Being detained at luas (by private security)

AndrewTW

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Read the legal parts. Luas control don't make the law.

Over the years there has been many cases similar to the OP where security held or detained a passenger for a ticket violation the court's rules against security. Anyone can make arrests in the right circumstances, but when you are in a uniform representing a company as licensed security enacting an arrest on behalf of the company on a situation like the OP is a no-no especially if it happened off the platform as its only an offence to not have a ticket the passenger is under no legal obligation to show his ticket to Security as Security is not a Revenue Officer. So if the passenger had a ticket and was assaulted by security the op can seek legal advice as Secuirty made a false arrest.

If you are on the Tram and Secuirty ask to see your ticket and you do not present it you can be asked to leave but are not required to unless instructed by the Gardai. Secuirty can only ask to see your ticket if you are causing distress to other passengers.

Similar to shoplifters if your security in a shop and falsely arrest or detain a person you are in serious trouble.

So can you please explain the part that is incorrect. I posted on the discussion because i have experience and valuable information for the OP to consider.

AndrewTW

AndrewTW wrote: »

Over the years there has been many cases similar to the OP where security held or detained a passenger for a ticket violation the court's rules against security. Anyone can make arrests, but when you are in a uniform respersenting a company as licensed security enacting an arrest on behalf of the company on a situation like the OP is a no-no.

Similar to shoplifters if your security in a shop and falsely arrest or detain a person you are in serious trouble.

So can you please explain the part that is incorrect. I posted on the discussion because i have experience and valuable information for the OP to consider.

Well then explain why section 4 of the Criminal law act 1997 doesn't apply to you but does to security in a shop? Granted it's not relevant for tickets but it still applies to luas staff when appropriate.

Yes you need to be sure but that's not the point, the op asked about legal rights. Gardai need to be sure too but the power of arrest still exists if not always utilised.

Your manager is weighing up the pros and cons and decides the ticket price isn't worth the risk. That's fine from a business point of view but legally, the ability to detain does exist.

Please also note the luas byelaws and the powers within for luas offences

I also note that the courts don't always agree but the district court doesn't set precedent. They can be crazy sometimes in their decisions.

And I'm not belittling your personal experience, I'm just pointing out that the law is the law regardless of how the company chooses to act (and who can blame them when a surfer comminting an offence gets 500k from them?)

AndrewTW

The OP states they had a ticket, The OP was under no legal obligation to show this to Security if Security followed the OP and detained him on the grounds of not having a ticket this is a false arrest. For anyone that works within the industry making a false arrest means your career is over.

In relation to the Luas Byelaws, the legislation allows Authorized Officers to be appointed to enforce the bye-laws under a new role. Not sure when this new role will be rolled out maybe the end of this year.

To see what these Authorized Officers are going to be modeled off I think the only other place Transdev has these roles are in Australia.

Treppen

Op here, Just to state, I was posing a hypothetical question... But funnily enough I was thinking back to when I was in Australia and a security guy from the trams ( maybe transdev as well!) Got in to trouble for the incident similar to what I concocted.

I'd like to find that case (it was around 2002 in Melbourne!) as there were reasonings put forward that I think could easily be applicable here.


As it turns out I think the guy did have a ticket but took a case due to the way he was treated so subsequently refused to show it because he believed he was within his rights away from the drop off location.

AndrewTW

Treppen wrote: »

Op here, Just to state, I was posing a hypothetical question... But funnily enough I was thinking back to when I was in Australia and a security guy from the trams ( maybe transdev as well!) Got in to trouble for the incident similar to what I concocted.

I'd like to find that case (it was around 2002 in Melbourne!) as there were reasonings put forward that I think could easily be applicable here.


As it turns out I think the guy did have a ticket but took a case due to the way he was treated so subsequently refused to show it because he believed he was within his rights away from the drop off location.

Transdev Dublin and Transdevs Australia are very similar apart from here in Ireland no Aurthoized Officers have been appointed as of yet. When STT Risk Managment was replaced with Luas Security we seen the first move of integration for a Team Luas next step would be appointing Authorised Officers. But i can tell you from experience 99% of Luas Security would not attempt to stop you going against popular belief Luas Secuirty are in many cases ex police or military or very experienced security professionals and are held in high regard within the Security Industry in Ireland. and would never risk a move like that. Even when we have justification to restain member of the public that pose a danger to others our careers are on the line.

GM228

AndrewTW wrote: »

Which part is incorrect? Because I worked there I know what I could and couldn't do, and I know that this year new legislation will be established for Authroized Officers. and I am 100% sure that I could not stop and hold a passenger for not producing a ticket that is why we held operation with Gardai where you would have two security two rpo and two gardai. Only the gardai could detain and search passengers for ticket violations. If a passenger refused to show a ticket we could hold a tram and call for the gardai we were told not to a remove passengers from services unless we could remove them with communication or unless others where in direct danger. Luas Security and RPO had no special permission or powers but this year that will change.

New legislation for authorised officers was introduced 15 years ago and Transdev began looking into appointing the security staff under such provisions in 2015.

All revenue protection officers and security staff are authorised persons for the purposes of the Light Railway (Regulation of Travel and Use) Bye-laws 2015., however in order to exercise their powers of arrest under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 they "must receive training and instruction.....which will provide guidance to him or her in the exercise of the power" and be appointed into the role of authorised officer, such appointments can be made to staff in an external company such as those who provide the security for Transdev.

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

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

AndrewTW

GM228 wrote: »

New legislation for authorised officers was introduced 15 years ago and Transdev began looking into appointing the security staff under such provisions in 2015.

The Legislation was in place but never fully used. In June 2019 we found out that STT was left out of the tendering process for the new contract and that Transdev would be establishing a new approach under one team with 2 new roles been rolled out to give more powers to the new position. I know that interviews have been held and the next step would be selection and some training with that Gardai so i reckon later this year we should see the first batch.

AndrewTW

AndrewTW wrote: »

The Legislation was in place but never fully used. In June 2019 we found out that STT was left out of the tendering process for the new contract and that Transdev would be establishing a new approach under one team with 2 new roles been rolled out to give more powers to the new position. I know that interviews have been held and the next step would be selection and some training with that Gardai so i reckon later this year we should see the first batch.

Andrew, you are missing a point here. Read it again, it doesn't say " 'authorised person's' will be sometime in the future when transdev decide"

It states ""authorised person" means any officer, employee or agent of an operator acting in the execution of his or her duty"

Security and ticket inspectors are already authorised persons as they are an employee acting in the execution of their duties.

GM228

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Andrew, you are missing a point here. Read it again, it doesn't say " 'authorised person's' will be sometime in the future when transdev decide"

It states ""authorised person" means any officer, employee or agent of an operator acting in the execution of his or her duty"

Security and ticket inspectors are already authorised persons as they are an employee acting in the execution of their duties.

Powers of arrest are for "authorised officers", "authorised persons" are not quite the same, staff must be appointed into the position, receive the relevant training and a warrant card so specifying they can exercise the powers of arrest, Transdev began the process of appointing security staff in 2015, it was understanding that process has been completed, but perhaps it was delayed.

AndrewTW

When I worked with STT and then Luas Security I was an authorized person, not an Officer there is a difference between both roles. GM228 I think it came down to the legal implications at the time and the fact that Luas really had no input into who STT was hiring so they waited to renew the contract and bring everyone under one management this is what we were told anyway. Luas Security is now system officers RPO is now customer service agent and I believe two levels of authorized officers are to be implemented with the first batch consisting of just a handful.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Powers of arrest are for "authorised officers", "authorised persons" are not quite the same, staff must be appointed into the position, receive the relevant training and a warrant card so specifying they can exercise the powers of arrest, Transdev began the process of appointing security staff in 2015, it was understanding that process has been completed, but perhaps it was delayed.

You said above that 'authorised person's' have power of arrest. Think your confusing yourself there.

I don't see anywhere in any act or byelaws that only 'authorised officers' can arrest. All the acts and byelaws mention 'authorised person' . Where's the separation in law and which act is using the term 'officer'? I can't locate it.

The 2001 act mentions production of authorization on request, doesn't state they can only act of the have it but then it doesn't mention arrests to begin with and seems more concerned with powers of entry and inspection.

The 2015 bye laws only mention 'authorised person' as well and make no mention of needing identification or limiting powers.

I shall assume your use of 'warrant card' was a blip.

GM228

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You said above that 'authorised person's' have power of arrest. Think your confusing yourself there.

I said “authorised person” a few months ago in post #25, but that should have been authorised officer (sorry if that has caused some confusion), otherwise I have only referenced to authorised officers throughout the thread having the power of arrest including in the previously linked to threads where I previously detailed the relevant laws.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I don't see anywhere in any act or byelaws that only 'authorised officers' can arrest. All the acts and byelaws mention 'authorised person' . Where's the separation in law and which act is using the term 'officer'? I can't locate it.

Section 66B of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as inserted by S134 of the Railway Safety Act 2005 deals with “authorised officers” and confers their power of arrest:-

S66B wrote:

Powers of authorised officers.

66B (1). If an authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person—

(a) is contravening or has contravened or is failing or has failed to comply with a bye-law made under section 66,

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

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

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

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

(f) is obstructing or has obstructed or is impeding or has impeded an authorised officer in the exercise of his or her duties under this section, section 66A, 66C, or under any bye-law made under section 66,

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

(h) if requested by an authorised officer to cease such contravention or action or to so comply, fails to comply with the request,

he or she may—

(i) using such reasonable force as the circumstances require, remove or escort the person from the railway or any part of it,

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

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The 2001 act mentions production of authorization on request, doesn't state they can only act of the have it but then it doesn't mention arrests to begin with and seems more concerned with powers of entry and inspection.
The 2015 bye laws only mention 'authorised person' as well and make no mention of needing identification or limiting powers.
I shall assume your use of 'warrant card' was a blip.

The powers do not come from the bye-laws so are not relevant, the term "authorised person" is a term applicable to the bye-laws only, and does apply to the power of arrest, that power comes from the 2001 Act which sets out specific requirements in order to use the power, again from S66B, the appointed authorised officer must receive the relevant training and receive a warrant card stating such:-

S66B wrote:

(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 Agency is such as will provide guidance to him or her in the exercise of the power.

(5) The Agency or a railway undertaking, as the case may be, shall endorse on the warrant it furnishes to an authorised officer under subsection (6) a statement to the effect that the officer has received the training and instruction referred to in subsection (4).

IsaacWunder

Esse85 wrote: »

Well if you stole goods from a shop, walked out with it and the security guard followed you, that's all they are allowed to do, follow you and call AGS. They cannot touch you or put you to the ground and detain you, that's assault.

Nonsense. Any person may arrest anyone whom they suspect with reasonable cause committed theft from a shop.

Claw Hammer

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Nonsense. Any person may arrest anyone whom thit is not that simple.
Criminal Law Act, 1997
4.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), where an arrestable offence has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant anyone whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(4) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may only be effected by a person under subsection (1) or (2) where he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.