Man who attempts suicide is prosecuted for ‘trespass’

Daily Mail

Daily Mail


On 15th May 2014 Peter Anderson had lost his driving licence and consequentially his job. He was homeless and couldn’t find work and was suffering from depression. He decided to take his own life and attempted to throw himself under a train at Leigh on Sea train station in Essex.

Police there stopped him and did what anyone would do when faced with a suicidal man at the end of his tether – they prosecuted him.

On 4th June Mr Anderson pleaded guilty and was conditionally discharged for three months.


What was the offence?

The news report says ‘trespass’ but that is not, of itself a criminal offence (it’s a civil wrong for which you can be sued, but not prosecuted).

We think that the offence was Aggravated Trespass under s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. This requires an act of trespass, but also a requirement that  the defendant does “in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—:

(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b) of obstructing that activity, or

(c) of disrupting that activity.

This was designed to stop raves, but has been applied to other areas since. Does it cover this? There is an issue as to whether he was ‘trespassing’. If he didn’t have a ticket then he would be, if he threw himself on the tracks he also would be (as members of the public are not allowed there), but if he was on the platform preparing to jump, but was then stopped, then it might not be.

The ‘activity’ referred to would be people travelling on the train. Whilst they would be obstructed and disrupted had Mr Anderson killed himself, it is unlikely that he would have been intending that effect (even if he was, or would have been had he thought about it, aware that that would have been the impact).

For this reason it is not immediately clear that he would be guilty of this.

There is also an offence of Endangering Life on a Railway contrary to s34 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This states that “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,”.

The trespass may count here as an unlawful act. Although this is not obviously designed for this sort of a situation, it is arguable that if he endangers his own life then this could count as the person who’s safety was endangered.

There are several summary only offences (s16 Railway Regulation Act 1840, s23 Regulation of the Railways Act 1868 and s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949) but these all require a warning to be given before an offence is committed.

So, on balance we’d guess that the correct offence was the Endangering Life on a Railway. Even then, it is not clear that the offence was made out.


What do you make of the sentence?

There is no minimum period for which a conditional discharge can run, but 3 months is about as short as it gets. Short of an absolute discharge (which may have been a more appropriate sentence, but is very rare), it’s the least he could have got.

There is no mention of the victim surcharge, but Mr Anderson would have had to pay £15 for this (a further demonstration of what nonsense this is).


Why was he prosecuted?

On the face of it, this seems a ludicrous prosecution. There is a Code for Prosecutors that sets out when a prosecution should be instigated and continued. There is an ‘evidential’ part (which would be met’ and a ‘public interest test’ – a prosecution should not be commenced unless it is in the public interest.

The CPS said “the prosecution was in the public interest. In this case, due to the fact the defendant was on prohibited land, namely train tracks, and by his doing so could harm or cause distress to other members of the public and/or their safety it is clear that it was in the public interest to proceed. 

‘This course of action we hope would also deter anyone else from acting in the same manner in the future, which is dangerous and could potentially endanger lives. The safety of the defendant or anyone on or in the proximity of train tracks is paramount. 

I have to say that this appears to me to be nonsense. It’s always possible that there are more facts than in the newspaper (and it is the Daily Mail after all) but there is nothing on the CPS website to indicate that they disagree with the facts.

Leaving aside the question of whether the offence was actually made out, I cannot see how it was possibly in the public interest to prosecute Mr Anderson. The idea that this will deter others from trying to take their own life seems implausible, and it seems to me that the CPS have made a mistake on this one …

16 thoughts on “Man who attempts suicide is prosecuted for ‘trespass’

  1. Andrew

    In the Isle of Man they once birched a boy for attempted suicide. Crime of violence ,you see .

  2. Jon Mack

    My guess is a prosecution under British Transport Commission Act 1949 s55, which makes trespass on the railway a criminal offence. The requirement for a warning is usually discharged by the prosecution proving the presence of a trespass warning sign at the end of the nearest platform. Rightly or wrongly, prosecution in these circs is not unusual – reporting of it is.

  3. Ash

    As Jon correctly says, tresspass on the railway IS a criminal offence.

    At first one may consider the prosecution harsh, and perhaps it is on the poor person involved. On the other hand, what probably wasn’t reported was what effect it had on the traincrew. This kind of event can cause psychological troubles for them for them a while after the event. To say there are no victims in this is a little unfair. Until the recent changes to CICA, traincrew were able to claim for psychological injury as a result of these kinds of incidents.

  4. John Allman

    Don’t jump off the roof, dad.
    You’ll make hole in the yard.
    Mother’s just planted petunias.
    The seeding and weeding was hard.

    If you must end it all, dad,
    Please won’;t you give us a break?
    Just take a walk to the park, dad,
    And there you can jump in the lake.

    1. markjf62

      Apparently, he can’t. It would be a breach of the Fish and Plankton Rights Act 1998, the Disturbing Pond and Lake Water Act 1375, and probably s1 of the Theft Act 1968 with respect to the appropriation of the water the accused would ingest during the course of his drowning. I am grateful to Jon Mack for referring me to these provisions.

  5. Peter S

    I seem to remember that in Japan one of the main causes of trains being delayed was suicides. The train company started to charge the families of suicides for the cost they incurred. While it sounds insensitive the number of rail suicides dropped dramatically as people did not want that shame for their family.
    As a rail commuter if charging attempted suicides reduces their number then I am all for it as the misery it puts literally thousands of people through due to the delays is high.

    1. markjf62

      ‘the misery it puts literally thousands of people through due to delays is high.’ Yes, these suicides are enough to give any commuter affected by delays clinical depression, aren’t they? Those affected must be lining up to throw themselves under speeding trains.
      I always thought humanity was an overrated concept, anyway.

  6. Jonathan

    @markjf62 I appreciate your sentiment but a) on its face these are deaths deterred (until rebutted), b) seemingly every day there are people ending their lives under trains on London and the disruption caused is enormous. However, irrebutable too is that a prosecution and a sentence which appears to contain no treatment order or appearance of concern for that side of things, in what seems the clearest possible case of mental health need, seems outrageously disproportionate and frankly contrary to the moral objects for which (at least non-libertarians think) we have a state within society.

  7. Peter S

    I have a lot of humanity for the poor train driver who will have killed someone through no fault of their own. I have a lot of humanity for the emergency services that woild have to clean the mess up. I have a lot of humanity for all the poor people caught in the chaos that would ensue. I struggle to sympathise with someone who “lost” their licence, am guessing dangerous driving or alcohol, who then decides to selfishly end their life in a way that hurts the most people.

    1. Jonathan

      Interesting. That’s a conception of moral fault deriving entirely from objective harms, and not looking at all to the intent and moral capacities of the agent, at the content of their mind. Jeremy Bentham would be very pleased with your argument indeed!

      Strict liability, right on! I don’t see why we should stop there though. Why not just make it a crime (strict liability of course) to make others unhappy?

    2. Jonathan

      I should point out, on your utilitarian rationale, we ought to consider the net pain AND pleasure caused by the act, to determine its net harmfulness. Given so many ghouls like to take photos of these things on their smartphones, and lots of folk will get a relaxing break from work, and enjoy shouting abuse at the would be suicide, might the effect be as harmful and thus condemnable as you argue? And if pain is the sole bad, and pleasure solely to be encouraged, on your account, would that not MANDATE suicides which people found entertaining?

    3. markjf62

      Yes. Why assume the guy “lost” his licence because he received 12 points for possibly four relatively minor speeding offences when you can assume he was drunk at the wheel while injecting himself with charlie and running into a bus stop full of pre-teen schoolchildren, eh?
      I’ve witnessed two ‘jumpers’ . On each occasion, what went through my mind was ‘how bad must that person’s life have become to make them think that what they just did was the only answer?’ It wasn’t ‘Selfish g*t! Now my lasagne’s going to be cold and I’m going to miss The Great British Bake Off.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s