Iarnrod Eireann Fine

abff

Someone I know has been issued a €100 fixed payment notice by Iarnrod Eireann. The notice says that he has 21 days to pay the fine or he will face prosecution.

An appeal has been lodged by email and an acknowledgement received. Is it safe for him to assume that no prosecution will be instituted until the appeal has been considered or is there someone he can contact to get clarification in this regard?

schemingbohemia

You should really post this in communting and transport - but I think they usually process the appeal quickly, so be prepared to go to court or pay up. What reason has been given for not having a ticket?

kerry4sam

Thread moved to where it would be better suited.

Thanks,
kerry4sam

foggy_lad

abff wrote: »

Someone I know has been issued a €100 fixed payment notice by Iarnrod Eireann. The notice says that he has 21 days to pay the fine or he will face prosecution.

An appeal has been lodged by email and an acknowledgement received. Is it safe for him to assume that no prosecution will be instituted until the appeal has been considered or is there someone he can contact to get clarification in this regard?

What was the fixed penalty notice for? if it was for travelling without a ticket there is little chance of an appeal being successful.

Grolschevik

foggy_lad wrote:

What was the fixed penalty notice for? if it was for travelling without a ticket there is little chance of an appeal being successful.

Depends on the circumstances. I successfully had a fine revoked in a case where I had video that the TVM wasn't working and I sought out the Revenue Protection guy upon arrival

abff

Thanks folks. The fine was not for fare dodging - it was for crossing the train tracks. The person in question normally uses the Luas and didn't realise it was prohibited. There are other factors I don't want to go into here.

Jamie2k9

abff wrote: »

Thanks folks. The fine was not for fare dodging - it was for crossing the train tracks. The person in question normally uses the Luas and didn't realise it was prohibited. There are other factors I don't want to go into here.

Claiming not to know, even if really didn't will not work.

The onus is on you to know the law.

abff

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Claiming not to know, even if really didn't will not work.

The onus is on you to know the law.

I know. However, there were extenuating circumstances.

foggy_lad

abff wrote: »

I know. However, there were extenuating circumstances.

Crossing the tracks is trespassing as well as being very foolish and dangerous and there is never an excuse.

Jamie2k9

abff wrote: »

I know. However, there were extenuating circumstances.

Fair enough however there would need to be extreme for it to be dropped as there is very little chance unless the person had no choice but to cross the line.

All I would say is for him to plan on having to pay.

abff

foggy_lad wrote: »

Crossing the tracks is trespassing as well as being very foolish and dangerous and there is never an excuse.

That's a very black and white attitude. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I don't believe anything is quite that absolute and you need to know the full circumstances before making a definite pronouncement.

Infini

abff wrote: »

That's a very black and white attitude. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I don't believe anything is quite that absolute and you need to know the full circumstances before making a definite pronouncement.

No you dont go down on the tracks period. Theres no leeway on this if something happens and you get a smack of a train its a guaranteed dismemberment or fatality and theres no excuse for being there. If he got fined for tresspassing on the railway then it would most likely be judged the same as having no ticket and any appeal will be unsuccessful in that regard.

abff

Infini2 wrote: »

No you dont go down on the tracks period. Theres no leeway on this if something happens and you get a smack of a train its a guaranteed dismemberment or fatality and theres no excuse for being there. If he got fined for tresspassing on the railway then it would most likely be judged the same as having no ticket and any appeal will be unsuccessful in that regard.

How does that differ from someone crossing the Luas tracks?

StupidLikeAFox

abff wrote: »

I know. However, there were extenuating circumstances.

What were the extenuating circumstances?

ED E

I'd hazard a guess they might be mentally impaired?

flyingsnail

abff wrote: »

How does that differ from someone crossing the Luas tracks?

The Luas can stop in the distance the driver can see to be clear, a train cannot.

Mongfinder General

Why on earth did your "friend" hand over his details?

foggy_lad

ED E wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess they might be mentally impaired?

OP if this is the case as your friend has an intellectual impairment or disability they may not be responsible and may not be liable for a fine.

You have stated you won't go into the extenuating circumstances so we are unable to give any real advice on the situation as we don't know the situation.

Losty Dublin

abff wrote: »

That's a very black and white attitude. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I don't believe anything is quite that absolute and you need to know the full circumstances before making a definite pronouncement.

It is illegal for anybody to be on a railway line. The only circumstances whereby one may do so is if they are working on or close to a line at the time that requires their being on the line for the course of their duties. (In such cases you need to be in possession of appropriate safety certificates and Irish Rail permisisons.) or in an emergency situation, this will be done in the event of say a train crash and happens only under the direction of Irish Rail or when emergency services staff are on hand and answering a 999 call.

Are any of these circumstances applicable? Even Irish Rail staff are not allowed trackside unless their immediate duties require it and have been disciplined for breaching same; non public sections of the Luas have similar laws and conditions applicable to them as well.

Infini

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Why on earth did your "friend" hand over his details?

Because its illegal not to, theres bylaws there for a reason.

abff wrote: »

How does that differ from someone crossing the Luas tracks?

Luas is light rail. You get hit by one of them your most likely gonna end up in hospital with broken bones and its very rare to be killed by one. Its also by design nearly impossible to get dragged under one (on account of being a lowfloor vehicle) and they can be brought to a stop relatively quickly because of their size.

Irish rail is HEAVY rail a train travelling at speed can take up to a mile to come to a stop simply because of their weight alone (each carrige can weigh a ton) on the larger ones. Even DARTs travel at considerable speed at places. Getting hit by one of them is basically a guaranteed dismemberment or fatality and as such thats why theres a penalty for being caught tresspassing on the tracks.

Mongfinder General

Infini2 wrote: »

Because its illegal not to, theres bylaws there for a reason.



Luas is light rail. You get hit by one of them your most likely gonna end up in hospital with broken bones and its very rare to be killed by one. Its also by design nearly impossible to get dragged under one (on account of being a lowfloor vehicle) and they can be brought to a stop relatively quickly because of their size.

Irish rail is HEAVY rail a train travelling at speed can take up to a mile to come to a stop simply because of their weight alone (each carrige can weigh a ton) on the larger ones. Even DARTs travel at considerable speed at places. Getting hit by one of them is basically a guaranteed dismemberment or fatality and as such thats why theres a penalty for being caught tresspassing on the tracks.

I'm quite well aware of the law. Refusing to give your name and walking away could have saved his friend a fine.

Victor

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I'm quite well aware of the law. Refusing to give your name and walking away could have saved his friend a fine.

Or an arrest and extra punishment.

Mongfinder General

Victor wrote: »

Or an arrest and extra punishment.

So Irish Rail have the powers of detention and arrest? They probably have magic powers too.

flyingsnail

Mongfinder General wrote: »

So Irish Rail have the powers of detention and arrest? They probably have magic powers too.

Not sure about the magic part but the arrest part seems straight forward

129.—The following section is inserted after section 22 of the Transport Act 1950 :

“22A.—(1) If an authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person—

(a) is contravening or has contravened or is failing or has failed to comply with a provision of bye-laws made under section 22 of this Act which is stated in the bye-laws to be a penal provision,

(b) is committing or has committed an offence under section 59(1) of this Act, section 25 of the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1971 , or section 118 or 132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005,

(c) is assaulting or has assaulted or is causing or has caused deliberate harm to another on railway property,

(d) is causing or has caused wanton or deliberate damage to railway property,

(e) is obstructing or has obstructed or is impeding or has impeded an authorised officer in the exercise of his or her duties under this section or any provision of bye-laws made under section 22 of this Act which is stated in the bye-laws to be a penal provision,

(f) on any railway property is intoxicated or is committing or has committed an offence under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 , or

(g) if requested by an authorised officer to cease such contravention or action or to so comply, fails to comply with the request,

he or she may—

(i) using such reasonable force as the circumstances require, remove or escort the person from the railway property or any part of it,

(ii) in circumstances where the officer considers it to be justified, arrest the person without warrant, or

(iii) require the person to give his or her name and address and, if the person fails or refuses to do so or gives a name that the authorised officer reasonably suspects is false or misleading may arrest that person without warrant,

and, if he or she is not a member of the Garda Síochána, deliver, as soon as practicable, the person, if arrested, into the custody of a member of the Garda Síochána to be dealt with according to law.

Mongfinder General

flyingsnail wrote: »

Not sure about the magic part but the arrest part seems straight forward

I still don't see any explicit powers of detention and some of the grounds for arrest are laughable. For example, Arresting somebody on a train for being drunk after plying them with booze sold on board is contributory negligence to say the least. The By laws are Mickey mouse made up laws which would get laughed out of court by a judge under judicial review

Infini

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I still don't see any explicit powers of detention and some of the grounds for arrest are laughable. For example, Arresting somebody on a train for being drunk after plying them with booze sold on board is contributory negligence to say the least. The By laws are Mickey mouse made up laws which would get laughed out of court by a judge under judicial review

And yet they're there. The bylaws are still law and much as you might wanna dispute that its legally binding. The rail is actually private property at the end of it you need a ticket to enter and arent allowed on the tracks. Each in itself would be considered an instance of tresspass and are such subject to a fine.

I dont make the law but the laws there in black and white! :P

esforum

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I still don't see any explicit powers of detention

It was not only quoted but was in big black bold font

Mongfinder General wrote: »

The By laws are Mickey mouse made up laws which would get laughed out of court by a judge under judicial review

Well first off, all laws are made up, they arent naturally reproduced fauna!

second, no they wouldnt, the bye laws have existed for a very very long time and have been utilised thousands of times as have the Dublin bus, Dublin airport and Dublin city byelaws, why prey tell do you think they wouldnt stand up?

Mongfinder General

esforum wrote: »

It was not only quoted but was in big black bold font



Well first off, all laws are made up, they arent naturally reproduced fauna!

second, no they wouldnt, the bye laws have existed for a very very long time and have been utilised thousands of times as have the Dublin bus, Dublin airport and Dublin city byelaws, why prey tell do you think they wouldnt stand up?

Nowhere did I see the word detain on your post. It may be implied but it is not explicit. Authorised officer is also another interesting concept. What qualifies one to be an authorised officer? As for bye laws not standing up, procedurally they have to be fair. Summary judgement by an "authorised officer" may not be robust enough if scrutinised under judicial review. So, why have Irish Rail been able to prosecute so many people? Because you're average track jumper doesn't have the coin to challenge/judicially review.

esforum

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Nowhere did I see the word detain on your post. It may be implied but it is not explicit. Authorised officer is also another interesting concept. What qualifies one to be an authorised officer? As for bye laws not standing up, procedurally they have to be fair. Summary judgement by an "authorised officer" may not be robust enough if scrutinised under judicial review. So, why have Irish Rail been able to prosecute so many people? Because you're average track jumper doesn't have the coin to challenge/judicially review.

Section 129, sub section 22A (1) (ii) and (iii). Power of arrest not only straight off the bat for an offence under the byelaws but also a power of arrest for failing or refusing to provide details.

What constitutes an 'authorised officer' is also contained within the act and includes designated staff and members of An Garda Siochana. Almost the same wording that allows 'authorised officers' aka airport police under the air navigation Act.

The legislation is tried and true.

Swan Curry

May as well add my question to this thread rather than start a new one. I got a fixed penalty notice and sent an appeal in, but they haven't gotten back to me and it has to be paid by next week. Can I just assume they've rejected my appeal if I've heard nothing back from them? I got confirmation that the appeal had been logged

end of the road

flyingsnail wrote: »

The Luas can stop in the distance the driver can see to be clear, a train cannot.

and even at that, as far as i know you are expected to only cross the luas tracks at traffic lights or a luas stop?