum penalty of a Level 3 fine.

 

[furnessvale]

Well that’s your opinion but if you asked someone why they sold $25 of drugs knowing they were on strike 3 of the 3 strike law meaning automatic 10+ years in jail and they said because they were sure they could do so without being caught then I would tend to believe them. Same with any form of shoplifting or vandalism. No one would willingly trade those few seconds of ‘fun’ for years off their life.

Without getting personal im
Suprised a current / ex officer so often needs obvious flaws in certain legal frameworks explained to them on the forum.

Get as personal as you like, ce fait rien to me.

If you believe that anyone shoplifting or committing vandalism is going to get "years off their life", carry on with your delusion.

 

[Northernboy67]

I was on a Late evening Sheffield to Lincoln Service in 1986, travelling on a First Generation DMU. As The train had left Shireoaks, the train was passing under the bridge, of the newly built Worksop By-pass, which had not yet opened. A There was an almighty smash of glass, as a brick had been dropped. I was 18, and not yet on the railway, I opened the driver's door, and asked if he was okay. On arrival at Worksop Station, The driver walked to the signal Box, of Worksop East. I went and spoke to the Guard. Don't what ever happened after that.

 

[Trackman]

Absolutely unspeakable thing to do, and thoughts with the driver of course.

Also frankly extremely worrying that windscreens aren’t tough enough to withstand this. There was also an unpleasant incident involving injury to a driver following a windscreen implosion caused by a fatality recently (not the first time that has happened either). It does appear that windscreens, on some some stock at least, aren’t as tough as one might expect.

There was one near Preston about 20 years ago.
I heard they jumped off a bridge and hit the drivers window and went through.
I think the drivers window had to rebuilt with a large black surround. A 150 springs to mind, could have been a 142 though.
I've seen it a couple of times and think about the driver if he saw out and about, must have been traumatic.

 

[O L Leigh]

The CPS has details of the offence on their website:

Casting stone etc. upon railway carriage with intent to endanger passengers

Maximum penalty: Life imprisonment/unlimited fine

And this is the issue. In order to secure a conviction you would have to prove that there was an intent to endanger passengers. Otherwise what you get is...

...an offence under Section 56 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 which is more about damage to property resulting from throwing stones at equipment which could include trains. This is only a Summary offence and carries a maximum penalty of a Level 3 fine.

 

[Starmill]

And this is the issue. In order to secure a conviction you would have to prove that there was an intent to endanger passengers. Otherwise what you get is...

There's every possibility of doing that in many cases, because the defence of "I was just disposing carelessly of this brick and it oh so happened to be onto the railway line" isn't convincing. But you're of course quite right to say that this is really a very high bar to clear because it must be beyond a reasonable doubt that it was intended to endanger the train.

 

[O L Leigh]

But you're of course quite right to say that this is really a very high bar to clear because it must be beyond a reasonable doubt that it was intended to endanger the train.

No, not intent to endanger the train but intent to endanger passengers. As you quoted, "This prohibits any direct attack on the train itself (including carriages etc.) where the intent is to injure people on it or endanger their safety".

That means proving that the miscreant intended to cause physical harm, and that it was this intention that caused them to cast stones upon the railway, etc. And to prove that you would need to have some sort of evidence to support it. It's not enough simply to say that they must have been aware of the consequences of their actions, and neither is it the same as carelessly disposing of the brick they're carrying by tossing it aimlessly over a bridge parapet at an unfortunate moment, as they could just as easily claim that they only wanted to try and break some windows but were unaware of just how much harm their misguided actions would cause.

Hence it is better for the authorities to pursue a more realistic prosecution that has a realistic chance of securing a conviction than an ambitious one that is all likelihood would result in an acquittal.

 

[Starmill]

No, not intent to endanger the train but intent to endanger passengers. As you quoted, "This prohibits any direct attack on the train itself (including carriages etc.) where the intent is to injure people on it or endanger their safety".

That means proving that the miscreant intended to cause physical harm, and that it was this intention that caused them to cast stones upon the railway, etc. And to prove that you would need to have some sort of evidence to support it. It's not enough simply to say that they must have been aware of the consequences of their actions, and neither is it the same as carelessly disposing of the brick they're carrying by tossing it aimlessly over a bridge parapet at an unfortunate moment, as they could just as easily claim that they only wanted to try and break some windows but were unaware of just how much harm their misguided actions would cause.

Hence it is better for the authorities to pursue a more realistic prosecution that has a realistic chance of securing a conviction than an ambitious one that is all likelihood would result in an acquittal.

It's very much still a possibility, indeed it's something which applies to all charges where it needs to be proven that the defendant intended to cause harm but the plea is entered not guilty. Nobody would ever be convicted for murder if this were impossible. Alternatively the offences which are easier to get convictions for overall are still available and still have reasonably high penalties.

 

[Watershed]

I would have thought the catch-all offence of public nuisance would be appropriate, even if nothing else.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's very much still a possibility, indeed it's something which applies to all charges where it needs to be proven that the defendant intended to cause harm but the plea is entered not guilty. Nobody would ever be convicted for murder if this were impossible. Alternatively the offences which are easier to get convictions for overall are still available and still have reasonably high penalties.

Of course it's a possibility. I never claimed that proving intent was impossible, only that it would be difficult in a scenario like this.

I appreciate that we're plunging off piste with this line of discussion, but intent is actually not hard to prove in cases of murder. The vast majority of murder victims are known to their assailants, so it is possible to build up a picture of how the situation developed. It could be money, it could be personal jealousy or it could be status, but whatever the case a competent prosecutor would be able to establish a chain of events that lead up to the assailant deciding to commit murder. Even when a victim is not known (e.g. victims of terrorism) there is often a motive to kill, even if the assailant selects the victim(s) at random.

Where it's not so easy is when you try to apply this to some stone-wielding young tyke who's fallen off the path to righteousness. Unless this whippersnapper has been loudly shouting his mouth off about how he's intending to hurt/kill a train driver (or passenger, or whoever), whether in person or in one of the many iterations of the online world, or he's turned up to court with a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan "Kill all train drivers", it would be much harder to prove that throwing stones at a train window was done with intent to cause injury or endanger safety.

That's not to say that this piece of legislation is redundant, as just sometimes there are wrong-headed folk out there who may just want to do that. Some of the instances of vandalism that I've heard about really couldn't be about anything other than an attempt to endanger lives, and for that a prosecution under this legislation would be appropriate.

 

[baz962]

Seeing as the driver was hospitalised , would wounding with intent or ABH/GBH apply ?

 

[Yankee01]

An alternative would be Section 34 which does not require intent, just any unlawful act or wilful omission which endangers the saftey of any person conveyed upon a railway.

Doing or omitting anything to endanger passengers by railway.​

Whosoever, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years,

Of course with the lower bar, the maximum penalty is only 2 years.

 

[norbitonflyer]

And this is the issue. In order to secure a conviction you would have to prove that there was an intent to endanger passengers. Otherwise what you get is...

The Greenock derailment, in which vandals caused the deaths of a driver and a passenger, resulted in the culprits being charged with murder but only convicted of culpable homicide, which is, I understand, the Scottish equivalent of manslaughter. This suggests that, even in the circumstances of that case, a charge of attempted murder would not have succeeded had everyone on the train survived.

 

[millemille]

The standards require that the windscreen, along with the cab, be capable of resisting the intrusion of a 1kg cube of steel fired, corner first, at twice the maximum speed of the train. I believe a minimal level of spalling is allowed.

Of course, you have to defrost the chicken first....

 

[Factotum]

The CPS has details of the offence on their website:

Casting stone etc. upon railway carriage with intent to endanger passengers

- Intentionally

- Endangering people’s safety

- By unlawfully and maliciously throwing objects at trains/carriages etc.

- Contrary to Section 33 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Method of Trial: Indictable only

Maximum penalty: Life imprisonment/unlimited fine

Additional comments: This prohibits any direct attack on the train itself (including carriages etc.) where the intent is to injure people on it or endanger their safety

There's also an offence under Section 56 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 which is more about damage to property resulting from throwing stones at equipment which could include trains. This is only a Summary offence and carries a maximum penalty of a Level 3 fine.

It is the intent bit that is hard to prove. If I was so charged I would argue that I thought, from my reading of forums such as this, was that the train windscreen was strong enough to protect the driver.

 

[Neo9320]

It is the intent bit that is hard to prove. If I was so charged I would argue that I thought, from my reading of forums such as this, was that the train windscreen was strong enough to protect the driver.

Let’s hope nobody ever uses this forum as part of a legal defence lol

 

[ExRes]

Let’s hope nobody ever uses this forum as part of a legal defence lol

Absolutely, I don't think they'd win that case even with Rumpole as their barrister

I know from experience what the bang on the windscreen sounds like, I actually saw the brick being thrown from the footbridge but it just bounced off and didn't even leave a mark, I was doing around 60 at the time so obviously that was in my favour, either that or 170s were built with unfriendly areas in mind

 

[43066]

Well that’s your opinion but if you asked someone why they sold $25 of drugs knowing they were on strike 3 of the 3 strike law meaning automatic 10+ years in jail and they said because they were sure they could do so without being caught then I would tend to believe them. Same with any form of shoplifting or vandalism. No one would willingly trade those few seconds of ‘fun’ for years off their life.

But doesn’t the American approach perfectly demonstrate how long prison sentences and even the death penalty aren’t an effective deterrent?! They have far higher crime rates than we do.

If you believe that anyone shoplifting or committing vandalism is going to get "years off their life", carry on with your delusion.

Possibly in the US - life without parole can be handed down for relatively minor offences under the three strike rule. Not that that means less crime takes place, in fact quite the opposite.

The standards require that the windscreen, along with the cab, be capable of resisting the intrusion of a 1kg cube of steel fired, corner first, at twice the maximum speed of the train. I believe a minimal level of spalling is allowed.

Of course, you have to defrost the chicken first....

Out of interest is it possible to link to the relevant standards?

 

[JamesT]

Of course it's a possibility. I never claimed that proving intent was impossible, only that it would be difficult in a scenario like this.

I appreciate that we're plunging off piste with this line of discussion, but intent is actually not hard to prove in cases of murder. The vast majority of murder victims are known to their assailants, so it is possible to build up a picture of how the situation developed. It could be money, it could be personal jealousy or it could be status, but whatever the case a competent prosecutor would be able to establish a chain of events that lead up to the assailant deciding to commit murder. Even when a victim is not known (e.g. victims of terrorism) there is often a motive to kill, even if the assailant selects the victim(s) at random.

Where it's not so easy is when you try to apply this to some stone-wielding young tyke who's fallen off the path to righteousness. Unless this whippersnapper has been loudly shouting his mouth off about how he's intending to hurt/kill a train driver (or passenger, or whoever), whether in person or in one of the many iterations of the online world, or he's turned up to court with a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan "Kill all train drivers", it would be much harder to prove that throwing stones at a train window was done with intent to cause injury or endanger safety.

That's not to say that this piece of legislation is redundant, as just sometimes there are wrong-headed folk out there who may just want to do that. Some of the instances of vandalism that I've heard about really couldn't be about anything other than an attempt to endanger lives, and for that a prosecution under this legislation would be appropriate.

I believe one of the precedent setting cases in this area is the death of David Wilkie who was killed by striking miners dropping a slab from a motorway bridge. Although they were initially convicted of murder, this was later downgraded to manslaughter on appeal. The main grounds for the appeal were around proving the intent of the defendants.

 

[O L Leigh]

Let’s hope nobody ever uses this forum as part of a legal defence lol

I think that any barrister that needs to come here to get legal advice is not a barrister you’d want to engage, as any halfway competent lawyer would know how to defend a case like this.

I believe one of the precedent setting cases in this area is the death of David Wilkie who was killed by striking miners dropping a slab from a motorway bridge. Although they were initially convicted of murder, this was later downgraded to manslaughter on appeal. The main grounds for the appeal were around proving the intent of the defendants.

Thank you for your excellent contribution. Yes, this case nicely delineates “foresight” (knowledge of the possible outcome of the defendants actions) and “intent” (deliberately setting out to achieve an outcome), and the appeal arising from it gives clarity to the extent to which foresight can be considered as evidence of intent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Hancock

 

[millemille]

Out of interest is it possible to link to the relevant standards?

Railway Group Standard GMRT2100 is the overarching standard which then refers to numerous British Standards and Euro Norms for specific requirements and testing methodology.

 

[mpthomson]

Seeing as the driver was hospitalised , would wounding with intent or ABH/GBH apply ?

Wounding with intent requires the prosecution to demonstrate intent, ie the perpetrator wanted to harm the driver, just as it has to demonstrate the intent to kill in the case of murder.

 

[contrex]

There was one near Preston about 20 years ago.
I heard they jumped off a bridge and hit the drivers window and went through.
I think the drivers window had to rebuilt with a large black surround. A 150 springs to mind, could have been a 142 though.
I've seen it a couple of times and think about the driver if he saw out and about, must have been traumatic.

Nasty one of these at Gatwick a few years ago. Driver injured quite badly by 'part of the victim' that came through the windscreen at 90 mph.