In a noteworthy case that raises questions about safety and self-defence, a London bus driver has been dismissed after engaging a thief who stole a passenger’s necklace. Mark Hehir, who was operating the 206 bus for Metroline between Wembley and Maida Vale, chased the suspect and struck him, resulting in significant controversy and a subsequent tribunal ruling.
Incident Overview
The incident occurred on 25 June 2024, when a man snatched a necklace from a female passenger aboard Hehir’s bus. Following the theft, Hehir pursued the thief, successfully retrieving the stolen item. Upon returning to the bus, the thief confronted Hehir and allegedly initiated a physical altercation by throwing the first punch. In a move that Hehir described as self-defence, he responded by incapacitating the assailant.
Despite Hehir’s claims of acting instinctively to protect his passenger, Metroline argued that he had employed excessive force. The company maintained that the thief had returned to the bus intending to apologise, and therefore Hehir’s actions were unwarranted.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings
Following the confrontation, both men were arrested; however, Hehir was released without further police action. The day after the incident, he was suspended and subsequently subjected to a disciplinary investigation. During the hearing, he faced allegations of bringing the company into disrepute due to his physical assault of a passenger, as well as failing to ensure the safety of his passengers by leaving the bus unattended with its engine running.
Hehir defended his actions, asserting that he had left the bus’s doors open and engaged the handbrake before pursuing the thief. Evidence presented included a note from a detective stating that Hehir’s use of force was “proportionate and necessary” under the circumstances, particularly in protecting his passenger.
Tribunal Decision
The tribunal, convened in Watford, upheld the decision to dismiss Hehir. Operations manager Alina Gioroc, who presided over the disciplinary hearing, expressed that the thief had not exhibited aggression until Hehir pushed him away upon his return to the bus. Gioroc deemed the prolonged restraint of the suspect for nearly half an hour to be “excessive” and “disproportionate”.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the disciplinary and appeal managers had reasonable grounds to believe Hehir was guilty of gross misconduct, affirming that the dismissal was within the realm of acceptable employer responses.
Why it Matters
This case illuminates the delicate balance between self-defence and professional responsibility in public transport settings. As society grapples with issues of safety and appropriate responses to crime, the outcomes of such incidents can shape policies and perceptions within the industry. The dismissal of Mark Hehir serves as a reminder of the complex dynamics at play, where instinctual reactions to protect others may clash with corporate protocols and expectations of conduct.
