Question about Rail inspectors behaviour

JMonroe

I ran for the train, didn't want to be late for work. I was met by five inspectors at my destination and was fined. I'm not here to challenge that as such, however I wanted to ask if any part of their actions seemed questionable or illegal.

This is a quote from the national irish rail users website;


'Note you are under no obligation in law to given information such as a phone number or details of a third party to verify your identity to the official.'


They pressed me for this information quite a bit and when I wouldn't give them a phone number of someone who could prove my identity one of them got on his phone and asked the person on the other end for a favour who then looked up the address I had given them, he was able to get the name of the house owner and also asked me if I was on the voting register. Is this legal?

goingnowhere

Yes, its called Thom's directory, list of all property owners in the state, its a matter of public record

And as you have proven they have ways other than phone a friend...

Buy a ticket next time

Vic_08

You fare-evaded and got caught.

Nonsense about the rights of the inspectors to verify your identity is a poor attempt to deflect from your actions.

You are required by law when asked to provide these details and without presenting any verification in person it is reasonable for them to verify the details by other means.

I used to be dead against the idea of compulsory national identity cards but years of dealing with scummers whose first line of defence is to claim they have no ID and proceed to lie give false details has changed my mind. Gardai get the same runaround from them as well.

GM228

Vic_08 wrote: »

You fare-evaded and got caught.

Nonsense about the rights of the inspectors to verify your identity is a poor attempt to deflect from your actions.

You are required by law when asked to provide these details and without presenting any verification in person it is reasonable for them to verify the details by other means.

I used to be dead against the idea of compulsory national identity cards but years of dealing with scummers whose first line of defence is to claim they have no ID and proceed to lie give false details has changed my mind. Gardai get the same runaround from them as well.

You are required by law to give your name and address only, not phone numbers or confirm if your on the voting register etc.

punisher5112

GM228 wrote: »

You are required by law to give your name and address only, not phone numbers or confirm if your on the voting register etc.

They didn't ask for proof he was on the voting register so what's your point.

Anyone can go on the net and check an address and see if people are on the register as many people are prone to giving false details such as a made up name or even go as far as using yours or my identity details and if they are checked they will come back sound.

So I don't really get any argument it's good op that you were caught and hopefully you have learned a lesson.

What you done was theft.

Grow up pay your way and have an easier life.

Hopefully they are increasing the amounts of checks as it's going on so long it's so unfair on paying passengers.

GM228

punisher5112 wrote: »

They didn't ask for proof he was on the voting register so what's your point.

My point is the OP said they were asked if they were on the voting register, by saying yes you confirm that, they don't have any right to ask that and the OP has no obligation to confirm that or provide anything other than their name and address.

The OP asked about the legality of what happened and said they didn't dispute being fined.

Bye the way fare evasion is not theft, it's "fare evasion"!

Del.Monte

Show me somebody who has never been in the OP's position and I'll show you a liar. He was caught and won't be doing it again.

liger

GM228 wrote: »

My point is the OP said they were asked if they were on the voting register, by saying yes you confirm that, they don't have any right to ask that

They can ask anything they want. The OP doesn't have the right to travel without paying the fare. If inspectors want to ask him his mother's maiden name, his first pets name and his childhood friends name good for them. Ask away.

White Ninja

Del.Monte wrote: »

Show me somebody who has never been in the OP's position and I'll show you a liar. He was caught and won't be doing it again.

I must be a liar then.....or am I?

magicbastarder

i am also spartacus.

JayRoc

Vic_08 wrote: »

You fare-evaded and got caught.

Nonsense about the rights of the inspectors to verify your identity is a poor attempt to deflect from your actions.

You are required by law when asked to provide these details and without presenting any verification in person it is reasonable for them to verify the details by other means.

I used to be dead against the idea of compulsory national identity cards but years of dealing with scummers whose first line of defence is to claim they have no ID and proceed to lie give false details has changed my mind. Gardai get the same runaround from them as well.

I don't see any equivocation from the OP, he made it clear he took a chance and got caught, he put his hands up and said fair enough. No deflection that I can see.

He simply asked a question about the powers of the inspectors. What's wrong with that? I don't fare evade but I'm still interested as to what they can and cannot do within the confines of the law

GM228

liger wrote: »

They can ask anything they want.

OP adked about the legalities, and as I said they have no right to ask for anything other than name and address.

liger wrote: »

The OP doesn't have the right to travel without paying the fare.

No one disputes that.

And the inspectors don't have the right to ask for other than name and address.

liger wrote: »

If inspectors want to ask him his mother's maiden name, his first pets name and his childhood friends name good for them. Ask away.

And the same can be said for the OP, if the OP wants to ask the inspectors the same good for him, ask away. Wonder how quickly it would be pointed out to the OP they have no right to ask those questions?

schemingbohemia

Everybody has a right to ask questions. Not everyone has the right to be answered.

Seems odd if the OP had no issues with being caught that s/he wouldn't provide his/her phone number. Also presumably the address s/he gave had a family name that was right which was why the inspector asked if s/he was on the electoral register.

There is the equivocal "as such" in the OP's opening line though that makes me suspect s/he's looking for a get out of jail free card.

GM228

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Everybody has a right to ask questions.

And what gives people the "right" to ask questions?

I'm assuming you'll mention something along the lines of free speech?

punisher5112

You do realise if they believe you are untruthful or have given false details they can detain you till the gardai arrive and they can then arrest if above is been done.

schemingbohemia

GM228 wrote: »

And what gives people the "right" to ask questions?

I'm assuming you'll mention something along the lines of free speech?

It's called speaking. I'm struggling to see how you can say that people do not have the right to ask questions. Can you point me to any legislation that restricts my ability to ask a question of someone?

Their obligation to answer is a totally different kettle of fish.

SteM

GM228 wrote: »

And what gives people the "right" to ask questions?

I'm assuming you'll mention something along the lines of free speech?

I think you answered your own question. You may not like the answer though.

GM228

punisher5112 wrote: »

You do realise if they believe you are untruthful or have given false details they can detain you till the gardai arrive and they can then arrest if above is been done.

Indeed I do, but arresting someone has nothing to do with what they can ask of you and what you are required to provide.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It's called speaking. I'm struggling to see how you can say that people do not have the right to ask questions. Can you point me to any legislation that restricts my ability to ask a question of someone?

Their obligation to answer is a totally different kettle of fish.

SteM wrote: »

I think you answered your own question. You may not like the answer though.

Freedom of Speech is a freedom to express freely convictions and opinions, asking a question is not an expression of a conviction or an opinion.

To say someone has a "right" to ask a question suggests it's an entitlement to do something, freedom to express conviction and opinion dosn't give a right to ask a question!

punisher5112

Why would any right minded person want to bring all that stress and embarrassment on themselves.

SteM

Questions can be asked, it doesn’t mean the answer has to be given. No law stopping inspectors from asking a question like 'are you on the electoral register?'. If you know your rights - and if you're going to break the law you should know your rights - then you know should know what you do and don't have to answer.

GM228

SteM wrote: »

Questions can be asked, it doesn’t mean the answer has to be given. No law stopping inspectors from asking a question like 'are you on the electoral register?'. If you know your rights - and if you're going to break the law you should know your rights - then you know should know what you do and don't have to answer.

I think you are missing the point I'm making, indeed there is no law stopping it, I never said there was, however the point I made is there is no "right" to ask questions either like some have suggested.

A right is an entitlement to do something. There is no given right to ask a question, and as pointed out freedom of speech dosn't cover that.

magicbastarder

GM228 wrote: »

A right is an entitlement to do something.

i would disagree on that definition. i have a right to win the lotto. i am not entitled to it.

schemingbohemia

GM228 wrote: »

I think you are missing the point I'm making, indeed there is no law stopping it, I never said there was, however the point I made is there is no "right" to ask questions either like some have suggested.

A right is an entitlement to do something. There is no given right to ask a question, and as pointed out freedom of speech dosn't cover that.

Pedant's corner is that way

---

>>>>

You've been making, ad nauseum, an off-topic point. Not adding to the sum of knowledge on the particular issue being discussed.

I'll make it easier for you.

Inspectors can ask any questions they want.

SteM

GM228 wrote: »

I think you are missing the point I'm making, indeed there is no law stopping it, I never said there was, however the point I made is there is no "right" to ask questions either like some have suggested.

A right is an entitlement to do something. There is no given right to ask a question, and as pointed out freedom of speech dosn't cover that.

So if there's no right to ask a question how does our society function? Sorry, but disagree with you completely.

billie1b

punisher5112 wrote: »

You do realise if they believe you are untruthful or have given false details they can detain you till the gardai arrive and they can then arrest if above is been done.

Em no, no they can't. They can ask you to wait with them until the Gardaí come to verify your details but if you don't want to you are under no obligation to wait. They also can't put their hand on you or block your right of free passage. You're not even under obligation to give them your details.

GM228

billie1b wrote: »

Em no, no they can't. They can ask you to wait with them until the Gardaí come to verify your details but if you don't want to you are under no obligation to wait. They also can't put their hand on you or block your right of free passage. You're not even under obligation to give them your details.

You are incorrect, an authorised officer of CIE (IE, DB or BE) or the LUAS using whatever reasonable force is justified in the circumstances can remove you or if justified arrest you without warrant.

I only showed yesterday the powers for LUAS staff to do that here:-

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057620079/1

And here's CIEs powers:-

Transport Act 1950 S20 (as amended)

Powers of authorised officers.

“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.

(2) A person who fails or refuses to give his or her name or address when required under subsection (1) of this section, or gives a name or address which is false or misleading, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000.

(3) The Board may appoint such and so many persons as it considers necessary to be authorised officers for the purposes of 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.

(4) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, is not entitled to exercise a power under this section unless he or she has received training and instruction, which, in the opinion of the Board is such as will provide guidance to him or her in the exercise of the power.

(5) The Board shall endorse on the warrant it furnishes to an authorised officer under subsection (6) of this section a statement to the effect that the officer has received the training and instruction referred to in subsection (4) of this section.

(6) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, shall, on his or her appointment under this section, be furnished by the Board with a warrant of his or her appointment as an authorised officer.

(7) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, when exercising a power under this section shall be in uniform provided or authorised by the Board.

(8) The arrest of a person under this section does not prejudice the re-arrest of the person by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(9) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, may be referred to by the Board by such title as it decides.

(10) In this section—

“authorised officer” means a person appointed under this section or a member of the Garda Síochána whose attendance is requested by an authorised officer or by the Board;

“railway property” means all land, buildings, railway infrastructure (within the meaning of the Railway Safety Act 2005), rolling stock and vehicles within the control of the Board.

(11) In this section a reference to the committal of an offence or an act includes a reference to an attempt to commit the offence or the act.”.

LXFlyer

billie1b wrote: »

Em no, no they can't. They can ask you to wait with them until the Gardaí come to verify your details but if you don't want to you are under no obligation to wait. They also can't put their hand on you or block your right of free passage. You're not even under obligation to give them your details.

I think you're mixing up LUAS inspectors with CIE inspectors - the latter certainly do have the power to detain you - the CIE by laws are far stronger than LUAS.

GM228

lxflyer wrote: »

I think you're mixing up LUAS inspectors with CIE inspectors - the latter certainly do have the power to detain you - the CIE by laws are far stronger than LUAS.

Both LUAS and CIE have more or less the same powers.

billie1b

Regardless of the bye laws they are not allowed to block your passage or put their hands on you, detain or arrest you. Same as the Airport Police/Port Police etc can carry hand cuffs but they cannot physically arrest you etc, if they want to do that they have to call the Gardai and the Gardai have to make the arrest.
Thats why so many people get away with the fines or get let off in court because it bceomes a case of false detention or false arrest.
Same way the two workers who were fighting in the airport a few years ago got arrested by airport police for fighting on airport property, got brought to court, judge threw it out and the 2 lads brought the DAA, Airport Police and Minister for Justice to court for it and got €25,000 each for false arrest and being falsely detained against their will.
An authorised officer is just another name for a security guard and they have to follow the same rules as PSA holders.

GM228

billie1b wrote: »

Regardless of the bye laws they are not allowed to block your passage or put their hands on you, detain or arrest you. Same as the Airport Police/Port Police etc can carry hand cuffs but they cannot physically arrest you etc, if they want to do that they have to call the Gardai and the Gardai have to make the arrest.
Thats why so many people get away with the fines or get let off in court because it bceomes a case of false detention or false arrest.
Same way the two workers who were fighting in the airport a few years ago got arrested by airport police for fighting on airport property, got brought to court, judge threw it out and the 2 lads brought the DAA, Airport Police and Minister for Justice to court for it and got €25,000 each for false arrest and being falsely detained against their will.
An authorised officer is just another name for a security guard and they have to follow the same rules as PSA holders.

You are incorrect, airport police and authorised offices of CIE and the LUAS are exempt from the Private Security Services Act and exempt from carrying a PSA licence or following those rules.

Airport police, CIE and LUAS staff get their powers of arrest from an Act of the Oirachthas, not bye-laws, the exact same way Gardaí get their powers of arrest.

With regards the airport police and the €25,000, without seeing the actual details I suspect you may find this was due to handcuffs being considered an excessive use of force for the particular occasion as opposed to false arrest or an unjustified arrest based on the circumstances.

billie1b

GM228 wrote: »

You are incorrect, airport police and authorised offices of CIE and the LUAS are exempt from the Private Security Services Act and exempt from carrying a PSA licence or following those rules.

Airport police, CIE and LUAS staff get their powers of arrest from an Act of the Oirachthas, not bye-laws, the exact same way Gardaí get their powers of arrest.

With regards the airport police and the €25,000, without seeing the actual details I suspect you may find this was due to handcuffs being considered an excessive use of force for the particular occasion as opposed to false arrest.

No it was due to handcuffs being used with no power to use them and false arrest with no power of arrest, its a case i'm very familiar with as I work in the airport, it was brushed under the carpet as nobody wanted it getting out that authorised officer has no detaining or arrestable powers as they can be sued for above reasons and CIE etc etc can also be sued for defamation if there 'authorised officer' tries to detain you with out proof.

Sorty I also do apologise, you are correct about the act of Oireachtas, I mentioned bye laws my mistake, I was listening to something on the radio about them and it was in my head