Legislation for Luas

Beano

Does anybody know if the Railways Act covers the Luas or was seperate legislation enacted for the luas?

robfitz

Is this what your looking for?

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001
Light Railway (Regulation of Travel and Use) Bye-laws 2004

Beano

robfitz wrote:

Is this what your looking for?

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001
Light Railway (Regulation of Travel and Use) Bye-laws 2004

You are a gentleman, sir, and more of a scholar than myself.

As a legal exercise, not as legal advice, could a person more educated than myself read the following piece of the Light Railway Bye-Laws and and answer a question for me.

Sub section 4 says that if you dont have a ticket and dont pay the "standard fare" that you must leave the Luas immediately. From your reading of this bye-law would you surmise that were you leave the luas when requested that the ticket inspector has no further recourse and it would be the end of the matter?


4. (1) A passenger, on entering a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

(2) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

(3) An authorised person shall issue the relevant ticket to a passenger who has paid the standard fare and such a ticket entitles the passenger to travel to the next terminus.

(4) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

(5) In this Bye-law “standard fare” means a fare of €45.

Victor

Beano wrote:

Sub section 4 says that if you dont have a ticket and dont pay the "standard fare" that you must leave the Luas immediately. From your reading of this bye-law would you surmise that were you leave the luas when requested that the ticket inspector has no further recourse and it would be the end of the matter?

(4) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

The thing is, you are meant to have given him your name and address. Failing that, he can call the Garda. If you don't give them your name and address, you get a visit to the cells.

cast_iron

Beano wrote:

. From your reading of this bye-law would you surmise that were you leave the luas when requested that the ticket inspector has no further recourse and it would be the end of the matter?

You can't pick and choose which sub-sections apply. All relevant sub-sections are taken into account.

Sub-section 4 (2) would apply in conjunction with 4 (4).

4.(2) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

Our man in Havana

So no power of detention exists then? You can simply walk on by him and leave the tram and there is no recourse?

cast_iron

Well if you mean do they have powers of arrest, they don't.

However, they could pursue (literally and physically - I've seen it done) you until a member of the Gardai arrive, and then you'll be in more trouble for disobeying what the law obliges you to do under Section 4 of the above Act.

Beano

cast_iron wrote:

Well if you mean do they have powers of arrest, they don't.

However, they could pursue (literally and physically - I've seen it done) you until a member of the Gardai arrive, and then you'll be in more trouble for disobeying what the law obliges you to do under Section 4 of the above Act.

Where does it say you are obliged to give your name and address to the inspector? Again I may be reading this incorrectly but if you do not have a ticket the legislation seems to say that there are 3 options

1. Pay the standard fare immediately.
2. Give your name and address and pay within 14 days
3. Dont pay and leave the luas at the next stop



Again this is just an exercise in interpretation and I am not looking for legal advice.

cast_iron

Your number 3 is not an option all on it's own. It only applies when one does not pay the standard fare on the spot (no cash or whatever). If this is the case, you are obliged to give your name and address so as to pay later. In addition, the inspector MAY ask you to exit the LUAS at the next stop.

Beano

cast_iron wrote:

Your number 3 is not an option all on it's own. It only applies when one does not pay the standard fare on the spot (no cash or whatever). If this is the case, you are obliged to give your name and address so as to pay later. In addition, the inspector MAY ask you to exit the LUAS at the next stop.

There is the name and address thing again. Where does it say I have to give them my name and address? I know in the acts that cover CIE railways it says you must give your name and address if you do not have a ticket but it doesnt say that here.

cast_iron

Ok, I'm unsure why I'm still responding here.
See below. The authorised person has to be satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger. How do you expect him to ascertain this information?

4.(2) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

I can't see how you do not understand this.

padser

Beano: I can see what you mean here. On a strict interpretation it doesn't compel you to give your name and address. It's not sufficient to say that this is necessary for the authorised person to be satisfied etc etc and therefore you are oblidged to give name and address.

And if we were dealing with a trust document which would decide the fate of millions of euro such little semantics become relevant.

But in the district court - where fare evading charges end up no judge has any interest in clever little arguments like this. You evaded the fare - he is not going to let you wriggle out because an incompetant drafter made a small boo boo on the regulation

dermot_sheehan

padser wrote:

Beano: I can see what you mean here. On a strict interpretation it doesn't compel you to give your name and address. It's not sufficient to say that this is necessary for the authorised person to be satisfied etc etc and therefore you are oblidged to give name and address.

And if we were dealing with a trust document which would decide the fate of millions of euro such little semantics become relevant.

But in the district court - where fare evading charges end up no judge has any interest in clever little arguments like this. You evaded the fare - he is not going to let you wriggle out because an incompetant drafter made a small boo boo on the regulation

But a High Court judge hearing an appeal on a point of law under section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental) Provisions Act 1961 might, or indeed might a high court judge hearing a claim for false imprisonment.

Beano

Cast_iron, I think you are missing the point that the only thing that is important is what is written down in the legislation. Asking "How do you expect him to ascertain this information?" misses the point as that is a problem the authorised officer has to solve not the passenger The only obligation on a passenger is what is enshrined in law. It just seems to me that whoever framed this piec of legislation left a possible loophole. Which considering there is an existing piece of legislation that covers an identical situation for railways that they could have copied word for word makes the omission even more bizarre.

johnnyskeleton

Beano wrote:

It just seems to me that whoever framed this piec of legislation left a possible loophole. Which considering there is an existing piece of legislation that covers an identical situation for railways that they could have copied word for word makes the omission even more bizarre.

The loophole that you are suggesting is that you shout "I'm not giving you my real name - try and make me" and then doing a runner screaming "can't catch me". This loophole applies equally to more serious offences like theft and assault.

It is an offence not to comply with the bye-laws, and the bye laws makes a passenger, on entering a luas without a valid ticket, liable to pay the standard fare. Once you have entered without a normal ticket you can be charged the fine. Just because you can also be asked to leave the luas doesn't negate the offence.

cast_iron

Beano wrote:

Cast_iron, I think you are missing the point that the only thing that is important is what is written down in the legislation. Asking "How do you expect him to ascertain this information?" misses the point as that is a problem the authorised officer has to solve not the passenger The only obligation on a passenger is what is enshrined in law. It just seems to me that whoever framed this piec of legislation left a possible loophole. Which considering there is an existing piece of legislation that covers an identical situation for railways that they could have copied word for word makes the omission even more bizarre.

I see what you are saying, but I think you are missing the point.
There is no loophole.

You are correct in saying that it is not explicitly stated that you must give your name and address. BUT, the inspector has to be satisfied as to your name and address. If you do not satisfy him, all he has to do is call the Gardai (because you broke the law by not having a ticket and not agreeing to pay the standard fare or provide a credible name and address).

The Gardai can proceed to extract your name and address or arrest you (I've seen it done).

padser

gabhain7 wrote:

But a High Court judge hearing an appeal on a point of law under section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental) Provisions Act 1961 might, or indeed might a high court judge hearing a claim for false imprisonment.

Absolutely.

Cast Iron - I thought one of the points Beano was asking was whether, as the law stands, he is compelled to give name and address to inspector. I think not, and I think he is also within his rights to walk away and refuse to stay. I dont see that the ticket inspector has any power of detention.

Does anyone know if there is a civilian power of detention the inspector could utilise?/

Beano

On the thread in After Hours that prompted this thread I mentioned a previous legal discussion thread where it was established that a citizens arrest can only take place for an arrestable offence. I do not believe that a breach of these bye-laws could be considered an arrestable offence.

I know anectodal evidence is not be relied upon but I had a discussion in work on this topic yesterday and somebody mentioned that had been fnied in the early days of the luas for not having the ticket. After the inspector had finshed writing the ticket he admitted that there was nothing they could do if the passenger gets up and leaves the luas at the next stop.

Our man in Havana

What if the driver did not open the doors at the next stop? Would that count as a defacto detention/arrest?

cast_iron

I'm not sure Bond, but if you were on a bus, could you demand to be let out between two stops - claiming they are wrongfully detaining you? It's an interesting one.

padser wrote:

Cast Iron - I thought one of the points Beano was asking was whether, as the law stands, he is compelled to give name and address to inspector. I think not, and I think he is also within his rights to walk away and refuse to stay. I dont see that the ticket inspector has any power of detention.

Does anyone know if there is a civilian power of detention the inspector could utilise?/

I can't see there being any legal power of detention here. However, there is little stopping the driver from leaving the doors closed until the Gardai arrive - if it is felt that this is required.
Like I already said, it is not stated explicitly that you have to give over your name and address to the inspector. And I can see that that may appear to leave some ambiguity on the matter.

But I refer to this subsection:

(2) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

There are a couple of scenarios here:

1. If you don't pay the standard fare on the spot, you must pay the fine within 14 days. (If you don't, you have broken the law - regardless of whether or not you gave a name and address)
2. If you do not provide a name and address, the inspector can demand that you "shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately". Remember, the 14 days is an option, and is at the discretion of the inspector - he doesn't even have to give it to you. (If you don't, you have broken the law - regardless of whether or not you have cash on you)

Now, there is the element of practicality to all this.
Of course, one can refuse to give a name and address and run off. But if you do this, you've broken the law.

How can breaking the law be a loophole?