"LUAS inspectors have no right to check passengers’ tickets once they leave a tram"

AlekSmart

As suggested by a Mod.....and still VERY relevant to the world of our LUAS

Back to Business...
Now that the Drivers are sorted,we can resume normal service on LUAS....Judge Halipn in the Dublin District Court is not one bit impressed with Transdev seeking payment from Customers using it's service....the cheek of them !!!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-34869545.html

Quote:
LUAS inspectors have no right to check passengers’ tickets once they leave a tram, a judge has said.

Staff checking tickets to catch fare dodgers regularly wait until a passenger has left the carriage before asking to see their tickets or travel cards.
Happy days,eh

Mind you,there is a catch......

Quote:
Luas by-laws state: “Where an authorised person observes an individual alighting from a light rail vehicle they may request that the individual produces a valid ticket for inspection on the stop platform.”

Under the by-laws, a platform is defined as being six metres from the white line, or as far as the next bounded property, wall or fence.

Its length is bounded by pedestrian crossings or physical barriers such as guard rails.
Wonder if The Judge is a regular on The Red Line ....

It will be interesting to see what TII/Transdev's response will be to this case,as I've litte doubt it will be heavily shared amongst the "Usual Suspects "

The LUAS Ticket Checkers will soon be earning that increased wage,that's for sure !!!!
__________________
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Charles Mackay 1812-1889

BuffyBot

As you are well aware, the previous thread you posted on was about the Transdev/union strike and negotiations, not a general Luas catch all thread. This post had no place there, so you shouldn't have bumped it...so less of the activities which seem to have inspired your name.

Also, give your posts a meaningful, descriptive title in future. I'll take the liberty of changing this for you

jd83

Why are judges in this country so useless at their jobs! Its like they are working for the defense half the time. So this ******* gets his free trip on the luas and a 99 euro fine for causing 120 euro damage in a garda station and no doubt the free legal aid but it ok the rest of us will pay our fares!

afatbollix

He just pointed out the law. The law states that they can check on Luas Property or 6 metres from the white line. He was talking facts which judges do.

Its up to the law makers in this case Luas to change the law.

XPS_Zero

On the one hand obviously if you're not on a platform they can't stop you, but I wonder how this is to work in practice....

1. Do they have to SUCCEED in stopping you or attempt to? So if they yell "ticket there please" while you're on the platform then boom you step off it are people to be let off Scott free?

2. Do they have to physically stop you before you leave the platform?

On the other this is yet another part of the trend of judges in this country sending the message to habitual offenders "don't worry, there are no consequences". He should have been told "congrats you win on the ticket part, but on the other part you gotta pay a massive fine and do a years community service " instead he walks, as he will next time, and the time after that.
Meanwhile our courts will keep locking 17 year olds up for consensual sex with their 16 year old girlfriends (and NEVER the reverse), locking pensioners up for refusal to subscribe to RTE.....

L1011

District court judgements have no basis in setting precedence, which is something very important to remember here.

devnull

Just like this:
http://www.thejournal.ie/aircoach-cctv-data-protection-2836806-Jun2016/

Both people should have been severely punished but instead get off with a technicality, putting the general public at risk and also penalizing the honest person over the dishonest.

AlekSmart

afatbollix wrote: »

He just pointed out the law. The law states that they can check on Luas Property or 6 metres from the white line. He was talking facts which judges do.

Its up to the law makers in this case Luas to change the law.

Yes,but,maybe...hmmmm ?

Judge Halpin did go a smidgin further than merely "pointing out the law"...

“They only have jurisdiction to ask for a ticket on the Luas,” Judge Halpin said.

“If he is on a public highway,only An Garda Siochana have the power to stop someone on a public highway. Luas inspectors cannot stop someone on the public pavement.

“It irks me when I see that happen – they have no jurisdiction to do that.

One could suggest that an "irked" Judge,might not be in exactly the correct frame-of-mind to provide a considered,rational,reasonable judgement ?

The Judge's remarks also reintroduce a hoary old chesnut of what constitutes "ON The LUAS",as the by-laws clearly establish a platform area where Inspectors CAN demand sight of tickets....

This one will run,and run....and run.......:mad:

magicbastarder

devnull wrote: »

Both people should have been severely punished but instead get off with a technicality

i would not regard the law which states that you cannot be detained by someone without jurisdiction to do so as 'a technicality'.

Marcusm

jd83 wrote: »

Why are judges in this country so useless at their jobs! Its like they are working for the defense half the time. So this ******* gets his free trip on the luas and a 99 euro fine for causing 120 euro damage in a garda station and no doubt the free legal aid but it ok the rest of us will pay our fares!

Woah there. The judge has rightly pointed out that a private individual, whether acting for a tram company or not, has no right to detain a person on a public street. That is not being useless at their jobs, that is pointing out that the revenue inspectors have been overstepping the bounds and/or have not been trained to operate within the statutory framework which was put in place for them. That is very much the role of a judge.

Cookie_Monster

AGS were with the ticket inspectors, does he not still have to stop on the Garda's direction and the inspectors can then deal with him via the Garda, no?

Marcusm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

AGS were with the ticket inspectors, does he not still have to stop on the Garda's direction and the inspectors can then deal with him via the Garda, no?

The GArda would have to have reasonable grounds to detaim him meaning that they would have to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has committed an arrestable offence(generally meaning greater than 5 years in chokey); that would likely involve the AGS member having observed an arrestable offence which is unlikely. The Luas byelaws (updated and reissued in 2015) do not involve any offences. The authorised officers are permitted to request production of a ticket, failure to do so can lead to a requirement to pay the standard fare failure to do so can result in being asked to leave the vehicle. Failure to do so could involve the Luas staff calling the Garda but the issue would then presumably be a breach of the peace type matter. THere seems not to be an offence of failing to purchase a ticket.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's all in reg 3 of the link below; the "penalty" for failure to comply with any of these is being asked to leave which is something which you "shall" do but without any further compulsion. The broader scheme of railway offences, trespass etc, are prosecutable under the primary legislation. Hopefully they will tighten all these up and make them functional.

https://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html

GM228

Marcusm wrote: »

Woah there. The judge has rightly pointed out that a private individual, whether acting for a tram company or not, has no right to detain a person on a public street. That is not being useless at their jobs, that is pointing out that the revenue inspectors have been overstepping the bounds and/or have not been trained to operate within the statutory framework which was put in place for them. That is very much the role of a judge.

No that is not what the judge said, staff have got the right to arrest people and ask for their names and addresses only and that right isn't limited to just LUAS property as per the relevant statutory framework, what the judge rightly said is they don't have the right to ask for a ticket on a public street, they only have the right for a name and address and can when reasonably justified arrest someone who contravenes a bye-law.

Marcusm wrote: »

The GArda would have to have reasonable grounds to detaim him meaning that they would have to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has committed an arrestable offence(generally meaning greater than 5 years in chokey); that would likely involve the AGS member having observed an arrestable offence which is unlikely. The Luas byelaws (updated and reissued in 2015) do not involve any offences. The authorised officers are permitted to request production of a ticket, failure to do so can lead to a requirement to pay the standard fare failure to do so can result in being asked to leave the vehicle. Failure to do so could involve the Luas staff calling the Garda but the issue would then presumably be a breach of the peace type matter. THere seems not to be an offence of failing to purchase a ticket.

You are completely incorrect with that posting, someone who contravenes a LUAS bye-law is guilty of an offence under the Railway (Transport Infrastructure) Act 2001 S66 and subject of a fine on summary conviction of upto €1000.

"Arrestable offence" rules don't prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law and under S67 Gardaí have got the power of arrest without warrant when someone is suspected of an offence under S66.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Where do they derive their powers to take down your particulars?

The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 S66 (as amended).

Marcusm wrote: »

It's all in reg 3 of the link below; the "penalty" for failure to comply with any of these is being asked to leave which is something which you "shall" do but without any further compulsion. The broader scheme of railway offences, trespass etc, are prosecutable under the primary legislation. Hopefully they will tighten all these up and make them functional.

https://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html

The failure to comply with any bye-law means a person is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction a fine of upto €1000.

Also LUAS staff can remove someone from the LUAS property using reasonable force as the circumstances require.

And offences under bye-laws are prosecuted under the primary legislation also.

magicbastarder

is fare dodging on the luas a civil or criminal offence?
i would have assumed that it was a civil offence; and would wonder if arrest for a civil offence is even possible?

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

is fare dodging on the luas a civil or criminal offence?
i would have assumed that it was a civil offence; and would wonder if arrest for a civil offence is even possible?

It's a criminal offence.

Marcusm

GM228 wrote: »

No that is not what the judge said, staff have got the right to arrest people and ask for their names and addresses only and that right isn't limited to just LUAS property as per the relevant statutory framework, what the judge rightly said is they don't have the right to ask for a ticket on a public street, they only have the right for a name and address and can when reasonably justified arrest someone who contravenes a bye-law.




You are completely incorrect with that posting, someone who contravenes a LUAS bye-law is guilty of an offence under the Railway (Transport Infrastructure) Act 2001 S66 and subject of a fine on summary conviction of upto €1000.

I know see the link through s66 to the offence although it would be more commonly stated in the SI that failure to comply with demands under reg 3 would constitute an offence under s66 of the Act. However, I still do not believe that there is any power of arrest conferred on Luas staff; could you point out where this is provided for.

"Arrestable offence" rules don't prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law and under S67 Gardaí have got the power of arrest without warrant when someone is suspected of an offence under S66.




The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 S66 (as amended).

I admit that I overlooked s67, it is eminently sensible that Gardai have enhanced powers in this regard.

The failure to comply with any bye-law means a person is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction a fine of upto €1000.

Also LUAS staff can remove someone from the LUAS property using reasonable force as the circumstances require.

And offences under bye-laws are prosecuted under the primary legislation also.

Nowhere is it provided for to permit Luas staff to "remove" passengers. They are authorised to tell them to leave. I suspect they would need to call a Garda to remove them or risk an assault charge.

AlekSmart

jd83 wrote: »

Why are judges in this country so useless at their jobs! Its like they are working for the defense half the time. So this ******* gets his free trip on the luas and a 99 euro fine for causing 120 euro damage in a garda station and no doubt the free legal aid but it ok the rest of us will pay our fares!

Hard to disagree with the sentiment regarding Judges and their perception of their job.

Take,for example the reported comments of Judge Catherine Murphy in this case...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-blackrock-college-rugby-player-who-beat-up-and-robbed-a-taxi-driver-to-avoid-fare-jailed-34874270.html

A former Blackrock college rugby player who beat up and robbed a taxi driver to avoid paying a fare has been jailed for nine months.

In the Dublin Circuit Criminal Courton Monday, Judge Catherine Murphy said she was jailing Buti Sashi (20) with “great reluctance” after he failed to engage fully with probation and restorative justice services and failed a drugs test.

The Judge's "Great Reluctance" to impose a custodial sentence on this fellow is not really an issue,however,what IS an issue is that the Judge felt confident enough to state this reluctance in open court.

This apologetic enforcement of Lawful penalty,often only as a last resort is becoming a feature of Irish Court Reports,and is sending strong messages to the recidivist Criminal community,that they are largely immune from punishment.

So,whether it be a Taxi,Train,Bus or Tram,our Judges appear to have little empathy with users who DO pay their fares,whose noses are being rubbed in it by the likes of these people ?

GM228

Marcusm wrote: »

I know see the link through s66 to the offence although it would be more commonly stated in the SI that failure to comply with demands under reg 3 would constitute an offence under s66 of the Act.

It is not commonly stated in a bye-law SI about being guilty of an offence, that statement is usually in the primary act from which the bye-law is created.

Marcusm wrote: »

However, I still do not believe that there is any power of arrest conferred on Luas staff; could you point out where this is provided for.

Marcusm wrote: »

Nowhere is it provided for to permit Luas staff to "remove" passengers. They are authorised to tell them to leave. I suspect they would need to call a Garda to remove them or risk an assault charge.

You are obviously looking at the act in it's enacted form.

You need to look at the appropriate act as amended, for example this amendment by the Railway Safety Act 2005, S66 now states:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/134/enacted/en/html#sec134

Powers of authorised officers.

66B.—(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 bye-law made under section 66,

(b) is committing or has committed on a railway an offence under section 64 or 65,

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

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

(e) has contravened section 118 or 132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005,

(f) 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, section 66A, 66C, or under any bye-law made under section 66,

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

(h) 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 or any part of it,

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

AlekSmart

Marcusm wrote: »

Nowhere is it provided for to permit Luas staff to "remove" passengers. They are authorised to tell them to leave. I suspect they would need to call a Garda to remove them or risk an assault charge.

I have always been suprised that the Light Rail By Laws are nowhere near as robust as the Dublin Bus By Laws of 1990.

As an example relevant to the LUAS Inspector's Powers of Detention...or lack of them and the Dublin Bus equivalent.

https://www.dublinbus.ie/About-Us/Dublin-Bus-Bye-Laws/Enforcement-Procedures/

58 (a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws shall upon being requested so to do give his name and address to an authorized person who is an inspector, driver or conductor in uniform or who produces evidence of identity.

58 (b) The person aforesaid shall on the request of the authorised person remain in the company of the authorised person pending verification of the name and address.

58 (c) Where any such person refuses or fails to comply with a request under paragraph (a) or (b) of this Bye-Law or following such request such person gives a name and address which the authorised person has reasonable grounds for believing is false or misleading, such person may be detained by the authorised person until the arrival of a member of the Garda Síochána.

A member of the Garda Síochána may request a person—
59(a) who has refused or failed to comply with a request under Bye-Law 58, or
59(b) who following a request under that Bye-Law has given to the authorised person concerned a name and address that the latter has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, or
59(c) detained pursuant to Bye-Law 58,
to give to the member his name and address and if the person refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address that the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, the member may arrest the person without warrant.

60 (a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or of attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws may be removed from the vehicle by an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána acting on the request of such authorised person.
60 (b) In the exercise of the power conferred on him under paragraph (a) of this Bye-Law an authorised person or member of the Garda Síochána may use such reasonable force as is necessary.

Marcusm

GM228 wrote: »

It is not commonly stated in a bye-law SI about being guilty of an offence, that statement is usually in the primary act from which the bye-law is created.






You are obviously looking at the act in it's enacted form.

You need to look at the appropriate act as amended, for example this amendment by the Railway Safety Act 2005, S66 now states:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/134/enacted/en/html#sec134

Thanks for that; presumably only a very small proportion of Luas staff are elevated to warranted Authorised Officer status. Frankly it's a frightening extension of the powers of transdev staff and is presumably only a very restricted class.

GM228

Marcusm wrote: »

Thanks for that; presumably only a very small proportion of Luas staff are elevated to warranted Authorised Officer status. Frankly it's a frightening extension of the powers of transdev staff and is presumably only a very restricted class.

All revenue protection officers and security staff are authorised officers, however in order to exercise their powers under S66 they "must receive training and instruction.....which will provide guidance to him or her in the exercise of the power."

Problem is that training and instruction isn't guided, defined, regulated or subject to minimum standards by statute, but rather by Transport Infrastructure Ireland and whatever they consider appropriate training and instruction.

The same training and instruction is required for Irish Rail, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, they come under the Board of CIE and what the boatd consider appropriate.

For all we know the appropriate training and instruction could simply be "there's a copy of S66 saying what you can and can't do under law".

ED E

Just hopped off the green line(half way out) to 5 RP officers and 4 AGS members? First time in years I've seen them do that.

A) is this a result of the above decision
Are Transdev paying for their time?

GM228

ED E wrote: »

Just hopped off the green line(half way out) to 5 RP officers and 4 AGS members? First time in years I've seen them do that.

A) is this a result of the above decision
Are Transdev paying for their time?

A: No, this often happens and has nothing to do with the judges comments, infact the Gardaí were assisting the LUAS staff in that very case.

B: Unknown, but I would say it's unlikely. Probably done under a joint co-operation scheme or similar. The Gardaí can only be request to paid for policing duties for events, which is why the GAA for example contribute towards their policing activities on match days. Highly unlikely ticket checking is classed as an event.

Marcusm

ED E wrote: »

Just hopped off the green line(half way out) to 5 RP officers and 4 AGS members? First time in years I've seen them do that.

A) is this a result of the above decision
Are Transdev paying for their time?

Re Luas ticket revenues accrue to the State (in the form of TII) rather than Transdev so it would seem inappropriate for AGS to charge in such circumstances.

up13

Brace yourselves for fare rises in November, Fares rise each and every year on public transport, this is a perfect example of why.
RPU can't do other job because of legal loop holes.

Infini

up13 wrote: »

Brace yourselves for fare rises in November, Fares rise each and every year on public transport, this is a perfect example of why.
RPU can't do other job because of legal loop holes.

As someone rightly pointed out on the thread pay never increased for dublin bus or irish rail staff since 2008 and was even cut and they still approved multiyear fair increases so its a bit of a moot point.

JaMarcusHustle

More Gardai assisting with inspections on the green line just now. Been using it twice a day for 2 years now and never seen them before.

strandroad

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

More Gardai assisting with inspections on the green line just now. Been using it twice a day for 2 years now and never seen them before.

Are they at hand on the red line I wonder, where the fun is....

AlekSmart

mhge wrote: »

Are they at hand on the red line I wonder, where the fun is....

They are indeed.

Joint Garda/DSP/Transdev operations can regularly be encountered on the Red Line,albeit nowhere near often enough.

maireadmconroy1

do transdev bring fare dodgers to court

punisher5112

maireadmconroy1 wrote: »

do transdev bring fare dodgers to court

Yes. As do all other operators.

GM228

maireadmconroy1 wrote: »

do transdev bring fare dodgers to court

Yes, they have a sitting in the Distric Court once a month if needed, same as CIE.