Under this section, any person who trespasses on a light railway or on any land, machinery or equipment shall be guilty of an offence. Will there be access to the light railway? Obviously, a trespasser is someone who enters land without the permission of the railway operator. Is that what we are to believe? For example, can the Harcourt Street line be used as a bicycle way or for emergency vehicles? Will there be mixed use of any of the line? Does this section have any relevance to that?
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".
The section only refers to someone who trespasses on the land or light railway. It does not make any reference to damage caused. The person is guilty of an offence per se by trespassing. It seems somewhat heavy to have a summary conviction for trespassing which could result in a term of imprisonment if no damage is caused to the light railway or the land.
I take it this does not mean that if one walks across a light rail on a public road one is trespassing. It must, presumably, apply to non-public road sections of the railway. If that is the case, there should be some serious way of policing it. If the idea is to keep children off the restricted areas of the railway where it crosses bridges and so on, particularly on the Dundrum line or in the middle of the line to Tallaght, if that ever happens, who will police it? Does anybody have the power to enforce it? Can somebody tell a person to get off the line? Will the Garda have the power to take the names and addresses of trespassers, or to arrest them if they refuse to leave the line?
This section provides that trespass on a light railway or on any land or machinery used for the purposes of a light railway will be an offence. A person convicted of such an offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. On examining this Bill, I was immediately concerned about the harsh wording of some of the sections. This section could be interpreted as being a very broad definition of trespass. I am not satisfied with it as it is presently worded. On questioning it I was advised that the understood definition of "trespass" as the Bill now stands is "unjustifiable interference with". This is the common parlance in which trespass in this context is used. However, I am not satisfied that it is sufficiently explicit in this section. The normal understanding of "trespass" would not just apply to "unjustifiable interference with" in normal parlance. For example, children running around or playing on a line amounts, technically, to trespass.
One could run up and down.
Or go on a bicycle. I have asked that this section be looked at again. I will introduce an amendment on Report Stage. We are obtaining the wording from the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that we are in position to deal harshly with those who unjustifiably interfere with the light rail or the light rail line, but at the same time which will allow for reasonable treatment of people who are just passing over the line.
We must get the balance right in the interests of safety but there are different degrees of trespass of different degrees which are not catered for in the Bill, especially on the mixed user lines where there could be some confusion. Part of a route could be mixed user, it could go on to a dedicated section and then return to a mixed user route. The degree of trespass and the intent of the so called trespasser must be an issue. However, trespass in the sense of unjustifiable interference will be harshly dealt with, as implied here.
Many residents, especially in Rathmines and Churchtown are worried about the possibility that people would be allowed to loiter and use the railway. I know that some are enthusiastic and wish it to be a bicycle way in addition to a tramway. I have grave misgivings. When the first accidents take place this will be considered not to have been such a good idea.
Many people believe the track will go through vulnerable areas where Garda cars will be unable to patrol with ease. They want protection from people——
Loitering with intent.
Yes and wandering up and down the railway line. If it cannot be policed and it is not an offence to be on the line serious problems will arise with regard to crime.
It will always be an offence to be on it but the degree of the offence in terms of the penalties must be looked at.
I suggest there should be a power of arrest. There is no point waving at 15 children on the viaduct at Milltown as they wander along. If they were not stopped there could be serious trouble.
I am concerned with the severity of the penalty. Other sections relate to the use of vehicles and " a person who obstructs or interferes. . . " However, the penalty of up to six months imprisonment for a simple trespasser appears to be totally out of line with the nature of the offence. This must be addressed on Report Stage.
It appears to be six months for an act of trespass.
Question put and agreed to.