criminal damage,

What did he damage?

unlawful access

Not if the door was open.


Be fair, he was just a kid - kids are stupid.

ran back up the track to the dying dickhead.

Surprised this hasn't been moderated.


Did he upset your train set?

There was a piece in the Herald-Sun yesterday about the 17-year old in question and how his death had impacted on his family etc. They were saying that he was an avid film-maker.

This is an extremely difficult time for them I'm sure but the fact is that you shouldn't be accessing a driver's cabin and/or hanging out a door, not to make a film - not for any reason. I will be interested to see the Coroner's investigation and if it will uncover how they got into the driver's cab; given that they've just gone through a program to fortify the doors it's disappointing to see that determined teens can still access it somehow.

You can rest assured that the coroner will come up with something (anything) that will mitigate the kid's stupidity and blame someone else.

You can rest assured that the coroner will come up with something (anything) that will mitigate the kid's stupidity and blame someone else.

I may have mentioned this before but I have friends who have had been called in a professional capacity to appear at Coroner's inquests and it's completely ridiculous the lengths that they go to exonerate people who (in the old days) would have simply been categorised 'death by mis-adventure'. I don't know why, maybe it's just a sign of the times.

I may have mentioned this before but I have friends who have had been called in a professional capacity to appear at Coroner's inquests and it's completely ridiculous the lengths that they go to exonerate people who (in the old days) would have simply been categorised 'death by mis-adventure'. I don't know why, maybe it's just a sign of the times.

It's activity in lieu of achievement. It keeps public servants in employment.

People must take some responsibility for their own actions!

It's no different from other courts where people on parole/early release commit crimes - if they were dealt with properly in the first place the second (or 99th) offence would not take place.

"given that they've just gone through a program to fortify the doors"


Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh!

Didn't they have a program specifically to fortify the Comeng saloon access doors? Are you saying it was pointless - it seemed like they did a pretty good job covering access to the bolt to me but I'm not an expert.

When the coroner's enquiry seeks to apportion blame and ascribe a cause of death they could perhaps bear in mind the simple fact that anyone of sound mind is deemed responsible for their actions under normal circumstances.

To find otherwise that enquiry would have to establish that other factors were involved such as proof beyond reasonable doubt of the victim's mind being in an unstable state, which on the publicly-available reports does not seem to be the case, or that some other abnormal event forced his hand into acting as he did for example being placed under extreme duress by another party which again is not being suggested anywhere public.

On the face of it this is a simple and tragic case of doing something crassly stupid and possibly unlawful with it then suffering the consequence.

I don't believe a coroner's court would be swayed by hearse-chasing lawyers. This isn't the US and while there is a hint of that sort of culture creeping into Australian society the test at law is still "What would a reasonable person do?"

A reasonable person would travel on the train in a seat provided for the purpose or in a public standing area. A reasonable person would not enter the driver's cab which, even if it were left unlocked, has notices on the door prohibiting access and warning of the potential consequences. A reasonable person would not hang any part of their body outside the train for any reason while the train was in motion. Nor would a reasonable person also be in a position to film another behaving in that manner given that no train now in service has opening windows and, even on the open-platform Comeng gangways, it is not possible to safely film the exterior of the driver's cab area.

One individual has paid the ultimate price for an act of false bravado and extreme stupidity. His family will endure the loss for as long as they live. The brother allegedly filming the exploit is also not without some degree of blame in the matter in my opinion.

The Coroner is not bound by the rules of the rest of the Courts' system.  There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probabilities".  Usually the Coroner investigates multiple deaths or a series of deaths.  This one may be put off until the Coroner can hear it as one of a series, perhaps in line with the train surfer, who by coincidence, died of electrocution at Caulfield.  The Coroner can investigate any aspect he/she wishes and make recommendations or recommend charges.

In these instances, we can expect that recommendations will be made to prevent recurrences of the incidents.  This may extend to removing the means of access to the cabs, or the roofs.  Unfortunately, these recommendations usually result in added burdens for the company or institution involved, and rarely hinder or blame the idiots who contribute to their own demise.

Or in simple terms, expect that we will descend further into the Nanny State.

When the coroner's enquiry seeks to apportion blame and ascribe a cause of death they could perhaps bear in mind the simple fact that anyone of sound mind is deemed responsible for their actions under normal circumstances.

While I fundamentally agree with your position, my own observation of the process is that they tend to view their brief in terms of 'what could have been done to prevent this death', so they love to ascribe blame to factors OTHER than the actions of the deceased and their 0.15 blood alcohol (or their sleeping pill addiction, or their suicidal intention... whatever). Train doors are a classic example of this because it wasn't so long ago that the passengers were responsible for closing the doors behind them - whereas now there would be no question that some idiot falling out of a train with those doors would be exonerated from their own actions because it's the train operator's fault for not providing a safe place for people who aren't responsible for their own silly actions.

It only takes some idiot over-educated over-paid QC to make a song and dance about what could have been and then next thing you're responsible as the property owner.

More than half the law graduates now-days can't find work in the profession - that's because (like a lot of graduates today) there's a chronic over-supply of professionals in the field.  Coroner's Court is just one of the mechanisms used to absorb the steadily growing cesspool of over-qualified, under-employed legal experts.

Reminds me of that old joke: What do you call 12 lawyers at the bottom of Sydney Harbour?

In these instances, we can expect that recommendations will be made to prevent recurrences of the incidents. This may extend to removing the means of access to the cabs, or the roofs. Unfortunately, these recommendations usually result in added burdens for the company or institution involved, and rarely hinder or blame the idiots who contribute to their own demise.

Or in simple terms, expect that we will descend further into the Nanny State.

This is the part that I don't understand - and it emphasises my point about 'death from mis-adventure'.

I read recently that there was a coroner's recommendation that all cars should be fitted with technology to block mobile phone signals in the cabin because some people can't help but play with their phone while they're driving. What a ridiculous cost imposition that would be on everyone else just because some people can't help but touch their phones while driving! Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

We've become a society that believes that believes in a legislative answer to anything and everything.

Why not? Receive a mobile phone fine, you must only drive a vehicle fitted with a Faraday cage.

We already do the same with drink driving - even slightly over, and you're hit with an array of rent seeking programs like forced education and interlocks.  And mobile phone use is far worse than low level drink driving.

Motorcyclists are already hit with extra costs through no fault of their in the form of motocycle levies which go straight to the TAC marketing department so they can try to convince us motorcycling is deadly.

It is very dangerous to access the drivers cab, as trains run on 1500 volts and that will kill you instantly.

How could someone in the cab be exposed to that though?

I personally hope Metro are sued over this. People have been accessing the cabs for decades, it's about time something was done about it (and I mean something that actually works).

What did he damage?

The door.

Not if the door was open.

Wrong. Regardless of whether the door was open or not, it is still unlawful for him to be in there.

Be fair, he was just a kid - kids are stupid.

Read all of my post; you obviously haven't done so before blowing your mouth off. Part of it reads about my own stupidity as a kid.

Why not? Receive a mobile phone fine, you must only drive a vehicle fitted with a Faraday cage.

What about when the passengers want to make a phone call?

I know, let's just have cameras in people's cars constantly recording their every move to make sure the drivers and passengers aren't doing anything naughty. Come to think of it, that's likely to be on the horizon given the proliferation of dash-cams.

Nanny States never endure - look at governments like East Germany and the Soviet Union. And high-control societies never succeed - you can't legislate all the chaos away and I'm not sure if we should be even trying this hard, what we're trying to achieve...?

How could someone in the cab be exposed to that though?

I personally hope Metro are sued over this. People have been accessing the cabs for decades, it's about time something was done about it (and I mean something that actually works).

Anyone in a driver's cab not fully aware of what they are doing and the risks involved has a potential to cause themselves serious and possibly fatal injuries and endanger others as well.  

I cannot see any reason to sue Metro. What have they done wrong?  The fact that people have been accessing cabs does not mean Metro (nor their predecessors) have done wrong - it means those who access the cabs without authority have done wrong.

Sue them.  If there is anything to sue for.  In this case I don't see there being anything to gain from that either.

I cannot see any reason to sue Metro. What have they done wrong? The fact that people have been accessing cabs does not mean Metro (nor their predecessors) have done wrong - it means those who access the cabs without authority have done wrong.

No one has taken reasonable steps to prevent it from happening. It should be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for unauthorised people to access the cab and it is not unreasonable to expect this, it can easily be done with modern technology.

If the government had an atomic bomb and someone managed to detonate it would you put the blame on the person who detonated it or would you blame the government for not securing it properly?

No one has taken reasonable steps to prevent it from happening. It should be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for unauthorised people to access the cab and it is not unreasonable to expect this, it can easily be done with modern technology.

This attitude is the reason why the world seems to be heading down the gurgler. I suppose you also agree with burglars suing home owners when they injure themselves in the process of a break-in? As after all, going by your logic, its been happening for decades and should be absolutely impossible to do due to modern technology!

If the government had an atomic bomb and someone managed to detonate it would you put the blame on the person who detonated it or would you blame the government for not securing it properly?

Who has acted unlawfully in this scenario? The person detonating it. That is who I would sue if I were still alive to do so after the fallout.

No one has taken reasonable steps to prevent it from happening.

I would argue very firmly that they have. The train's builders and operators have taken every reasonable step to prevent it by fitting locks and installing signs to the effect that access through those doors is not permitted.

If you were approaching a red traffic light would you want a sign there to say "Stop when red light shows" or would you carry on because there wasn't one?  The red light is of itself the signal to stop and is all that is required.  All reasonable people would know and understand that.  

It's no different with a locked door whether that is on a train or at your home.  It means keep out whether or not there is a sign to that effect.

The door.

Where does it say that?

Wrong. Regardless of whether the door was open or not, it is still unlawful for him to be in there.

If the door was open, generally you can't charge someone with trespass unless they refuse to leave.

Read all of my post; you obviously haven't done so before blowing your mouth off. Part of it reads about my own stupidity as a kid.

I've read this thread and it disgusts me.

If the door was open, generally you can't charge someone with trespass unless they refuse to leave.

But they can be charged with unlawful entry.  That does not have to be forced entry.  The only requirement is that someone has entered a place they are not permitted to access.

Nobody would be charged with such a thing if the door was open, only as a slap on if they were causing damage.

If the door was open, generally you can't charge someone with trespass unless they refuse to leave.

Seriously? If you walk alongside the railway line (inside the fence) or cross the line anywhere except at an authorised crossing place, you can be charged with Trespass under the Transport Act. Entry to the cab of a train is the ultimate form of trespass. (Signallers might disagree!)

You are quoting trespass in relation to school grounds and etc, under the Summary Offences Act. ( )

No cop would bother with such a charge - easy to defend against if the location is not sealed.

I beg to differ.  Cases are brought quite regularly.   The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to show that the defendant was where they should not have been but in many cases that is supported by CCTV and / or numerous witness statements.

Witness statements? For trespass? Which police state do you live in?

I have never heard of trespass being applied unless it was obvious (cracking a lock or ignoring requests to leave), someone failed the attitude test with a GD, or as a tack on (to B&E, criminal damage, etc.).