Train Guard Found Guilty Over Girl's Death

Firstly this story is ridiculous and it is in no way the guards fault. The mother needs to accept responsibility that her 16 year old daughter was drunk as ever and on illegal drugs.

----
The 16-year-old was killed as she fell between a train and a platform at a Liverpool station after a night out with friends.

A railway guard accused of causing the death of a teenager who fell under a train has been convicted of manslaughter.
Christopher McGee, 45, gave the signal for the driver to depart as Georgia Varley, 16, was leaning against a carriage.
The sixth-form college student, who had been drinking on a night out in Liverpool with friends, fell between the train and the platform at the city's James Street station in October last year.
McGee, who had denied the charge, appeared to blink away tears as the jury at Liverpool Crown Court delivered their verdict of manslaughter by gross negligence after three hours and five minutes of deliberations.
He is expected to be sentenced on Thursday.
Trial judge Mr Justice Holroyde remanded McGee in custody, saying he faces a jail term for what he called a "very serious" offence.

Some gasped in the public gallery from where the defendant's supporters and the victim's family had followed proceedings.
A blood analysis following the teenager's death showed the alcohol levels in her blood were well above the legal driving limit, and traces of the drug mephedrone, or Mcat, were also found in her system.
During the trial, the jury was shown shocking CCTV footage of the teenager's death, showing her mistakenly getting off the train and then turning around and leaning against the side as she realised her friends were still on board.
She then staggered and fell down the gap as the train moved off.
The prosecution said McGee had given the signal to the driver to start the train when Georgia was in contact with the train and was in an "intoxicated state".
McGee told the jury he thought Georgia was moving away from the train when he gave the signal to depart. He also said he did not know how drunk she was.

The girl’s mother, Paula Redmond, defended the memory of her daughter.
"We have listened as our daughter was portrayed as being a drunken liability when, in all honesty, she did no more than what many teenagers do of a weekend - she went out to celebrate her friend's birthday," she told reporters outside the courtroom.
"The only liability that night was a train guard whom Georgia had the catastrophic misfortune to encounter," she added.

Ms Redmond, 41, described her daughter as a "lovely, polite, respectful young lady, who was popular and full of fun and laughter".
"Christopher McGee will complete his sentence and return to his family. Mine is now gone forever," she added. "May our baby girl finally rest in peace."

-----
What people think:

• "She was drunk .... End of!"
• "Very easy for her mother to blame the guard rather than blame her daughter for illegal drinking and drug taking!! Whilst this is tragic that the girl died, it is in know way the fault of the guard, he is not responsible for her irresponsible underage drinking and drug-taking daughter!!"
• "Having read the article and to sum up the consensus: A tragic loss of life but not the fault of the guard."
• "Mirror Man....i couldn't agree more ! Drink and drugs at 16 .... It was an accident waiting to happen. Maybe instead of her parents looking to blame the guard, they should quietly grieve for their foolish daughter and maybe consider their own lack of parental responsability as bordering on neglect"
• "This is a terrible verdict, the man was only doing his job and the girl was drunk and on drugs, he should not be held responsible for her actions. Her family are quick to blame the guard, and not accept responsiblility for their underage daughter being drunk. If someone is foolish enough to go leaning on a train as it moves off then it is completely their own fault. A sad story, but not the guards fault."
• "Loss of life is always very tragic ... however anyone who gets that drunk and takes drugs at the same time (and remember she is 16) is solely responsible for their own actions no matter what the circumstances ..."
• "Drunk as a fool and had been taking drugs. I feel very sorry for the poor guy who has been made a scapegoat for some ones stupidity."
• "What about the girls duty of care for herself? the first thing people do today is look to blame somebody else & nobody takes responsibility for their own actions anymore."
• "I suppose the conviction will ease the compensation claim against the train operator without a hitch. dare I say the parents need to take a long hard look in the mirror when apportioning blame."
• ​"I feel very sorry for the guard. Whilst I am sorry that the girl lost her life, people must take responsibility for their own actions. This silly girl had had too much to drink. This is something I frequently witness when travelling on public transport. The guard was merely attempting to do his job in ensuring that the train left on time. I feel he has been treated far too harshly."
• "I am sorry but you cant just blame this poor guy. The young lady had been drinking. I am gob smacked at this decision."

Sorry her mother said that many teenagers go drinking and taking drugs on a night out? She was illegal for both of those things but yet her mum probably knew what she would be upto and allowed her to go out - she got drunk, fair enough and she didn't know her own mind but there are a lot of 'what ifs' for the situation.

The security guard could have made an honest mistake and genuinely thought she was moving away from the train - it just seems that he was in the wrong place then and the girl didn't know what she was doing. I guess many different takes can be seen from this but really I think a clamp down on teenage drinking and especially drugs should have been adhered to as her mum as I said may have allowed her to do that - with her response it seemed she knew what she was going to do.

When I was 16 I wouldn't have been able to do any of that let alone go out with friends for the night.

I actually known the girl, from the local area she was actually in my primary school, was a shock when we found out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iBlueBox

I actually known the girl, from the local area she was actually in my primary school, was a shock when we found out.

---

What's your opinion on the verdict? Given her state at the time.

It'd be interesting to read the full notes for this case.

Going from what's been said, the mother is a complete idiot as is her daughter. She was drunk and under the influence of a drug - it's evidence and pretty much fact. Saying she "was doing what other teenagers her age do" as an excuse is absurd, because she's not denying her daughter is a druggy bimbo and is blindly believing her daughter had no contributory negligence in the resulting actions. The case seems really unfair towards the guard, as he cannot magically tell how drunk an individual is and an individual who is "of sound mind" would easily of moved away from a train beginning to move, so it doesn't make any sense how the manslaughter conviction is on the head of the guard :/

Yes he could of done something, but she was on the platform (a safe place), not in any place of harm so the guard cannot tell what is about to happen. It really doesn't make any sense :/

Another move away from personal responsiblity in our society, utterly ridiculous verdict.

Although i don't agree with the verdict, some weight must be given to the fact he allowed the train to move on when someone was visibly too close to it for it to be safe, regardless of whether he thought she was moving away or not.

I think manslaughter is grossly over the top, and would not have been given if the person who died wasn't a young white girl. However with any of these stories its hard to gain the full picture, for example articles on the bbc and guardian websites made no mention of mkat which suggests there wasn't enough in her system for it to be relevant to the case. A trace can mean anything.

Also "over the drunk drive limit" doesn't mean all that, the drink drive limit is fairly low and doesn't necessarily mean she was piss drunk - if there was footage of her vomming or such like it might be a different story.

She's 16!!!!! She shouldn't have been drinking and definitely shouldn't be messing around with mephedrone.

It's her fault - tragic loss no doubt but people lose their lives in tragic accidents all the time. It wasn't the train guards fault.. he probably gets sick of dealing with those type of people on the train at night anyway.

It's just a shame to see someone serve time for it though. There is so much injustice around.. reminds me of when I got arrested for someone assaulting me first, yet I get arrested for self defence. Load of bul**** if you ask me. Shameful justice system

I seen on ITV news that the train guard is captured on CCTV shouting at the girl to move away and the proceeded to move anyway. Unless there's more attached I think the correct course of action has been taken and he gave the go-ahead to move even thought the girl was banging on the side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozi

Although i don't agree with the verdict, some weight must be given to the fact he allowed the train to move on when someone was visibly too close to it for it to be safe, regardless of whether he thought she was moving away or not.

I think manslaughter is grossly over the top, and would not have been given if the person who died wasn't a young white girl. However with any of these stories its hard to gain the full picture, for example articles on the bbc and guardian websites made no mention of mkat which suggests there wasn't enough in her system for it to be relevant to the case. A trace can mean anything.

Also "over the drunk drive limit" doesn't mean all that, the drink drive limit is fairly low and doesn't necessarily mean she was piss drunk - if there was footage of her vomming or such like it might be a different story.

---

And just like magic I have the sentencing remarks right here :P

The reasons for the harsh sentence are:

1. The fact she is 16 years old - page 2, last sentence.
2. He has been continuously trained and instructed regarding matters of rail safety for over 20 years in the job.
3. He was in complete control of the train moving.
4. He must of known she was drunk and knew what the line was like on Saturday.
5. He witnessed her leaning against the train.

I honestly don't understand why the Court felt the need to ignore the fact she was the instigator of the crime that led to a decent man being sentenced to imprisonment. She was drinking alcohol at 16 - a crime. She fell between the train and the platform because she was propping herself up because she was illegally drunk and careless. For some reason it's as if the Court has forgotten the principle of contributory negligence, and are acting as though she was sober or was mentally unstable even without the alcohol - which would make the harsh sentence fair, if it was an individual who was physically unstable by nature.

I've been discussing it with my law classmates and they can only see why he was liable for negligence, but as the sentencing remarks reveal - there's been little thought into the fact she was under aged and no example has been made of it, and why 5 years in prison and 5 outside on license is justifiable :/

The train guard actually lives bloody close to where I used to live. I've been out in Liverpool on Saturday nights and yeah it's full of drunk people of all ages, both legal and illegal. The fact that this train guard has been jailed though is ridiculous, I mean yes he was the one who controlled the train but she was intoxicated beyond belief really. Where were her friends during all this? Shouldn't they have pulled her back seeing as at least one of them would've heard the guard tell her to move back? I think he assumed shed move back which is really just a tragic accident than anything with criminal negligence.

Surely that job doesn't come with complete responsibility of everyones safety anyway?

Firstly, drunk, drugged up or not. You're an idiot to lean against a train, whether it's not departing for the next 20 hours or whenever, you're just a complete prat if you do.

Secondly, like said above, if I was him, I would've assumed someone leaning against a train, would hear and feel before it starts going and would move away from it by instinct.

The yellow line is there for a reason and it is standard rules that you don't attempt to board or get off a train if the doors are closing or the train is moving.

According to someone who knows train procedure like that back of their hand, they are completely responsible for the death of the girl - even though she was the instigator and the guard the preventer.

In my opinion, he is partially to blame as it is his job to ensure people do not kill themselves willingly and unwillingly, but she does seem to of been the main problem with this incident, for being drunk and being stupid enough to lean on a train which any sober person wouldn't do. The Courts are ignoring the fact she was drunk, yet it does seem like part of the problem - with her general attitude being the biggest problem (she did willingly drink afterall).

I don't see how they can have complete responsibility of everyones safety. If someone is going to jump infront of a train to kill themselves, the train guard can hardly do anything and there is practically no risk assessment needed in that scenario as they shouldn't do anything in that situation, if someone is going to jump, the best they can do is talk to them, but to physically get involved would be ridiculous.

But the trains don't leave that fast and any sober person leaning against a train, would've moved off even if they were dragged a little but then again, any sober person isn't a complete idiot to do such a thing. I feel sorry for her family and RIP to her, but at the end of the day, her actions and consumption of whatever, lead to her death.

As he is on the train, he probably saw she was leaning on it, told her to get off and then he got back on the train to go, assuming a normal human being would've got off.

At the end of the day, it all falls down to the fact she was pissed and drugged up. Had she not have done that, this wouldn't of happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samm

I don't see how they can have complete responsibility of everyones safety. If someone is going to jump infront of a train to kill themselves, the train guard can hardly do anything and there is practically no risk assessment needed in that scenario as they shouldn't do anything in that situation, if someone is going to jump, the best they can do is talk to them, but to physically get involved would be ridiculous.

But the trains don't leave that fast and any sober person leaning against a train, would've moved off even if they were dragged a little but then again, any sober person isn't a complete idiot to do such a thing. I feel sorry for her family and RIP to her, but at the end of the day, her actions and consumption of whatever, lead to her death.

As he is on the train, he probably saw she was leaning on it, told her to get off and then he got back on the train to go, assuming a normal human being would've got off.

At the end of the day, it all falls down to the fact she was pissed and drugged up. Had she not have done that, this wouldn't of happened.

---

Completely agreed. It's a bit of scape goating - people don't want to blame the deceased and want to blame someone. If someone was going to kill themselves on purpose, it would show they intend to commit suicide, while in this case it was a tragic accident so he wouldn't get any blame if she ran onto the tracks to die. In a way he is partially liable as it is his job to ensure trains run smoothly and no-one could injure themselves, but she was completely out of her mind and sort of had it coming. It's ridiculous if the mother actually said her daughter is innocent, when she clearly isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Completely agreed. It's a bit of scape goating - people don't want to blame the deceased and want to blame someone. If someone was going to kill themselves on purpose, it would show they intend to commit suicide, while in this case it was a tragic accident so he wouldn't get any blame if she ran onto the tracks to die. In a way he is partially liable as it is his job to ensure trains run smoothly and no-one could injure themselves, but she was completely out of her mind and sort of had it coming. It's ridiculous if the mother actually said her daughter is innocent, when she clearly isn't.

---

Yeah, of course he isn't completely rid of responsibility in this accident, but he definitely does not need locking up and having his life ruined forever after having a typical average job where a silly teenager was at fault.

But yeah I agree with the mother bit, and they must be totally aware of what everyone thinks because all I hear and read about the story is that the mother needs to accept some responsibility, and that the guard shouldn't of even been considered prison, more along the line of a strict warning from his employers, or lose his job.

What the **** is wrong with this country and its judicial system? A fairly innocent man gets prisoned for 5 years after a silly drunk girl gets herself killed, but somebody who rapes or violent attacks somebody barely gets any sentence near that?
The country is completely ****** up in my eyes and I hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samm

Yeah, of course he isn't completely rid of responsibility in this accident, but he definitely does not need locking up and having his life ruined forever after having a typical average job where a silly teenager was at fault.

But yeah I agree with the mother bit, and they must be totally aware of what everyone thinks because all I hear and read about the story is that the mother needs to accept some responsibility, and that the guard shouldn't of even been considered prison, more along the line of a strict warning from his employers, or lose his job.

What the **** is wrong with this country and its judicial system? A fairly innocent man gets prisoned for 5 years after a silly drunk girl gets herself killed, but somebody who rapes or violent attacks somebody barely gets any sentence near that?
The country is completely ****** up in my eyes and I hate it.

---

The problem lies with the whole health and safety/lack of personal responsibility laws. We live in a blame culture these days :P It's a sad moment for the judicial system when cases like this arise and the punishment does not fit the crime. It's a a shame as quite a lot of cases from our legal system have been reasonably fair, minus the odd punishment that may seem too lenient - but that's a problem with Government.

There really is almost no point to the justice system without intent, I hardly suspect the poor guy is going to make the same mistake again, so I fail to see the purpose of sentencing him to anything - except maybe a counsellor since he's probably feeling incredibly guilty about the death already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

There really is almost no point to the justice system without intent, I hardly suspect the poor guy is going to make the same mistake again, so I fail to see the purpose of sentencing him to anything - except maybe a counsellor since he's probably feeling incredibly guilty about the death already.

---

Yeah, I feel more sorry for the guy than for the mother and family of the girl that died.

Sounds like the mother is just finding someone else to blame after showing negligence to her childs lifestyle

Yes mum, its your fault that you let your 16 year old daughter go out and take drugs. Not the train drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Sounds like the mother is just finding someone else to blame after showing negligence to her childs lifestyle

Yes mum, its your fault that you let your 16 year old daughter go out and take drugs. Not the train drivers.

---

Then again it could be considered harsh to blame the mother. The daughter is 16, she should know what she is doing. If anything the only fault with the mother is not recognising her daughter is not innocent and was ultimately the main contributor to her own negligence.

I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar. The people reading the articles seem to have the same opinion as most of us here that the punishment was totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samm

I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar. The people reading the articles seem to have the same opinion as most of us here that the punishment was totally wrong.

---

You could appeal for him, and start an uproar :P

It's weird how mixed the views are on this. In my little law group only one other person is supporting the idea that she is partially to blame, most are saying that he is entirely to blame. Which worries me as these are law students. No one seems to understand that she started the event leading up to her death by leaning on the train (departing or not) which requires the train guard to react. His reaction is dictionary definition - to react is to: "respond to or behave in a particular way in response to something." If she had not done anything he simply wouldn't be reacting. It's logically sound but it flies over the heads of my peers for some unknown reason. It makes me wonder if they've programmed their minds to blindly follow rules and law when those very laws are not logically stable in some circumstances.

The verdict is wrong. If I were the judge I would not take mercy on underaged drinking and drug taking and let it be a lesson to other on the repercussions. I do pity the guard though.

Poor bloke. He was a bit negligent and it's a wonder why he gave the go ahead , probably knowing she was drunk and in close proximity to the train. It was her underage drinking and drug taking that put her into that situation anyway. The mum has a right cheek for passing the blame and trying to justify her daughter's state.

In my own opinion the guard is innocent. What I don't understand is lots of people are disgusted by druggies and alcoholics that are especially under age, yet if they die everyone starts feeling sorry for them? It doesn't change the past and what this girl was. Sure, she didn't deserve to die but lets keep in mind it's mainly her fault.

The guard can have a bit of blame, but I honestly think that it's 95% of the girl's fault. Perhaps if the guard did his job properly, she'd be alive? But perhaps if she was leading a good normal healthy life without drugs and alcohol she'd still be here... As much of a tragedy and such a shame, I have no sympathy.

It's the same for drunk drivers, if they crash and die I have absolutely no sympathy for them because they're putting other lives in danger and they have no right to do that! People can -rep me for my views, but this is just my pure honesty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk,

The guard can have a bit of blame, but I honestly think that it's 95% of the girl's fault.

Perhaps if the guard did his job properly, she'd be alive?

---

You appear to have contradicting opinions on this. What's the point in having a guard if he tells the driver to go when there's a pissed teenager hanging off the side of the train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

You appear to have contradicting opinions on this. What's the point in having a guard if he tells the driver to go when there's a pissed teenager hanging off the side of the train.

---

I think he sort of proves how confusing it is to get your mind around the case and the rationale behind it :P

The problem seems to be with the law. The two types of outcomes possible from this case are:

- Manslaughter ~ the guard is to blame for the unintentional, foreseeable death of another
- Accidental suicide ~ the girl accidentally killed herself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

You appear to have contradicting opinions on this. What's the point in having a guard if he tells the driver to go when there's a pissed teenager hanging off the side of the train.

---

It's the guard's fault she's dead yes, but it's her fault that it's the guard's fault she is dead if that makes sense. It would've never been the guard's fault if she was just a normal person that didn't do drugs. (I didn't read the story fully, people said she was drunk and took drugs. Then the man let the train go while she was still at it. So I'm saying it from that point of view)

I feel that any death that is accidental from intoxication should not be blamed on others. It was not the guard's responsibility to make sure the girl was not drunk. His job was to signal the train to go. It is the girls fault for drinking. I get the wrong stop, but why try to get back in after the doors are shut?