Emergency service confusion as blind man lay dying on the tracks

The London Fire Brigade followed a ‘lack of clarity’ from other emergency services while attempting to rescue a visually impaired man who had been hit by a train, an inquest heard.

Cleveland Gervais, 53, was struck when he fell onto the tracks shortly after 7pm at Eden Park station in southeast London on 26 February 2020, an inquest heard.

Following his fall, Mr Gervais was under the third carriage of the stopped train close to two live rails.

Once it was confirmed that power had been cut off, emergency services extricated him.

A paramedic crawled under the train to reach the fallen victim and pulled him out and over the rail into an awaiting stretcher.

By the time he was rescued, Mr Gervais’ heart had stopped.

The 53-year-old regularly used public transport but was blind with light sensitivity only in his right eye and reduced acuity and tunnel vision in his left eye.

The London Fire Brigade (LFB) crew based at Beckenham arrived on the scene at 7:16pm and are said to have heard from control on route that the power had been ‘isolated’.

Sub officer Sophie Wilcocks told Croydon Coroner’s Court: ‘That information from control would have been part of my information gathering process.

‘I would seek to get to the scene of the incident and take in a wider situational report by information gathering from London Ambulance Service (LAS) emergency crews and any witnesses on the scene and to decide whether it was safe.

‘I would not commit crews to the track on the basis of that information from control because of the lack of detail in it in terms of isolation between two points or whether it is on one track and not another track.

‘I made initial contact with the LAS crews and British Transport Police (BTP) both parties who said they had not had confirmation that power was isolated.’

Coroner Catherine Wood asked how the LFB would double check that information.

Ms Wilcocks said she would seek confirmation from a Railway Incident Officer (RIO) or a ‘competent person’.

‘The information I had from control was thrown into doubt once I communicated with staff from LAS and BTP which then caused me to want to clarify that information,’ the Beckenham firefighter said.

‘In terms of specific area of the track that had been isolated or a named person to put against that decision to confirm that the power had been isolated.’

A colleague radioed back to control to ask for the name of the person who said the power had been switched off.

‘The fact that I didn’t get that clarity from them [other emergency services] caused me to question the information I had been given which is why my assessment of the situation judged that the risk was too great,’ said Ms Wilcocks.

‘They would not have been able to access Mr Gervais without coming into contact with at least one live rail.’

Control told them that the RIO had arrived and they were able to seek confirmation from him that the power was off and the crews could go on the track, the jury heard.

The fire and rescue officer went on to say that LFB policy had since been clarified that crews do need the name of the person who turned the power off in a railway rescue situation.

Jude Bunting, QC, representing Mr Gervais’ family, quoted the LFB policy in question: ‘Only a named officer of the brigade and the rail control who agreed traction current isolation can agree the restoration of the traction current.’

Mr Bunting continued: ‘It relates to turning the power back on.’

Ms Wilcocks agreed but said: ‘That would infer to me that a named officer would have been required initially to confirm power off.

‘That was a well held interpretation of this policy.’

Mr Bunting said that LFB policy stated crews could descend onto tracks with less rigorous checks if there was a ‘threat to life’.

‘We know now that the power was turned off at 19:07,’ he said.

‘It was made clear to the driver.

‘It was made clear to…the 999 caller who told the LAS three times that the power was off.’

The barrister referred to the incident log which recorded a conversation between the Network Rail and LFB control rooms in which it was confirmed that ‘power had been turned off on both the up and down lines’.

‘All the boxes have been ticked,’ Mr Bunting said.

‘All the confirmation is there.

‘It couldn’t be more clear could it?

‘You arrived on the scene, you had all the information you needed to commit LFB [crew] onto the track.’

Ms Wilcocks replied: ‘I did.’

When it was suggested that she had no reason to doubt that information, she said she only had part of the information she needed once she was on the scene.

‘I felt I didn’t have sufficient confidence without going to clarify the information I had heard.

‘If you get conflicting information when you get there it is not always the right decision to overrule.’

Mr Bunting continued: ‘You chose to follow a lack of clarity from other emergency services.’

Ms Wilcocks denied this.

The barrister said the confirmation took 12 minutes in total from when the LFB arrived at Eden Park station.

‘Do you agree you arrived with information you needed…that 12 minutes was 12 minutes you lost due to your indecision?’ Mr Bunting asked.

Ms Wilcocks replied: ‘I would never arrive at any incident presuming to believe that I had all the information I needed to [make] a safe plan of action.

‘I would take the information I received on route together with the information I gathered from the scene.

‘I would weigh that up before making a decision.’

Mr Bunting asked: ‘Do you agree that all of this delay that we have just been talking about was avoidable?’

‘No I do not agree with that.’

The inquest continues.