Trespassers

More concerning for me about that clips than the trespassing it the example of what presumably is a Parent is setting to his child that such a daft act is acceptable, if the kid gets it into his head tha trespassing is acceptable then your in big trouble, on a preserved line at 25MPh you can jump out the way or the train can pull up in time, but supposing one of his future trespassing escapades is a 125MPH stretch of Mainline...

I'd also question whether an adult who thinks that is acceptable should be allowed to continue looking after a child, as I say it's the the fact there's an infant in tow and the implications that's disturbing here rather than the usual plonker the wrong side of the fence.

 

Not fit to be in charge of a bike much less a child. I hope the WSR can track them down and throw the book at the guy! Absolutely appalled - just imagine how that driver would have felt if he had hit them. Ray.

 

Indeed. Very worrying.

Mind you, there are plenty of places on the WSR where it would not be possible to stop a train in time, even at 25mph.

Steve

 

Heard on the radio today that there's a new campaign on Level Crossing safety about to launch on TV. OK - this isn't conventional LC safety, but I bet the TV channels would lap it up as a news feature linked to the campaign? As for ID'ing the muppet locally, they ;look a bit like holiday makers unless that's normal biking attire in Somerset?

 

One ironic aspect of the adult's attitude to safety is that he has made sure that the lad is wearing a helmet!

 

I would be interested to know what success any railway has had with a civil prosecution. There would seem to be two problems: identifying the accused and then obtaining a meaningful and effective remedy. On the first point, as far as I'm aware, there is no obligation on the part of the accused to identify himself, other than to an officer of the law. In practice this would only arise if there was some actual or probable crime such as criminal damage (tresspass per se is not a crime). On the second point, the most likely remedy would seem to be an injunction (an order not to do it again) unless, exceptionally, financial loss can be proved. The upshot is that, except in the case of repeat offenders (and those who cause criminal damage), it is probably not worth pursuing those who leave peacefully when asked. Which is not to say that tresspass can be condoned.

 

In this case, rather than persuing a civil case for trespass, perhaps there would be greater scope for prosecuting the adult, if he can be identified, for endangering the child?

Mick

 

Strewth, surely the end of the World is nigh!

 

Trespass on a railway is a completely different law than normal trespass. You can be nicked for doing it and the maximum fine is £1000.

 

Yes, Trespassing on the railway is a criminal offence. Trespassing on farmer Joe's land is a civil offence.

 

Sorry, Northernblue109, but it's not like that. There is no such thing as a civil prosecution; civil action is for damages or, possiblly in the last resort, an injunction to restrain repeated offenders. Trespass on the railway is a statutory criminal offence because the original Act for the construction of the railway would have incorporated standard wording from the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. No doubt there would have been further Consolidation Acts as the years passed. I'm not sure whether the British Transport Police or the local force take responsibility on railways that are not part of Network Rail but, if the adult can be identified, a report by the police to the CPS is the way to go.

You-tube videos like this have way of spreading and it may well be that the perpetrator knows of his being a wanted man by now!

 

Yes, you are correct but it isn't that straightforward. The Railways 1840 (as subsequently amended) states that a person may be detained if, when asked to quit (ie leave the premises), he refuses to do so. In practical terms, if the tresspasser leaves voluntarily, it may be very difficult to pursue any prosecution. The opinion of a qualified legal person would be welcome.

 

I think the situation is that "leaving the premises" would be related to buildings such as stations or offices where persons may be asked to leave for a variety of reasons (e.g. causing a public nuisance; drunkeness etc) but to trespass on railway land such as tracks would be absolute hence the question of "leaving voluntarily" would be irrelevant. There is an absolute offence here and therefore a criminal prosecution could be pursued by the railway company (i.e. the WSR) or its agents (e.g. BTP)

 

I'm sure WSR Plc will be dealing with this. I can add that Control was alerted immediately, the two cyclists were pursued by station staff (on foot) but managed to get away, and the YouTube link was provided to WSR Plc by several people. As far as I am aware WSR Plc do not use BTP in any way. I believe trespass on the land leased and land owned by WSR Plc is covered by bye-law and I am seeking clarification from WSR Plc on that.

Having to deal with the aftermath of fatalities on separate occasions over the years involving trespassers, the WSR Plc quite rightly takes trespass extremely seriously. Running a railway, even with 25 mph max speed limit, is a serious business.

People need to understand that WSR trains can, and do, run at any time of day or night, and not only the ones published in a public timetable.

But people always know best - don't they [not].

Steve

 

it seemed to me that that guy knew where he was going, is it likely he is a local who makes a habit of this?

 

Sorry gents but I am 99% certain that the laws being quoted here regarding trespass, £1000 fines, detention and the BTP DO NOT APPLY to heritage railways because they are not part of the National Network including TfL and other Metro operations. To all intents and purposes trespassing on a heritage railway is by law not trespassing on a railway, but on private property. This is because the statutory instruments that recreated these railways - LROs, T&WOs etc., did not maintain the railway byelaws - at least in this area - that would have previously applied.

I certainly know for a fact that heritage railways come under the local force(s), not the BTP.

 

Q

Now I could be wrong ( wouldnt be the first time ) but iirc the Worth Valley have had incidents, eg vandalism, investigated by the BTP in the past.

 

This subject has been discussed before and one member, ex BTP, explained all the legal ins and outs of railway trespass. I'm sure it was 60017 so if anyone cares to search his posts you'll find a lot of useful info on the subject as opposed for discussing it as nauseum.

 

Seems a strange way of doing the Law to be honest, they are effectively saying a class 47 on a Heritage Line is not as dangerous as a class 47 on the Mainline, only difference of any relevance between the two is speed and that can be cancelled out if the driver, trespasser or even both are unsighted.

 

Not quite - see http://www.gwsr.com/media/102079/gwsr-byelaws-cif23march2009.pdf which I understand were modelled on a standard set of heritage railway style byelaws. I've no idea what the WSR have in place. I do know, from experience of having to call the police to incidents on a heritage railway that the call is often met with a little confusion as to who should turn out but that the local force has always ended up coming - presumably a matter of logistics as much as anything else. Let's be clear here, trespass on the mainline is a criminal offence and this is the same on at least some heritage lines and rightly so. Certainly a call made to report trespass to a 'non emergency' police number that I have had to make was immediately transferred to the 'emergency' handler by the local police when the operator established a railway was involved - even though it was very clear it was a heritage railway siding being discussed.