<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98pl47ylgno>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:10l78n7$2bhe6$1@dont-email.me...

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98pl47ylgno>

What are the factors which have led to the Inquiry being held now, six years later, rather than at any time earlier? The RAIB report was published in
2022. What has taken the extra four years? Has it had to wait until there is no criminal prosecution likely?

It is a sad irony that if the train had been allowed to return wrong-line, rather than waiting for someone to operate the points, the derailment may
have been avoided either because the train may have passed before the
landslip occurred or else the landslip may have not extended over the other track in such a way as to derail the train.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:29:36 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:10l78n7$2bhe6$1@dont-email.me...

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98pl47ylgno>

What are the factors which have led to the Inquiry being held now, six years >later, rather than at any time earlier? The RAIB report was published in >2022. What has taken the extra four years? Has it had to wait until there is >no criminal prosecution likely?

Any public discussion of a matter associated with a prosecution risks committing contempt of court; accident reports are presented in bald
terms which avoid that risk and also have general immunity by being
part of a statutory process. The Scottish legal system is far stricter
than the English system in this matter; it has led in the past to e.g. newspaper editors being sent an invitation to visit the court "this
morning" that they cannot refuse.
The prosecution was completed in 2023- https://www.copfs.gov.uk/about-copfs/news/rail-company-sentenced-for-fatal-crash-and-fatal-accident-inquiry-decision/

There can also be a lot of preparatory work before an inquiry reaches
the sitting stage.

It is a sad irony that if the train had been allowed to return wrong-line, >rather than waiting for someone to operate the points, the derailment may >have been avoided either because the train may have passed before the >landslip occurred or else the landslip may have not extended over the other >track in such a way as to derail the train.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 27/01/2026 19:45, Charles Ellson wrote:

Any public discussion of a matter associated with a prosecution risks committing contempt of court; accident reports are presented in bald
terms which avoid that risk and also have general immunity by being
part of a statutory process. The Scottish legal system is far stricter
than the English system in this matter; it has led in the past to e.g. newspaper editors being sent an invitation to visit the court "this
morning" that they cannot refuse.

I presume where contempt-of-court rules are different between different countries, it is the country where the court is located which determines
CoC - and a French (for example) newspaper could still be held in
contempt, even if what they report (in France) would be allowed under
French but not Scottish law.

However... I remember when the son of a famous politician was implicated
in some scandal, Scottish papers were reporting his identity even though English/Welsh ones were not.


It's interesting to read old railway accident reports and see that the
people involved (train driver, guard, signaller, and various witnesses)
are named, whereas this is not done nowadays. I wonder when they changed.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 21:43:07 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 27/01/2026 19:45, Charles Ellson wrote:

Any public discussion of a matter associated with a prosecution risks
committing contempt of court; accident reports are presented in bald
terms which avoid that risk and also have general immunity by being
part of a statutory process. The Scottish legal system is far stricter
than the English system in this matter; it has led in the past to e.g.
newspaper editors being sent an invitation to visit the court "this
morning" that they cannot refuse.

I presume where contempt-of-court rules are different between different >countries, it is the country where the court is located which determines
CoC - and a French (for example) newspaper could still be held in
contempt, even if what they report (in France) would be allowed under
French but not Scottish law.

However... I remember when the son of a famous politician was implicated
in some scandal, Scottish papers were reporting his identity even though >English/Welsh ones were not.

It's interesting to read old railway accident reports and see that the >people involved (train driver, guard, signaller, and various witnesses)
are named, whereas this is not done nowadays. I wonder when they changed.

In the past the judicial processes (if any) might have already been
completed by the time a report was published. You could also have the possibility that any proceedings haven't become "live" until after the prosecuting authorities have considered the contents of an accident
report.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)