- merely the "sentence" that ought to be imposed. That being so, your
reference to "convicted in kangaroo courts" is otiose.

Not so. If I am convicted by a court where I'm prevented from having the
representation that the law (or, in this case, the agreements in place)
permits, that's an injustice. One to which the term "kangaroo court" is
often applied.

You are confusing "conviction" with "sentence". Your original comment was
about being "convicted" in a kangaroo court. My understanding is that he was
complaining about demotion or whatever following his "conviction". Ipso facto
he is not actually complaining about the "conviction", so legal representation
or not for that purpose, is not the issue.

Whether he did or should have had legal representation for the purposes of
"sentence" is another matter, but that is not what you said in your original
message.

Marc.

Mait001 wrote:
- merely the "sentence" that ought to be imposed. That being so,
your reference to "convicted in kangaroo courts" is otiose.

Not so. If I am convicted by a court where I'm prevented from
having the representation that the law (or, in this case, the
agreements in place) permits, that's an injustice. One to which
the term "kangaroo court" is often applied.

You are confusing "conviction" with "sentence". Your original
comment was about being "convicted" in a kangaroo court. My
understanding is that he was complaining about demotion or whatever
following his "conviction". Ipso facto he is not actually
complaining about the "conviction", so legal representation or not
for that purpose, is not the issue.

Whether he did or should have had legal representation for the
purposes of "sentence" is another matter, but that is not what you
said in your original message.

I don't think you know enough about this case to comment in this way.
The ASLEF site says "Driver anger was sparked by the failure of
management to implement action plans following a signal passed at
danger, the manner in which the case conference was held and the conduct
of an appeal which took place without the presence of the member or an
ASLEF representative."

I don't know, and I doubt whether you do either, whether the appeal was
against conviction or sentence, but to conduct it without either the
driver or his union representative being present doesn't sound like the
fair application of justice to me. Also, the reference to failure to
implement action plans might indicate that there were plans to reduce
the risk of further SPADs at that signal, which could be an indication
that the SPAD was not 100% the driver's fault.

Are there any Piccadilly Line staff here who can provide further info on
this case?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)