Assaults on Emergency Workers Act should be expanded to all customer facing roles

[DMckduck]

Moderator note: split from

Railway worker killed by passenger at Ilford

Surprised this hasn't been picked up on here yet. A guy I used to work with was assaulted at Ilford (Crossrail/Elizabeth line) on Wednesday and was taken to hospital by air ambulance. The news came through yesterday morning that they were planning to turn off life support, and this was done...

www.railforums.co.uk

Staff in all front line roles should be offered the same protections that emergency service personnel have only just received:

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018

A Joint Agreement, effective from 6 January 2020, establishes a framework to support the effective investigation and prosecution of cases where emergency workers are the victim of a crime. It also sets the standards victims of these crimes can expect and includes reference to the Guidance on Management of Potential Exposure to blood-borne viruses in emergency workers...

It's time for a change, thoughts go out to all family and friends of the victim and the victim of course.

 

[AlterEgo]

Staff in all front line roles should be offered the same protections that emergency service personnel have only just received.

What are those?

 

[virgintrain1]

I'm afraid it wouldn't make a scrap of differece. Police assault assailants often receive pitiful sentencing and that's if we are are lucky. The CPS will often state that police assaults aren't in the public interest.

 

[GusB]

I don't believe that there should be special legislation for anyone. Assault is assault and each case should be treated equally - it shouldn't matter what job you do.

 

[Harpo]

I don't believe that there should be special legislation for anyone. Assault is assault and each case should be treated equally - it shouldn't matter what job you do.

Exactly. Otherwise everything is louder than everything else.

 

[mrcheek]

why not just make it illegal to assault anyone? why should some people get special protections?

 

[Meerkat]

Can the railway start private prosecutions, like some shops now do for shoplifting?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Disagree. All assaults should be treated just as seriously whoever the victim, and should involve a mandatory prison sentence (as should far more crimes - there'd be far less petty theft if it guaranteed a week in the cells, for instance).

What we need is to enforce the law properly, not make new ones up.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Thats a good idea, then perhaps a seperate piece of legislation making it illegal to assault any rail customer...

Do I really need to say more ?

 

[LowLevel]

Disagree. All assaults should be treated just as seriously whoever the victim, and should involve a mandatory prison sentence (as should far more crimes - there'd be far less petty theft if it guaranteed a week in the cells, for instance).

What we need is to enforce the law properly, not make new ones up.

I think it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Along with the dead eyed creatures riding mopeds grabbing property and assaulting people or having fights with machetes in the street there has to come a reckoning where the focus is simply on removing them from being able to impact the wider population. How you might achieve that is up to your personal moral compass I suppose.

 

[renegademaster]

Where did this trend of making things that are already illegal but illegal in a more specific way start?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Where did this trend of making things that are already illegal but illegal in a more specific way start?

When populism became dominant in our political system. Makes a good soundbite and looks good on social media

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where did this trend of making things that are already illegal but illegal in a more specific way start?

Sometimes it makes sense, for example it's easier to prosecute for the simple case of "using a handheld phone while driving" compared to doing it as dangerous driving which was always possible. But not this case.

 

[Meerkat]

Disagree. All assaults should be treated just as seriously whoever the victim, and should involve a mandatory prison sentence (as should far more crimes - there'd be far less petty theft if it guaranteed a week in the cells, for instance).

What we need is to enforce the law properly, not make new ones up.

Short prison sentences are ineffective to harmful. Violent types might even see it as a badge of honour that increases their image. Need some kind of longer restriction of freedom/privileges, with community work and rehab (see my idea of computer courses - both tediously annoying and possibly insightful). Not cheap though.

 

[Jim the Jim]

I am not sure the kind of people who go around attacking railway workers are going to be particularly put off by a new law making it extra-specially illegal. I don't imagine these people typically have detailed understanding of the law anyway.

It also raises questions of fairness. Is it really reasonable that the bloke who punches a guard doing his job gets punished more harshly than if he'd just punched the passenger sitting innocently in the next seat instead? I'd judge both to be about equally serious, in the absence of other considerations.

 

[43066]

Disagree. All assaults should be treated just as seriously whoever the victim, and should involve a mandatory prison sentence (as should far more crimes - there'd be far less petty theft if it guaranteed a week in the cells, for instance).

What we need is to enforce the law properly, not make new ones up.

The existing law doesn’t treat all assaults equally, though. Assaulting a police officer or emergency worker are specific offences, and assaulting someone because they’re black/gay/Muslim etc. would be treated more seriously than just punching someone after an argument.

Assaulting someone providing a service to the public is already an aggravating factor taken into account when sentencing. However there has been an increase in anti social and abusive behaviour experienced by front line railway staff since covid, so I would be in favour of the change proposed. Similar legislation was/is being brought forward for retail workers due to the rise in retail crime.

anyway.

It also raises questions of fairness. Is it really reasonable that the bloke who punches a guard doing his job gets punished more harshly than if he'd just punched the passenger sitting innocently in the next seat instead? I'd judge both to be about equally serious, in the absence of other considerations.

Yes, because punching someone engaged in a public facing job should be and is treated more seriously than a random assault, specifically because of that additional factor. If we as a society want people to keep doing these jobs they need protecting, and a clear message needs to be sent out to that effect.

 

[renegademaster]

Assaulting a police officer or emergency worker are specific offences, and assaulting someone because they’re black/gay/Muslim

Have those various special carve outs actually reduced assaults on those groups? And if so, wouldn't it be a good idea to treat every assault as severe if it seems higher sentences for attacking them groups prevent assaults?

 

[43066]

Have those various special carve outs actually reduced assaults on those groups?

I have no idea, but it’s right in my view, and in the view of the legal system, that some categories of assault are punished more seriously than others.

Have those various special carve outs actually reduced assaults on those groups? And if so, wouldn't it be a good idea to treat every assault as severe if it seems higher sentences for attacking them groups prevent assaults?

The point is that these are treated as relatively more severe than a regular assault, so whatever level you set the punishment for common assault, this is more serious. From a quick google search you’re looking at six months custody for regular assault, but two weeks years for assaulting an emergency worker.

Whether the punishment for common assault is enough is another question. However, if you increased it, the punishment for the other offences would also increase to maintain the differential.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The existing law doesn’t treat all assaults equally, though. Assaulting a police officer or emergency worker are specific offences, and assaulting someone because they’re black/gay/Muslim etc. would be treated more seriously than just punching someone after an argument.

Assaulting someone providing a service to the public is already an aggravating factor taken into account when sentencing. However there has been an increase in anti social and abusive behaviour experienced by front line railway staff since covid, so I would be in favour of the change proposed. Similar legislation was/is being brought forward for retail workers due to the rise in retail crime.

They are specific offences because that particular was put forward purely for political purposes, the many arguments made against specific offence for assaulting a railway worker also equally apply to these existing laws.

There is an increase in anti social behavior generally since covid.

 

[43066]

They are specific offences because that particular was put forward purely for political purposes, the many arguments made against specific offence for assaulting a railway worker also equally apply to these existing laws.

But as noted above the argument that “all assaults should be equal” already doesn’t reflect the current law, even putting those specific offences aside.

I haven’t really seen any sensible arguments against why people in high risk roles such as railway workers shouldn’t qualify for additional protection due to the nature of their jobs, and creating a specific offence is a way of further clarifying that.

There is an increase in anti social behavior generally since covid.

Indeed. So perhaps the law should change to reflect that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2024 ==

Thats a good idea, then perhaps a seperate piece of legislation making it illegal to assault any rail customer...

Do I really need to say more ?

I missed this before, but the above doesn’t really make sense, as a railway customer is already protected under the existing law, just as anyone else is.

However those customers aren’t going to be wearing a uniform (making them a target for aggression towards the TOC), checking tickets, or doing anything that is likely to bring them into conflict with others, in the way that staff are as a natural result of doing their jobs. It’s this greater degree of risk that reflects why staff are given more protection even under the existing law.

 

[Yew]

There is an increase in anti social behavior generally since covid.

Could you provide some empirical evidence for that?

To quote Socrates in 43 BC:

Times are bad, Children no longer obey their parents.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Any rail workers on the front lines would presumably fall under the King's Regulations, which are far more strict than civilian laws.

Where did this trend of making things that are already illegal but illegal in a more specific way start?

At least the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, which specifically provided for assault against:

• Clergymen and ministers (Section 36)
• Magistrates preserving wrecks (Section 37)
• Peace officers (Section 38)
• Seamen (Section 40)

Of these, only 'assaulting a seaman' has been totally repealed. Section 38 is still the legal basis for assault with intent to resist arrest.

Also, assault with intent to obstruct the sale or free passage of grain was a specific offence. Clearly a major concern at the time.

I haven’t really seen any sensible arguments against why people in high risk roles such as railway workers shouldn’t qualify for additional protection due to the nature of their jobs, and creating a specific offence is a way of further clarifying that.

It turns out there's quite a variety of people whom it is a specific offence to assault, in fact. Including traffic officers, under Section 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. You could argue that given their role, the closest parallel might be to make similar provisions for guards, signallers, and no other rail staff... but that would be silly.

Likewise, extending such provisions to all public-facing rail staff makes it look a bit silly if assault committed against a person selling a train ticket is treated as more severe than against a person selling a bus ticket, or indeed against a person selling a lottery ticket.

I'd suggest that such a move be generalised then as (and adapting the language of the Assaults on Emergency Workers Act 2018)

...common assault or battery that is commited against any person acting in the exercise of their functions of employment.... whose general activities in doing so involve face to face interaction with individuals receiving the services of their employment or with other members of the public...

That ought to cover most of the desire for things like 'assault of rail staff' and 'assault of retail workers'. Including, oddly enough, people selling flour and potatoes - bringing us back to Section 39 of the 1861 Act.

 

[Krokodil]

Could you provide some empirical evidence for that?

To quote Socrates in 43 BC:

Crime statistics are notoriously unreliable, and no one (except possibly Merseyrail) will be compiling statistics for the number of people with their feet on the seats or otherwise engaging in minor antisocial behaviour. As an example though, shoplifting is now at it's highest since 2003 according to the British Crime Survey

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, published today (24th October 2024), has shown that in the 12 months to June 2024, there were 469,788 recorded shoplifting offences compared to 365,173 in the previous year. This is an increase of 29%.

The number of offences is the highest ever recorded by the ONS since current recording practices began in 2003.

(https://www.acs.org.uk/news/ons-reveal-new-record-levels-shoplifting)

Anecdotally, behaviour on trains is far worse than it was before covid. Minor stuff like feet on the seats or playing music out loud is routine now and I'm fed up with being sworn at for asking people to behave with consideration to their fellow passengers. I find myself contacting BTP far more often than I used to.