Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Question about Rail inspectors behaviour

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    dev100
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    dev100 wrote: »
    In what way can they detain you ??? Only a guard can detain you

    Read a few posts back!


  • Options
    #35
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    Any chance of getting back on topic?


  • Options
    #36
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    starshine1234
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    JayRoc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭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)


  • Options
    #41
    JayRoc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    dev100
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    JayRoc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #45
    starshine1234
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    starshine1234
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,806 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #49
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #50
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    corglass
    Registered Users Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭corglass


    some great arguments both ways in this thread.

    An earlier question was asked about whether a ticket inspector can legally document observations about the traveller like their gender, estimated age, estimated height, ethnicity etc.


    Anyone know?


  • Options
    #53
    XPS_Zero
    Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭XPS_Zero


    It's amazing...people are repeatidly quoting laws, bye laws, ministerial orders, statutory instruments and you STILL have people saying "they can't legally do xyz".

    When amatuers think they understand the law it can be funny or dangerous. Working security in college part time I heard so many hilarious threats to "sue the arse off yez!" saying I'd no lawful right to throw you out, if you're asked to leave private or govt property by those in charge of it and you don't, you're trespassing and yeh...I can throw you out using (reasonable/proportionate) force.

    No, claiming you're gay, a traveler or because you're x race doesn't mean I have to let you in either. I'm not allowed refuse you or toss you BASED on that, but if you're a minority but I've observed you shoulder clipping random people and asking people what they're looking at as you walk up to the door I can say no and no anti discrimination law will save you. It seems to be a classic case of leaving cert like 'answering the question you wish was asked instead of the one on the page', in this case reading into the law what you want to see.


  • Options
    #54
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    corglass wrote: »
    some great arguments both ways in this thread.

    An earlier question was asked about whether a ticket inspector can legally document observations about the traveller like their gender, estimated age, estimated height, ethnicity etc.


    Anyone know?

    Legally there's nothing saying they can't document such details.

    There's no legal requirement for such details to be given or for an inspector to demand them, but if you do give those details or an inspector estimates them there's no legal impediment.


  • Options
    #55
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    GM228 wrote: »
    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.

    So an inspector stops a traveller asks for ticket. Traveller has none.
    Traveller gives name and address as obliged to do by law. Traveller goes to carry on with her day.
    At this point an inspector can only stop/detain the traveller if the inspector has reasonable grounds to suspect the name/address is incorrect.
    There is no power to have a traveller hang on while the name and address is verified or anything. They have to have immediate reasonable suspicion that the details are incorrect. I'm unsure how routinely trying to stop people to check their details would stand up to scrutiny. It's a narrow line between S15(2) of the non-fatal offenses against the person act " causing the other to believe that he or she is under legal compulsion to consent"


  • Options
    #56
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    So an inspector stops a traveller asks for ticket. Traveller has none.
    Traveller gives name and address as obliged to do by law. Traveller goes to carry on with her day.
    At this point an inspector can only stop/detain the traveller if the inspector has reasonable grounds to suspect the name/address is incorrect.
    There is no power to have a traveller hang on while the name and address is verified or anything.

    They have powers of arrest when somebody contravenes a bye-law (having no ticket for example), not just on suspicion of giving a false name or address. Once the person fails to produce a ticket then there is reasonable suspicion of contravention of a bye law and that in itself gives an inspector the legal right to arrest someone if they feel it's justified - i.e for a legitimate reason. The justification being to ascertain their name and address as per Section 22(A)(g)(iii) of the Transport Act 1950 and confirm it's correct. Reasonable suspicion of a false name and address dosn't necessarily have to come into play.

    "Carawaystick wrote: »
    They have to have immediate reasonable suspicion that the details are incorrect. I'm unsure how routinely trying to stop people to check their details would stand up to scrutiny. It's a narrow line between S15(2) of the non-fatal offenses against the person act " causing the other to believe that he or she is under legal compulsion to consent"

    S15 (2) deals with false imprisonment, considering an inspector has the legal power to arrest someone for any violation of a bye law and not just suspicion of a false name and address it's not false imprisonment and so dosn't apply.


  • Options
    #57
    starshine1234
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭starshine1234


    GM228 wrote: »
    Legally there's nothing saying they can't document such details.

    There's no legal requirement for such details to be given or for an inspector to demand them, but if you do give those details or an inspector estimates them there's no legal impediment.

    The Data Protection act straightforwardly prevents the inspector from creating a file on people without their consent.

    The inspector cannot create a file, either with estimated information, or with correct and confirmed information, without the persons consent. He is prevented by the Data Protection act.

    Are you claiming there is an exemption in the DP act which allows an inspector to have special powers?




    An inspector can consider some names suspicious, like Mickey Mouse. But also, Enda Kenny, or Bob Geldofs kids, they're called something like Moonshine Peaches. That sounds suspicious but it's the correct name.
    A person could actually be called Enda Kenny but that name will raise eyebrows. A person isn't required to prove their name. How should an inspector act here?


  • Options
    #58
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    GM228 wrote: »
    They have powers of arrest when somebody contravenes a bye-law (having no ticket for example), not just on suspicion of giving a false name or address. Once the person fails to produce a ticket then there is reasonable suspicion of contravention of a bye law and that in itself gives an inspector the legal right to arrest someone if they feel it's justified - i.e for a legitimate reason. The justification being to ascertain their name and address as per Section 22(A)(g)(iii) of the Transport Act 1950 and confirm it's correct. Reasonable suspicion of a false name and address dosn't necessarily have to come into play.
    If the person turns up with no ticket then shouldn't the inspector arrest them immediately so and not bother with asking for name and address?
    Especially if the max fine is less than €13


  • Options
    #59
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    starshine1234 wrote: »
    The Data Protection act straightforwardly prevents the inspector from creating a file on people without their consent.

    The inspector cannot create a file, either with estimated information, or with correct and confirmed information, without the persons consent. He is prevented by the Data Protection act.

    Are you claiming there is an exemption in the DP act which allows an inspector to have special powers?

    You are incorrect, DP does not apply when used for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating offences or when apprehending or prosecuting offenders.

    Contravention of bye-laws are offences!


  • Options
    #60
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    If the person turns up with no ticket then shouldn't the inspector arrest them immediately so and not bother with asking for name and address?
    Especially if the max fine is less than €13

    Why should they arrest them immediately? There is no such requirement.

    Minimum fine is €100 by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    starshine1234
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭starshine1234


    GM228 wrote: »
    You are incorrect, DP does not apply when used for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating offences or when apprehending or prosecuting offenders.

    Contravention of bye-laws are offences!

    I would agree with this. But the inspector must have a reasonable suspicion that a suitable offence has been committed before questions can be asked, and notes and photos taken. And the inspector must be asking questions in order to detect offences or to assist the Gardai.

    I get your point that not having a ticket means an offence has been committed. But the inspectors powers are explicitily laid out in Transport Act 1950 which you helpfully quoted on page 2. I think the inspector can only act as explicitly laid out in Transport Act. He cannot go on a solo run and perform an investigation.
    There is nothing to investigate. The inspector already knows you have no ticket; he can ask your name and address and go from there.


    In other words, the inspector can't say he was trying to investigate or detect an offence because he isn't allow to investigate if you have no ticket; he is only allowed to ask for names and addresses, and then to arrest or not arrest, or remove etc, using force in some circumstances. He can't perform an investigation, as the Transport Act doesn't provide for that. Therefore, he doesn't have immunity from Data Protection as he would be acting outside his explicit powers, as laid out in Transport Act, (on page 2). He'd be a rogue inspector!




    In other words; say a person has no ticket. They provide a reasonable name and an address which exists according to Thom's. They act normally. The inspector here can't reasonably form an opinion that the person has given a false name. I feel the inspector has to let the person go, unless the inspector has a reason to be suspicious, like for example the inspector had been earlier given a description of a fare dodger, which matched the person.

    If a person has no ticket and gives an obviously false name, like Barack Obama-Hitler then the inspector can either arrest or not arrest. He can use force if he needs to, in some cases I reckon. The inspector can't perform an investigation, therefore he isn't immune from Data Protection as he doesn't have a valid reason for questions.


    That argument above is a bit subtle but I reckon it could be attempted.



    In the OPs case I think the five inspectors took advantage and asked too many questions. If they had suspicions I feel they should either arrest or not arrest, or remove or not remove etc. They have no right to perform investigations as the Transport Act doesn't allow for it. There is no further offence that they are investigating; the offence of not having a ticket has already been proven if you like; and the powers of the inspectors are as laid out in the Transport Act and not any greater. They can't go on solo runs.


    I'm just arguing the subtle points here, I do also see the other side.


Advertisement