A SALISBURY Road man who caused train delays and costs of nearly £68,000 to the rail industry after climbing on top of a train has been fined £600.

Daniel Jolliffe, 33, pleaded guilty to obstructing an engine using the railway by an unlawful act.

Trains in both directions were delayed at Salisbury railway station on February 20, 2016 after Jolliffe climbed on to the roof of a stationary train on platform 6.

Salisbury Magistrates Court heard that 23 trains were delayed as a result, and three cancelled completely, with an estimated 1,683 minutes lost and a cost of £67,734 to the rail industry.

Prosecuting, Nick Barr said police were called to the station, where Jolliffe told them he was planning to jump when another train came.

Mr Barr said Jolliffe, who suffers from self-induced drug psychosis, had climbed up to escape “people who were after him” who he thought were trying to kill him “He felt he had no other option”.

Defending, Ann Ellery said Jolliffe accepted his previous drug use had led to mental health problems and by February 2016, he had been detained under the Mental Health Act “four or five times”.

She said on the day in question Jolliffe had just been released from detention and police had taken him to a train station and put him on the train to Salisbury.

He had locked himself in the train toilet for the journey, and when told he had to leave the train his psychosis had made him too scared to go on to the platform so he had climbed onto the roof.

When police convinced him to come down, he was taken to a mental health hospital and released three weeks later.

Ms Ellery said: “His behaviour on that day was because of the psychosis, not for any other reason. He had no intent to cause disruption, or to distress any members of the public or railway staff.”

A probation report said Jolliffe was in a new relationship and had secured a job.

Bench chairman Richard Trahair said the offence could have had serious implications, but Jolliffe’s progress had been “very encouraging”.

Jolliffe must pay £145 costs. But Mr Trahair added: “We do not believe that compensation to the railway company is appropriate in view of the lack of intent in this incident.”