Martyn's Law

Has anything be said in the act about liability of an individual if it is felt by aggrieved relatives of any victim that said (volunteer?) did not follow the laid down process.
Would "being suspicious" of a person who is perhaps not usual clientele lead to issues? When we had to work in the terminals at LHR if someone looked suspicious you just found the nearest guy with a H &K slung across his body and let him deal with it. Not many police around Heritage Railways.

 

Perhaps you could read the Home Office guidance and see what it actually says?

 

It's probably just the same as any other situation in which a volunteer (or a paid member if staff) is negligent. The railway could be liable vicariously for such negligence. If it's incorporrated in some form the railway entity itself would bear that liability. If not it would be the personal liability of each trustee/committee member.
The exception would be where the failure of the individual is so egregious as to amount to criminal negligence. In that event the volunteer or employee could be prosecuted and, if found guilty, fined or imprisoned. The new law will create a statutory duty which is principally binding on the railway entity, its directors and/or trustees. Failure to implement appropriate security measures could result in them being personally liable for breach of that duty.

 

Did not see it covered any of the issues I raised.
Whilst I agree with you the intention may be good a lot of scope for those who "initially identify a potential threat" whoever they are, to be accused of bias or racial profiling. Not much point in training everyone if you do not expect them to act when they see something.

 

Thank you, that's a very useful post. That concession (once on a train they don't count to the station total) probably saves quite a bit of hassle. I was just discussing with a colleague about Kidderminster and can think of a few ocassions where the 800 figure could be tripped if the on-train numbers counted.