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

dev100

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.

In what way can they detain you ??? Only a guard can detain you

GM228

billie1b wrote: »

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

Without a link or something else to go by we can't comment really on such a case, however there is no law in relation to use of handcuffs, just policies/guidelines. You will find that there was more to that than simply having no power of arrest, more likely a legal technicality such as excessive force or not having the required training etc.

You don't seem to understand that they do have power of arrest as per the Air Navigation Acts, the same way Port Police have powers of arrest, CIE staff etc.

You can be sued for anything, being sued for arrest could do with excessive force etc, however powers of arrest are provided for in law.

GM228

dev100 wrote: »

In what way can they detain you ??? Only a guard can detain you

Read a few posts back!

schemingbohemia

Any chance of getting back on topic?

punisher5112

dev100 wrote: »

In what way can they detain you ??? Only a guard can detain you

Wrong.

I can detain you if I have reasonable grounds to.

Citizens arrest can be also implemented if a case arises using reasonable force to detain..

Now it can be a Grey area as there are so many different interpretation of said.

GM228

punisher5112 wrote: »

Wrong.

I can detain you if I have reasonable grounds to.

Citizens arrest can be also implemented if a case arises using reasonable force to detain..

Now it can be a Grey area as there are so many different interpretation of said.

Indeed, any person may arrest without warrant, with reasonable cause, anyone they suspect to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence or suspected to be guilty of an arrestable offence (i.e an arrestable offence = punishable by 5 years+ prison sentence).

As you say a grey area, be very careful.

AFAIK a person also still has the common law right of arrest for breach of the peace.

starshine1234

The Data Protection act would prevent a rail officer from asking questions which request personal information. He has no reason to ask for your mothers maiden name and so he shouldn't ask for it. Quite a few questions would be ruled out because of this unless the inspectors are exempt from data protection.

GM228

starshine1234 wrote: »

The Data Protection act would prevent a rail officer from asking questions which request personal information. He has no reason to ask for your mothers maiden name and so he shouldn't ask for it. Quite a few questions would be ruled out because of this unless the inspectors are exempt from data protection.

DP does not prevent asking a question.

JayRoc

dev100 wrote: »

In what way can they detain you ??? Only a guard can detain you

Well if that's the case I detained a lot of people illegally over the years (hint: it's not the case)

JayRoc

GM228 wrote: »

DP does not prevent asking a question.

Actually, (and I'm open to correction here) my understanding of the DP legislation is that it does prohibit the requesting of certain information, regardless of whether the information is provided or not.

dev100

punisher5112 wrote:

I can detain you if I have reasonable grounds to.

What you may define as reasonable grounds may be different to mine or a court of law

What I'm asking is how are you going to physically detain a person who has decided they ain't being detained and example who is built like a tank and who knows how to handle themselves ? Will you use reasonable force to detain said person ? What's reasonable force to you ? Are you going to do a mma move on said person ??? Knock them out with kick or a sucker punch ?Put said person in a head lock for 10 min until a guard comes along ?

Realistically only a cop has the tools and the law to legally assault someone to detain/arrest them if you start doing wonderful tricks you could find yourself with a lawsuit and a criminal charge.

GM228

JayRoc wrote: »

Actually, (and I'm open to correction here) my understanding of the DP legislation is that it does prohibit the requesting of certain information, regardless of whether the information is provided or not.

Well no, under DP you can't process (i.e obtain) personal information without consent, asking a question is not obtaining the information.

DP is also exempt when someone is required to give information by law - i.e their name and address.

JayRoc

dev100 wrote: »

What you may define as reasonable grounds may be different to mine or a court of law

What I'm asking is how are you going to physically detain a person who has decided they ain't being detained and example who is built like a tank and who knows how to handle themselves ? Will you use reasonable force to detain said person ? What's reasonable force to you ? Are you going to do a mma move on said person ??? Knock them out with kick or a sucker punch ?Put said person in a head lock for 10 min until a guard comes along ?

Realistically only a cop has the tools and the law to legally assault someone to detain/arrest them if you start doing wonderful tricks you could find yourself with a lawsuit and a criminal charge.

Presumably you've seen security personnel detain someone who doesn't want to be detained or is flat out making a break for it? They're not police and they absolutely have the legal right to use force when holding, say, someone suspected of shoplifting. Obviously the force used will be proportionate to the situation...

starshine1234

I think the data protection act does prevent officers from asking questions, except the two questions about your name and your address. By law they are entitled to demand your name and your address.

They cannot demand your mothers maiden name, or the bank you bank with, or your sisters name or any other personal information unless they have a reason.

They cannot seek to trick you. They must have a reason for wanting the personal information and they must be willing to disclose that reason if you ask. I accept they may have reasons for questions but they are not lawful reasons.


If the inspectors don't believe your answers about your name and address, and their disbelief is genuine and reasonable, the act quoted above says that they can arrest you without warrant. They cannot demand extra personal information or answers to questions simply because they don't believe you, unless this power is explicitily granted under the law.


The above applies to ordinary data controllers. It's possible that rail inspectors are exempted from some aspects of this.

starshine1234

I've had some more thoughts about this, and data protection.

If you are asked your name and your address, and you give the information, and the inspector notes it down, everything is ok so far.

My question is; what other notes can legally be made beside the name and address?

Can the inspector estimate your age, weight, height etc and make a note of those estimates?

Can the inspector note with certainty your ethnicity, your skin colour, whether or not you wear glasses etc, and make notes of those personal facts beside your name and address?

Can the inspector take a photogragh of the person?



I don't think the inspector can make notes as I describe. If he did so he would be obtaining and processing your personal data, without your consent. Your skin colour is definitely a personal fact but the estimate of your age or weight may not be. Your correct age is a personal fact.

I certainly don't think inspectors can take photos of you. Random passengers can take photos in public places but the inspector may not be able to, I'm not sure.

billie1b

JayRoc wrote: »

Presumably you've seen security personnel detain someone who doesn't want to be detained or is flat out making a break for it? They're not police and they absolutely have the legal right to use force when holding, say, someone suspected of shoplifting. Obviously the force used will be proportionate to the situation...

Now see this is where it gets quite messy, security personnel are not allowed to place a hand on you regardless, if they believe you have stolen something they are not allowed to detain you, ask you for proof of receipt, All they can ask of if is to remain in the store while the Gardaí come, if you do not wish to stay they've to watch where you go and take your car registration, taxi number or bus number.
They are also not allowed follow around the shop to keep an eye on you, if they believe you are a thief or are trying to steal they've to watch you on camera and save it if you commit a crime and pass it to the Gardaí.
Also if a security gaurd asks you for a proof of purchase and you have not stolen, ask for the Gardaí straight away, wait in the store until the gardaí arrive and provide evidence of purchase. Take the Garda's name, store security officers name and head to your solicitor, its a minimum of €7,000 payment for being accused of stealing, and yes, a security gaurd asking you for 'proof of purchase' is enough to be classed as accused of stealing.
Not a lot of the general public know this.

GM228

billie1b wrote: »

Now see this is where it gets quite messy, security personnel are not allowed to place a hand on you regardless, if they believe you have stolen something they are not allowed to detain you, ask you for proof of receipt, All they can ask of if is to remain in the store while the Gardaí come, if you do not wish to stay they've to watch where you go and take your car registration, taxi number or bus number.
They are also not allowed follow around the shop to keep an eye on you, if they believe you are a thief or are trying to steal they've to watch you on camera and save it if you commit a crime and pass it to the Gardaí.
Also if a security gaurd asks you for a proof of purchase and you have not stolen, ask for the Gardaí straight away, wait in the store until the gardaí arrive and provide evidence of purchase. Take the Garda's name, store security officers name and head to your solicitor, its a minimum of €7,000 payment for being accused of stealing, and yes, a security gaurd asking you for 'proof of purchase' is enough to be classed as accused of stealing.
Not a lot of the general public know this.

None of that is true.

Any person (security staff or any ordinary joe) may arrest without warrant, with reasonable cause, anyone they suspect to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence or suspected to be guilty of an arrestable offence. And they can use whatever force is justified in the circumstances.

An arrestable offence is any offence which may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or by a more severe penalty and includes an attempt to commit any such offence.

In the case of a shoplifter this would be theft which is an arrestable offence as it can carry a punishment of up to 10 years in prison.

Regarding your comments on being accused of stealing and an automatic €7,000 [there is no minimum by the way] are you aware of the principal of "qualified privilege" as recognised by the courts in such circumstances - if a retailer can show that the staff member approached the accused customer and asked them questions in good faith in relation to the suspected incident in a reasonable fashion given the circumstances even if it turns out to be erroneous then there is no redress for the accused as it is not actionable. Qualified privilege can then only be defeated on the grounds of malice.

This has been tested several times in court.

And how does asking for proof of purchase = an accusation of stealing and why on earth would you call the Gardaí if your simply asked for proof of purchase?

To be accused of stealing you need to be - well accused of stealing as in "I believe you didn't pay for those items" etc. It must be a specific statement which you prove isn't true, only a false statement is actionable. Asking have you proof of purchase is an enquiry not an accusation.

If I go to return a faulty item to customer services and they ask me have I proof of purchase are they accusing me of theft?

Carawaystick

How would an inspector form reasonable suspicion that the op gave incorrect details?
If they check every/most people they stop it seems like it's not suspicion of the traveller giving false details
And so there is no lawful power to stop a traveller

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

How would an inspector form reasonable suspicion that the op gave incorrect details?
If they check every/most people they stop it seems like it's not suspicion of the traveller giving false details
And so there is no lawful power to stop a traveller

Why do you think there is no lawful power to stop a traveller?

And what exactly do you mean by "stop"? Stop and ask for a ticket, stop as in arrest etc?

All dealth with already.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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 have never been in the OP's position.

Get a monthly ticket if you travel often OP, that will help