Name and address

[34D]

Is there any reason why a PO box address can't be given?

Or indeed a solicitors office address?

 

[Stigy]

How does this work if you are under 18/16?

The same as if you were over 18. For a minor though, staff more than likely won't report them for offences due to their age and the need to prosecute through youth courts (name and address could be requested when issuing a UFN etc, or a PND in some cases, or just to issue them a warning). Obviously they also won't be cautioned either, even though legally an one can be cautioned without an appropriate adult at 17.

 

[Deerfold]

The same as if you were over 18. For a minor though, staff more than likely won't report them for offences due to their age and the need to prosecute through youth courts (name and address could be requested when issuing a UFN etc, or a PND in some cases, or just to issue them a warning). Obviously they also won't be cautioned either, even though legally an one can be cautioned without an appropriate adult at 17.

I'd assume ollieb meant checking a name against the electoral roll - an under 16 year old won't be on that (and possibly an under 18-year old depending on their exact age and the age of the most recent roll).

 

[WSW]

Still a bit weak from the passenger's point of view. How would they know what a proper "railway photo ID card" looks like? And are you saying anyone wearing what looks like a railway photo ID card can demand your name and address? That's not what the Bye Laws say, surely? After all, I have a "railway photo ID card" so presumably by your definition I too can go round demanding name and address from passengers? No. I think the railway companies need to back up their Bye Laws with fit and proper authorisation documents.

I'm all for the Bye Laws but the administration of the Bye Laws looks highly suspect from the passengers point of view.

Steve

An 'authorised person' is defined as:

'"authorised person" means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;'

Therefore a railway photo ID card is sufficient evidence that a member of staff is an authorised person for the purpose of enforcing the byelaws, including the taking of a name and address. PACE training etc however is a bit of a different manner.

If you don't like the railway byelaws and the authority that they in theory confer, I would suggest you do not set foot on railway property.

 

[Stigy]

I'd assume ollieb meant checking a name against the electoral roll - an under 16 year old won't be on that (and possibly an under 18-year old depending on their exact age and the age of the most recent roll).

Sorry, yeah I see what you/he means now!

Some 17-year olds are registered from experience, otherwise you can go by the surname a lot of the time, as parents are usually registered. If not, so be it, you tend to have to take these things at face value most times unless you've got a fairly good idea they're fibbing to you, which you gain from experience again.

 

[wintonian]

Still a bit weak from the passenger's point of view. How would they know what a proper "railway photo ID card" looks like? And are you saying anyone wearing what looks like a railway photo ID card can demand your name and address? That's not what the Bye Laws say, surely?

Would you be saying this if some one wearing what looked like a policeman's uniform showed you what he says is a warrant card asked you for your name and address? How do you know that this is a real warrant card?

I'm not suggesting you would (or would not provide the information) more applying what you are saying to another, not very different situation that could arise.

 

[221129]

I'd assume ollieb meant checking a name against the electoral roll - an under 16 year old won't be on that (and possibly an under 18-year old depending on their exact age and the age of the most recent roll).

Yes thats what I meant. Thankyou.

 

[WillPS]

What about persons of no fixed abode?

 

[WSW]

Would you be saying this if some one wearing what looked like a policeman's uniform showed you what he says is a warrant card asked you for your name and address? How do you know that this is a real warrant card?

I'm not suggesting you would (or would not provide the information) more applying what you are saying to another, not very different situation that could arise.

We aren't talking about policemen though are we? We are talking about someone walking up to you on a train and then asking for your details. Would you give me your details if I was wearing my railway staff ID card?

Steve

 

[W230]

How are you supposed to know what a railway ID card looks like?

Or a Police warrant card? Or maybe that of a council worker? Or your gasman? You don't.

But I can't imagine you would often get someone to ask to see your ticket, then identify themselves with some form of ID and enter into a discussion (I assume) about penalty fares, UFNs etc, when they weren't an RPI! It should be pretty obvious who they are at this point.

 

[6Gman]

Since the bye-law refers to a person "acting in the course of his duties" then I would regard an on-train cleaner/ refreshment trolley staff who suddenly decided to ask for my name & address as acting outside the course of their duty UNLESS my alleged breach was related to their specific responsibilities e.g. I was emptying litter bins or pinching cans off the trolley!

Now, if the rear cab lock is broken and the conductor therefore cannot leave that post unattended, and he authorises said cleaner/ trolley person to go through and check tickets, does that make said person "authorised by operator" and "acting in the course of his duties".

 

[Stigy]

What about persons of no fixed abode?

Call for Police assistance, as they should be arrested and brought before the first available Court, usually the next working day. Usually people remember they do have an address once you mention police and custody. Bear in mind that if an authorised person has reason to ask for details, there's 99% of the time an offence been committed.

6Gman, a cleaner acting in the course of his duties might well witness somebody with their feet on the seat, or committing another offence, it doesn't have to relate to their duties. The only thing they probably wouldn't do is ask somebody for their ticket, as ticketless travel isn't usually instantly obvious.

 

[W230]

What about persons of no fixed abode?

I can only speak for non railway situations (though I would imagine it would be similar the same on the railway).

If you are suspected of committing an offence but are unable to give an address where you can be reached because you are of no fixed abode, you could not be reported on summons.

If you can't be reported on summons then it's off to the local police station with the police under arrest. It's usual for people to then 'remember' an address where they can be reached. But if they still can't provide an address then they can't be given bail.

An extreme example but likely to be the way matters progress on the railway too when an offence is supected for those who cant remember where they live.

Now, if the rear cab lock is broken and the conductor therefore cannot leave that post unattended, and he authorises said cleaner/ trolley person to go through and check tickets, does that make said person "authorised by operator" and "acting in the course of his duties".

I doubt it. Even if a conductor could do this - why would he/she? I would think they're more likely to ask the cleaner to stand in front of the cab door! And I doubt the cleaner would be up to date with the routing guide and easements...

 

[Flamingo]

In real terms, the last time I had somebody pulled over who said they were living "On a halting site somewhere in Kent, don't know where exactly", they walked away, as it was by far the easiest option for everybody concerned. Serving a summons on a Mary Murphy on an indeterminate halting site is not really worth the hassle. Even when fined, what would you say was the hopes of collecting it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt the cleaner would be up to date with the routing guide and easements...

I doubt the guard would be either...

 

[AlexS]

To remember something, you have to have known it first... I do know most of it, just not the exact number (its three digits involving three out of 5,6,7 and 9)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How are you supposed to know what a railway ID card looks like?

I would suggest that if I'm on railway property, in full railway uniform, and I present my ID, which has a photo of me, my full (real) name, my grade, my competencies, my home depot, the words 'IDENTITY CARD', and the name of my train operating company, then you're as sure as it can possibly be sure that I am a bona-fide railway official. Otherwise, I would expect you to be arrested every time you might have cause to have a discussion with a police officer who requests ID, because after all, a uniform and identification could possibly be faked.

If you decline to give me your name and address in these circumstances then I'm afraid you'll be getting to know the local transport police fairly well because I will call them out to you for failing to give a valid name and address, as I have satisfied the requirement of the byelaws, and you have not, at which point it will probably be explicitly obvious that I am a railway official and you are now talking to a police officer having definately committed an offence against the byelaws by failing to provide your details to an authorised person. Whether you agree with the byelaws (or indeed any other law) is immaterial.

Once again as I said, if you are not comfortable with the situation as it stands, which I'm sure is how it will remain, then you shouldn't be using the railway.

 

[island]

1 I suggest the person demanding the information provide clear and unambiguous authorisation for such demands. Do they carry that kind of authorisation? Why should I give my name and address to any old person who demands it? Would you?

I asked you what sort of document or card would satisfy you that they were an authorised person. Can you answer that, please?

And what would happen if you were not registered and their address check failed? And perhaps not eligible - if you are not an EU citizen, for example?

Non-EU citizens may vote in council elections. But to answer your question, I don't know. In theory it might result in police attendance I suppose.

 

[WSW]

I asked you what sort of document or card would satisfy you that they were an authorised person. Can you answer that, please?

I did - in message #17 "Surely that person should carry and show on demand something that actually spells out in plain English that this person has a valid authorisation to demand a name and address?"

And although we've been round the houses on the electoral roll question, no-one has yet confirmed that the word "electoral roll" is mentioned when asking passenger for name and address. Or even the word "registered" (whatever that means).

From the replies so far, most people here would happily give their name and address to me on demand (if I was wearing my "railway staff ID card"). Right?

Steve

 

[wintonian]

We aren't talking about policemen though are we?

Oh but we are, we are talking about authorised persons and a police constable is defined as just such a person.

I shall re-post what AlexS posted above and highlight the relevant part.

An 'authorised person' is defined as:

'"authorised person" means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;'

Now I have clarified I shall ask the question again in a different way; Would you be unwilling to provide your details on request to a someone dressed as an authorised person and who presents what looks like official identification?

 

[RJ]

If I haven't committed an offence, I don't see why I should be obliged to give my name and address. A suspicion is not reasonable if the member of staff is unsure of what is happening. I'm quite prepared to call them out on this and discuss the matter until the cows come home, or the train pulls into my destination, whichever happens first.

 

[island]

I did - in message #17 "Surely that person should carry and show on demand something that actually spells out in plain English that this person has a valid authorisation to demand a name and address?"

What sort of thing? An ID card? A letter? A parchment with the Queen's seal?

 

[Fare-Cop]

Not exactly the same, but illustrative of a similar 'choice', on the subject of what ID a person might accept as valid to identify an authorised person on the railway, I am reminded of a case scenario that has come up in my direct experience more than once in recent years.

The defence of the 'Freeman on the Land'. The supposed freedom of an individual not to accept the rules in force.

In putting a fare evasion case before a District Judge involving a defendant who offered the 'freedom not to accept the requirement to be bound by what he described as an unrecognised government, its' laws & policies etc'. Mr X presented his declaration document, signed in the presence of and bearing the seal of a Public Notary and he declared that he did not recognise the Court nor it's right to try him.

My favorite response to this was the DJ's who said; 'Mr X, you may not recognise the law, but I am obliged to inform you that the law certainly recognises you.'

Effectively, we cannot choose which rules we wish to abide by and those that we do not. If an authorised person has shown their ID and made clear what they believe the offence to be, they have discharged their obligation in that regard.

You are always free to take your chances thereafter.

 

[Flamingo]

Not exactly the same, but illustrative of a similar 'choice', on the subject of what ID a person might accept as valid to identify an authorised person on the railway, I am reminded of a case scenario that has come up in my direct experience more than once in recent years.

The defence of the 'Freeman on the Land'. The supposed freedom of an individual not to accept the rules in force.

In putting a fare evasion case before a District Judge involving a defendant who offered the 'freedom not to accept the requirement to be bound by what he described as an unrecognised government, its' laws & policies etc'. Mr X presented his declaration document, signed in the presence of and bearing the seal of a Public Notary and he declared that he did not recognise the Court nor it's right to try him.

My favorite response to this was the DJ's who said; 'Mr X, you may not recognise the law, but I am obliged to inform you that the law certainly recognises you.'

Effectively, we cannot choose which rules we wish to abide by and those that we do not. If an authorised person has shown their ID and made clear what they believe the offence to be, they have discharged their obligation in that regard.

You are always free to take your chances thereafter.

Those gob****es.

A friend put me on to this one a while ago... http://www.independent.ie/national-...oath-of-office-in-court-standoff-2845275.html

Thursday August 11 2011


A man facing a series of motoring offences demanded that a judge produce his oath of office yesterday during a dramatic stand-off.

The hearing at Wexford District Court was brought to a standstill when a 29-year-old man demanded that the judge produce his oath before he proceeded with the case.

Declaring he had been brought to the court against his will, and was "under duress", Bobby Oliver Sludds, of Ballagh Cove, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, said Judge David Anderson had no jurisdiction to deal with the case unless he first produced his oath. "Do you have your oath here? Because if you don't, you're not operating a lawful court," he said.

"Where did you read that?" asked the judge.

"The Constitution. It says that a judge must offer up his oath when requested and I am asking you do you have your oath?" said Mr Sludds, before picking up a copy of the Constitution and beginning to quote at length from Article 34, which deals with the appointment of judges.

"This is not a quiz, I ask the questions. I made my oath in front of the Chief Justice and I have no idea if he kept a record or not," replied Judge Anderson.

"Do you speak English or legalese?" replied Mr Sludds, before discarding the Constitution and picking up a copy of 'Black's Law Dictionary'.

Quoting the definition of "summons", Mr Sludds proceeded to dispute the validity of the summons issued by the court, in which he was charged with a number of motoring offences in Enniscorthy in April 2010.

"These offences are fraudulent and I'm not this Bobby Oliver Sludds you speak of. That's not me and this fictitious claim is a fraud on this court. This is not my name. I've been taken here against my will," he repeated.

Asked to clarify the matter, prosecuting Garda Michael O'Grady said that when he had stopped Mr Sludds and asked him his name, he had replied: "Bobby of the family Sludds."

"But who is this Oliver you're talking about?" asked the defendant, who said he was "a peaceful and honourable man" and the charges were spurious.

Sludds then handed up a copy of his birth cert to the court and again repeated that he was not the man named in the summons.

Denials

Having heard repeated denials that he was the man named in the summons, Judge Anderson said he had no other choice but to remand Sludds in custody due to the confusion.

"I can't accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can't be verified," he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

"You can't do this. This isn't over -- you can expect a bill," shouted Mr Sludds, as he was led away by a number of gardai. He was remanded to Cloverhill Prison until September 17.

- Edel O'Connell

 

[wintonian]

Having heard repeated denials that he was the man named in the summons, Judge Anderson said he had no other choice but to remand Sludds in custody due to the confusion.

"I can't accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can't be verified," he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

"You can't do this. This isn't over -- you can expect a bill," shouted Mr Sludds, as he was led away by a number of gardai. He was remanded to Cloverhill Prison until September 17

Is that what is commonly referred to as rough justice?

I vaguely remember reading this somewhere before.

 

[island]

Unfortunately it's a belief system that is utterly unfounded.

 

[12CSVT]

What about persons of no fixed abode?

I can only speak for non railway situations (though I would imagine it would be similar the same on the railway).

If you are suspected of committing an offence but are unable to give an address where you can be reached because you are of no fixed abode, you could not be reported on summons.

If you can't be reported on summons then it's off to the local police station with the police under arrest. It's usual for people to then 'remember' an address where they can be reached. But if they still can't provide an address then they can't be given bail.

An extreme example but likely to be the way matters progress on the railway too when an offence is supected for those who cant remember where they live.

No doubt people in this situation would be expected to give their address as "A cardboard box outside the shopping precint in High Street" ?

 

[swj99]

There are cases where the authorised person knows for certain that you haven't broken a bylaw, but still attempts to issue you a penalty fare. If you can show that they couldn't have reasonably suspected you of breaking a bylaw, is that a defence for not providing them with a name and address?

Probably best to identify yourself by providing name and address, then caution them and report to the police at the earliest opportunity for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Is there any reason why a PO box address can't be given?

Or indeed a solicitors office address?

A private individual may use their home address, or any address to which they have legitimate access, in order to receive items posted to them. There is no requirement as such for this to be the address where they reside, although obviously it must not be used for fraudulent purposes. In these times when data protection isn't all it should be, and even government departments cannot always be trusted with personal details, many people use accommodation addresses for things such as vehicle registration documents, in order to avoid home visits from undesirables, such as sales people, bailiffs, stalkers etc.

What about persons of no fixed abode?

Even people who are NFA usually have or have access to a 'care of' address. In the absence of this, maybe they'd be best advised to give the address of the nearest police station, where, if previous posts are correct, they will be spending the night anyway.

 

[maniacmartin]

One of my colleagues has no residential address as he lives on a houseboat and moves it every week to a different part of the canal network. He uses a friend's address for all his banking etc and picks up post there every few days. I'm not sure if he's registered on the electoral roll or not (or even if he can be?)

Would he be justified in giving his friend's address in such a scenario?

 

[jon0844]

Last year when dealing with a fare evasion issuie the lady in question wrote down 'Mickey Mouse, Disneyland'. Needless to say this address was handed in as part of my TIR report and false details and address considered!

I've always been suspicious of Mickey Mouse!

As for giving an address, if you're regularly changing address then at least say to the person asking that you can give an address where you can receive correspondence (such as your parents) and give options. Then you can't be done for giving false details as you've cooperated as much as you can.

It's just that people seem to make such an effort to give a false address, or - now that some have realised they're checked - seem to think it okay to give a valid address that they know, even if it might be an innocent 'friend'.

These people should be landed with a criminal record and no leniency.

 

[WillPS]

I should clarify - my enquiry as to 'no fixed abode' was purely curiosity.

 

[jon0844]

And I doubt the cleaner would be up to date with the routing guide and easements...

They might still fare better with RJ than some of the EMT train managers and RPIs though.

As for recognising an ID, wouldn't most ID badges (as against the 'warrant cards' RPIs also carry) have an employee number and phone number for verification purposes. Most ID badges held by people visiting your home will - and if you're really paranoid, you can go to the relevant company website to check the phone number too (in case it's just going to a mate of the fraudster with the fake badge).

I know we've heard of fake RPIs on trains, but I suspect it's pretty rare and they're more likely going to be after giving out fake penalty fares to pocket cash than asking for your details for absolutely no gain whatsoever.