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
Comments
-
I'm a big fan of transparency. What I think inspectors should do in these situations is explain what they are doing and under what authority. They could say something like:
"I need to verify your identity and I could arrest you under section blah of blah, detain you until a garda arrives, who can demand your name and address, but if you can prove your identity some other way, I won't do that".
I think that would resolve a lot of these situations. Also, if they aren't allowed to take photos, then they should be.0 -
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.
Your first sentence does not make any sense, that aside, it will probably come as a great surprise to you that the vast majority of people are not only honest, but have integrity and a sense of responsibility towards society.0 -
starshine1234 wrote: »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.
Asking for a ticket is the start of the process for asking questions, not producing a ticket is grounds for a reasonable suspicion.
Who mentioned photos?starshine1234 wrote: »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
Problem is how do you define investigage in terms of DP? "Investigage" isn't defined in law so it's very open to interpretation when an investigation starts or ends and what constitutes an investigation.
The common understanding of investigate would be along the lines of establishing facts and establishing the truth. Therefore trying to confirm a name is most likely considered a form of investigation.
Yes all that is required legally is name and address, but that's a seperate issue on a point of law than being exempt from DP.
Just because you don't have the specific lawful ability to verify a name and address dosn't invalidate a provision in another piece of law. If doing such was illegal then it's possible to argue it would be void but that's up to a court of law to decide.starshine1234 wrote: »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.
I'd agree with that, the key here though is the inspector has confirmed the address via Thoms, if they didn't confirm the address it could be a different matter.starshine1234 wrote: »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.
Giving an obviously false/suspicious name is all the more justification to ask questions.
Another thing you need to understand is there are exemptions to DP for the administration of justice and for legitimate interests. Considering an inspector can issue FPNs they are involved in the administration of justice to that's an automatic exemption from DP and they are also perusing a legitimate interest in the interests of protecting revenue so that's likely also another exemption subject to legal tests.
The legal test for determining if legitimate interests are exempt from DP is known as the balancing test:-
the interest qualifies as “legitimate”;
the processing is necessary for this interest (depending whether there are other less invasive means);
a provisional balance can be demonstrated;
establishing a final balance having taken additional safeguards; and
compliance is demonstrated in a transparent manner.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has also previously ruled that businesses who act outside the normal rules on DP for legitimate reasons such as protection of their interests qualifies for the legitimate interest exemption.
The ECHR (in Köpke vs Germany and Peck vs UK) has ruled that a businesses fundamental right to respect for interests and property rights had to be weighed against a persons fundamental right to privacy vis-à-vis third persons. Special circumstances such as dealing with suspected offences justified an interference with a persons right to privacy which had to be proportionate.
Obviously no one can say without absolute certainty that if such a challenge came before the Irish courts that the courts would rule in favour of the transport companies, but I reckon they would considering the above position held by the ECHR. The ECs Article 29 Working Party has also held the same position in relation to legitimate interests overriding DP.starshine1234 wrote: »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.
Personally I doubt a court would entertain such an argument especially in relation to positions held by the ECHR and the Art 29 Group, but you never know.
By simply ascertaining if someone has a ticket or not (before even asking for further information) is in itself a form of investigation don't you think.
On a final note with regards DP, even if the above exemptions didn't apply I'm still not sure DP is even relevant as DP only applies when data has been processed and put into a relevant regular filing system which is readily accessible and maintained for the conduct of a companies business, and it must be structured by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals - would say a mere notebook with a few notes jotted down satisfy the relevant filing system criteria? I doubt it.I'm a big fan of transparency. What I think inspectors should do in these situations is explain what they are doing and under what authority. They could say something like:
"I need to verify your identity and I could arrest you under section blah of blah, detain you until a garda arrives, who can demand your name and address, but if you can prove your identity some other way, I won't do that".
I think that would resolve a lot of these situations. Also, if they aren't allowed to take photos, then they should be.
Absolutely agree.0 -
Just read S134 of the Railway safety act 2005 again.
It seems an inspector can arrest a person suspected of breaking a byelaw without warrant, or ask name and address and if the inspector does that she can only arrest subsequently for reasonable suspicion of an incorrect name or address.0 -
Carawaystick wrote: »Just read S134 of the Railway safety act 2005 again.
It seems an inspector can arrest a person suspected of breaking a byelaw without warrant, or ask name and address and if the inspector does that she can only arrest subsequently for reasonable suspicion of an incorrect name or address.
It's not a case of one or the other considering the name and address requirement is mirrored in the bye laws.0 -
Advertisement
-
It seems clear the inspectors can't simply make up the rules as they go along. If they were to do so then passengers would not be receiving fair treatment.
Inspectors can only act as the Transport Act allows.
The Transport Act does not allow for asking questions (other than name and address), making notes or taking photos, or anything else, like forcing the passenger to stand on one foot or bark like a dog.
The inspector can only arrest or not arrest if you have no ticket. He cannot make up his own rules as some posters are suggesting.
There's a lot of stuff above that isn't relevant so I can't respond.
The OP was treated unfairly by being haranged and harrassed for information in ways which aren't specified in the Transport Act. If an action is not allowed or permitted in the Transport Act then it cannot be done. Inspectors cannot engage in speculative investigations. They can only act as per the Transport Act and the Transport Act says nothing about questions other than asking for name and address.
I also think the use of Thom's directory presents some problems. I suspect that Thom's directory itself is subject to Data Protection.
It's not fair that an inspector doesn't believe an address if it is not on Thoms as some addresses may exist but not be on Thoms. The Transport Act doesn't mention Thoms, or any other method of verification, or even any mention of a requirement to verify information.0 -
-
starshine1234 wrote: »It seems clear the inspectors can't simply make up the rules as they go along. If they were to do so then passengers would not be receiving fair treatment.
Inspectors can only act as the Transport Act allows.
The Transport Act does not allow for asking questions (other than name and address), making notes or taking photos, or anything else, like forcing the passenger to stand on one foot or bark like a dog.
The inspector can only arrest or not arrest if you have no ticket. He cannot make up his own rules as some posters are suggesting.
There's a lot of stuff above that isn't relevant so I can't respond.
The OP was treated unfairly by being haranged and harrassed for information in ways which aren't specified in the Transport Act. If an action is not allowed or permitted in the Transport Act then it cannot be done. Inspectors cannot engage in speculative investigations. They can only act as per the Transport Act and the Transport Act says nothing about questions other than asking for name and address.
I also think the use of Thom's directory presents some problems. I suspect that Thom's directory itself is subject to Data Protection.
It's not fair that an inspector doesn't believe an address if it is not on Thoms as some addresses may exist but not be on Thoms. The Transport Act doesn't mention Thoms, or any other method of verification, or even any mention of a requirement to verify information.
What made up rules are others suggesting? I don't think anybody has made up any rules here.
There's absolutely nothing stopping them asking questions, fair enough they don't actually have any right or legislative basis to ask questions other than name and address, but there's nothing to actually stop them asking the questions, however there is no legal requirement for any passenger to give other than a name and address.
Regarding the Thom's directory, why do you think it may be a DP issue? It's compiled from the electoral register which is exempt from DP and available to the public, any information already in the public domain is also exempt from DP.starshine1234 wrote: »There's a lot of stuff above that isn't relevant so I can't respond.
Just in relation to this, would I be correct to assume you are talking about the DP side of the argument?0 -
It's not possible to show a negative, might be better asking those who says it does prevent asking questions to show the part of the act which shows that.
There's nothing in the act which says you can't ask a question, therefore there's nothing in the act that stops you from asking a question.0 -
Hi.
When I say inspectors cannot engage in speculative investigations what I mean is that inspectors can't ask people personal questions even if some of the people may admit to an offence in their answer. A question can't be retrospectively justified by an answer which admits an offence. The inspector must have a reasonable suspicion of an offence before questions can be asked.
An example. The inspector can't walk through a carraige asking every passenger if they intend to damage the train. If a passenger did intend to damage the train they'd be committing an offence, just by the intent alone, and if they admitted the intent to the inspector the inspector could arrest them without warrant. But the inspector cannot retrospectively justify asking the question.
Some people would say no to the question, and then no offence would have been committed, and therefore the inspector would have no right to ask personal questions, and therefore the inspector would have breached the data protection act by asking the question in the first place.
If a passenge has no ticket then there has been an offence but it has already been fully proven and no further questions are required to prove the offence. The powers of the inspector are as laid out in Transport Act and not greater. The inspector has no reason to ask questions beyond name and address.
A person not having a ticket does not make other offences more likely.0 -
Advertisement
-
starshine1234 wrote: »When I say inspectors cannot engage in speculative investigations what I mean is that inspectors can't ask people personal questions even if some of the people may admit to an offence in their answer. A question can't be retrospectively justified by an answer which admits an offence. The inspector must have a reasonable suspicion of an offence before questions can be asked.
And what says they can't?
You are assuming that only what is written in statute is what can be done, which is incorrect. We operate in a common law legal system as opposed to a civil law legal system meaning not everything is specifically codified in law. Authority do do something can have common law authority, for example the Gardaí have had powers to arrest under common law which were not written into statute, some do eventually be written into law, but others don't.
In relation to powers you need to understand the sources of power such as statute, case law and the principals of express and implied authority.
For example you may be interested to know that in the various laws whilst stating that a passenger must oblige a request to produce a ticket nothing whatsoever anywhere in the laws give a ticket inspector the authority to ask someone for a ticket, so do you want to follow your logic there too and say they can't ask for a ticket either? Implied authority comes into play as opposed to express authority.
In relation to an inspector verifying details considering you are legally required to give correct details it's very possible to argue that they have implied authority to do so. That could very well be the case.
You also seem to have difficulty understanding that whilst they don't have any right to ask questions there isn't anything which says they can't ask a question.
Asking a question and and an obligation to comply are totally different issues.
By your reasoning the passenger can't answer such questions either because there is no provision in the relevant act for them to do so.
You can only say someone can't do something if the law specifically says they can't.starshine1234 wrote: »An example. The inspector can't walk through a carraige asking every passenger if they intend to damage the train. If a passenger did intend to damage the train they'd be committing an offence, just by the intent alone, and if they admitted the intent to the inspector the inspector could arrest them without warrant. But the inspector cannot retrospectively justify asking the question.
What's your point?
They walk through a train or wait in a station and check if passengers have a ticket and if they don't then they proceed to the next level.
They don't ask for everyone's name before asking for tickets first or ask if everyone intends on breaking a bye law today.starshine1234 wrote: »Some people would say no to the question, and then no offence would have been committed, and therefore the inspector would have no right to ask personal questions, and therefore the inspector would have breached the data protection act by asking the question in the first place.
DP does not prevent anybody from asking a question, DP only applies when data has been processed (i.e received) and put into a relevant regular filing system which is readily accessible and maintained for the conduct of a companies business, and it must be structured by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individual.
Asking a question and obtaining data are not the same. And when someone answers such question they are giving you that information thus giving consent, but even at that it's irrelevant unless it's stored in a relevant filing system as mentioned above. You need to better understand the principles of DP before making comments about it as a matter of fact.starshine1234 wrote: »If a passenge has no ticket then there has been an offence but it has already been fully proven and no further questions are required to prove the offence.
Another rubbish statement, you're effectively giving a ticket inspector the role of judge and jury in that statement.
Perhaps your unaware of the concept of presumption of innocence, better known as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, a concept held by our constitution, court rulings and several charters.
Nobody but a judge or jury can prove someone guilty of an offence in a court of law. An inspector or anyone other than a judge or jury proving your guilt is a massive errosion of ones human rights and a very incorrect presumption to make. Until proven to be guilty there is only suspicion of guilt even when it's obvious someone is guilty. Only a conviction is the proof of guilt, not evidence or an admission.
Evidence or an admission of guilt does not prove someone guilty of an offence or give reason to cease any possible investigation.
Do you think Gardaí investigations for example cease as soon as people admit guilt in a station or they find evidence which suggests guilt?
In simple terms investigate means to eatablish facts, not to prove guilt, weather or not there is clear evidence or any admission of guilt facts still need to be established.starshine1234 wrote: »The powers of the inspector are as laid out in Transport Act and not greater. The inspector has no reason to ask questions beyond name and address.
Establishing weather a name is true or false seems like a valid reason to ask a question to me, obviously someone is under no obligation to answer any more than name and address.starshine1234 wrote: »A person not having a ticket does not make other offences more likely.
Other offences? What's other offences got to do with it?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,350 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 47802
'i like your top. where did you get it?'
'you have no legal right to ask me that question'.0 -
I believe the inspector can ask you if you have a ticket and the inspector can require you to produce the ticket and allow the inspector to examine it.For example you may be interested to know that in the various laws whilst stating that a passenger must oblige a request to produce a ticket nothing whatsoever anywhere in the laws give a ticket inspector the authority to ask someone for a ticket, so do you want to follow your logic there too and say they can't ask for a ticket either?
I believe the above quote is wrong.
If it were true how is the passenger supposed to know when he's required to produce the ticket?
The pasenger is supposed to produce the ticket without being asked?
Is the passenger required to hold the ticket in the air if an inspector comes into view?
If the inspector is not allowed to ask to see the ticket then the passenger would have no reason to show the ticket and then the inspector wouldn't be getting to see many tickets.
So it seems clear that the system can only work if the inspector is entitled to ask you to produce your ticket.
I suspect the inspector is granted an explicit power under the Transport Act or byelaws to ask passengers on the train to produce tickets.
I have thought of another subtle problem.
Is the inspector entitled to ask you what stop you intend to get off at?
In other words, the train has just passed Stop 3 and your ticket is valid until Stop 6, but the train will continue past Stop 6 to the terminal at Stop 10.
The inspector has viewed your ticket and it is valid at the moment, but only until Stop 6.
Can the inspector ask if you are getting off before Stop 6?
Can the passenger refuse to answer?
If the passenger refuses to answer is that suspicious?, or is it only the case that the passenger is exercising his right to refuse to answer?Transport Act, (on page 2) wrote:(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.”.
I was wrong to say intent to commit an offence was an offence; it's an attempt to commit an offence that is an offence.
In other words, if a passenger states without being asked that his intention is to damage the train can an inspector take any action before the damaging action is carried out?
In other words, can an inspector intervene simply because of a bad intent which may not come to pass?0 -
starshine1234 wrote: »I believe the inspector can ask you if you have a ticket and the inspector can require you to produce the ticket and allow the inspector to examine it.GM228 wrote:For example you may be interested to know that in the various laws whilst stating that a passenger must oblige a request to produce a ticket nothing whatsoever anywhere in the laws give a ticket inspector the authority to ask someone for a ticket, so do you want to follow your logic there too and say they can't ask for a ticket either?
I believe the above quote is wrong.
No it's not wrong, try find a legal right to ask for a ticket in the Transport Act 1950 or the Railway Safety Act 1995 if you wish, but you won't find one, and there's no requirement either in the older Regulation of Railways Acts 1840-1893, 1868, 1871 or 1889, The Railway Regulation Act 1842, The Railway Clauses Act 1869, The Transports Acts 1958, 1964, 1974, 1985 or 1987, The Transport Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1971, The Public Transport Regulation Act 1999 or The Public Transport Act 2016.
As I stated the bye laws require a passenger to produce a ticket if requested, and an authorised officer can request a passenger to comply with a bye law, but going by your logic there isn't actually any power for the ticket inspector to actually ask for a ticket because that's not stated anywhere in the laws. (All the relevant acts are listed above so feel free to check if you want!).
In other words an inspector can request a passenger comply with the provision to show a ticket when requested, but they don't actually have any power to make the production of a ticket request - according to your logic anyway.
But in reality as I said because there's a requirement for a passenger to produce a ticket when requested there's an implied lawful ability to request a ticket.
But at the end of the day it dosn't really matter does it because there isn't anything preventing anybody from asking a simple question.starshine1234 wrote: »IIf it were true how is the passenger supposed to know when he's required to produce the ticket?
The pasenger is supposed to produce the ticket without being asked?
Is the passenger required to hold the ticket in the air if an inspector comes into view?
If the inspector is not allowed to ask to see the ticket then the passenger would have no reason to show the ticket and then the inspector wouldn't be getting to see many tickets.
So it seems clear that the system can only work if the inspector is entitled to ask you to produce your ticket.
I suspect the inspector is granted an explicit power under the Transport Act or byelaws to ask passengers on the train to produce tickets.
How is a passenger supposed to know when to produce a ticket? Hold it in the air? Is that a genuine question? Common sense surely will answer that question for you.
Asking about stations etc is a common law power which dates back to the mid 1800s and the Petty Sessions Courts I believe, come to think of it asking for a ticket was also a common law power and now an implied statutory power.starshine1234 wrote: »II have thought of another subtle problem.
Is the inspector entitled to ask you what stop you intend to get off at?
In other words, the train has just passed Stop 3 and your ticket is valid until Stop 6, but the train will continue past Stop 6 to the terminal at Stop 10.
The inspector has viewed your ticket and it is valid at the moment, but only until Stop 6.
Can the inspector ask if you are getting off before Stop 6?
Can the passenger refuse to answer?
If the passenger refuses to answer is that suspicious?, or is it only the case that the passenger is exercising his right to refuse to answer?
Once again your questioning what an inspector can/can't ask, you just don't seem to realise that they can ask whatever they want, nothing stopping them, what you are required to answer however is what's important.
No technically a passenger does not have to answer where they are going, but they have to produce their ticket which shows where they are going and if it's obvious they are going beyond where they should be then the inspector can simply fine them and/or remove them from the train.
Try refusing to answer such a question and see how far you get.starshine1234 wrote: »II was wrong to say intent to commit an offence was an offence; it's an attempt to commit an offence that is an offence.
True, but like any offence as per my previous post your not guilty of ANY offence until convicted in a court of law.starshine1234 wrote: »IIn other words, if a passenger states without being asked that his intention is to damage the train can an inspector take any action before the damaging action is carried out?(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
In other words, can an inspector intervene simply because of a bad intent which may not come to pass?
In your above scenario unless the person actually tried to do it no the inspector could not interfere.
The word "attempt" is key, stating you are to do something is only a threat not an attempt, to attemp to do something you must make an effort to do something.
The threat to damage the train however (as opposed to any attempted action) would be an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1991 and the inspector could then call the Gardaí who could arrest the person making the threat.0 -
I find a more reliable way to not be late for work is to leave earlier. Never fails.0
-
It's not possible to show a negative, might be better asking those who says it does prevent asking questions to show the part of the act which shows that.
There's nothing in the act which says you can't ask a question, therefore there's nothing in the act that stops you from asking a question.
You're essentially making the argument that "sure I can ask whatever I want, it's up to them if they want to answer"
I'm not sure that would hold up in law given that the inspector is asking those questions in their capacity as inspector but thinking you can ask whatever you want will fall foul of the data protection act as a request for excessive information
We've already seen the operating procedures of LUAS inspectors falling well foul of the law.0 -
You're essentially making the argument that "sure I can ask whatever I want, it's up to them if they want to answer"
I'm not sure that would hold up in law given that the inspector is asking those questions in their capacity as inspector but thinking you can ask whatever you want will fall foul of the data protection act as a request for excessive information
We've already seen the operating procedures of LUAS inspectors falling well foul of the law.
LUAS inspectors fell foul of the law due to asking passengers for tickets off LUAS property, a power they don't have unlike CIE inspectors. The recent case involving the LUAS inspectors wasn't a test of their powers or any interpretation or precedent judgement of their powers either.
Your essentially making the argument that asking a question/s which isn't reasonable is illegal, if so what's the charge because it ain't under DP as DP does not apply to data which hasn't been obtained, how can you be in breach of protection of data which you don't actually have to protect in the first place?
DP does not apply to asking a question, only to data which is obtained and subsequently retained, asking questions isn't illegal so why keep bringing up DP? If you ask a question but no data is obtained how can you be in breach of DP?
It also dosn't apply when data is obtained for offences or for legitimate reasons.
In relation to excessive DP, it should not be excessive in relation to the purpose it is used for, i.e it should be enough for the reason it's gathered, fair and adequate.
But as I said DP does not apply to simply asking a question, it only applies when the data is obtained and stored (or to be stored) in a filing system.
And as I've stated a few times an inspector would be exempt from DP when performing his duties under a number of the exemptions.0
Advertisement