Use of force by RPIs / RPOs

[pethadine82]

I came across the following Parliamentary document
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/84/8406.htm

It says that Revenue protection staff may use reasonable force to remove someone that refuses to give their name / address.

From reading the comments on the forum, I was under the impression that only BTP / PCSO could use force to remove someone.

Does anyone know where I could obtain the full legislation for the legal duties of RPIs/ RPOs?


Thanks

 

[ainsworth74]

RoRA S5 allows: 'any officer of the railway may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.'

 

[swt_passenger]

RoRA S5 allows: 'any officer of the railway may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.'

That seems to be more about detention.

Removal is covered more explicitly by Byelaw 24(2)ii:

Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

Either way the OP's concerns seem to be covered, as any 'authorised person' covers most railway staff according to this section:

“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;

 

[island]

On the flip side, staff may be instructed not to make use of these powers.

 

[Flamingo]

On the flip side, staff may be instructed not to make use of these powers.

I wonder if this instruction is enough to remove the powers from an employee, and leave either the TOC open to a claim for damages, or the employee open to a prosecution, if reasonable force is used?

 

[swt_passenger]

On the flip side, staff may be instructed not to make use of these powers.

Sure, but I think the original question was to do the OP's possible concern that there were no powers.

If a TOC prefers not to use them that's a different matter really...

 

[maniacmartin]

If staff are instructed by their employers not to use force, then can it be argued that they would not be "acting in the course of his duties" as required to be an authorised person under RoRA?

 

[michael769]

I wonder if this instruction is enough to remove the powers from an employee, and leave either the TOC open to a claim for damages, or the employee open to a prosecution, if reasonable force is used?

If staff are instructed by their employers not to use force, then can it be argued that they would not be "acting in the course of his duties" as required to be an authorised person under RoRA?

It is an interesting abstract question which probably does not have a clear answer.

One must remember that they would still retain the rights and powers of member of the public, limited though they may be. At the end of the day "reasonable force" is by definition reasonable so it is highly unlikely that any liability criminal or civil would arise from an act that was adjudged to be reasonable.

The problem is more down to the fact the the powers available to an ordinary member of public are very limited and ambiguous and a staff member relying on such rights might risk stepping over the line into unreasonable force, even while begin quite well meaning.

Once that line is crossed the staff member would be at risk of criminal prosecution (though there may be public interest grounds for a decision of no further action, as happened with the "big man" incident), and in that case it is hard to see how the ToC could be liable given that that staff member would be contravening their employers instructions. As a general rule one cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of others (unless we assisted, caused or incited those actions).

A far more pressing concern is the response of the miscreant to the attempts to use force. If one is not trained in how to safely detain/eject a resisting individual then by trying to use force there is a considerable risk of being seriously injured (or even killed), or causing such to the miscreant if they retaliate - especially if one does not have adequate support and backup. One reason to encourage a policy of non physical approaches to conflict is that it is thankfully uncommon for verbal situations to escalate into violence.

 

[34D]

I wonder if this instruction is enough to remove the powers from an employee, and leave either the TOC open to a claim for damages, or the employee open to a prosecution, if reasonable force is used?

Responsibility couldn't be absolved from the TOC, due to vicarious liability.

 

[Murph]

Isn't the point rather moot, since an employee would really need to be a fool to use force when an employer has expressly stated that they don't want force used? (Other than in the case of reasonable self-defence.) It certainly seems to me like they would be inviting themselves to a no tea, no biccies meeting, at the very least.

 

[Stigy]

On the flip side, staff may be instructed not to make use of these powers.

Assuming you're referring to the TOC instructing this, you're obviously right, although the law still stands. The TOC may hide behind 'no touch policies' etc if it goes pear shaped though, which is often where staff often find themselves between a rock and a hard place.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, not restricted to revenue staff.

 

[RJ]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

 

[Flamingo]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

Who are they? I understood the "no touch" instruction applied to all TOC's.

 

[ruggers]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

I suspect quite those railway byelaws would be struck down by the EU if it ever went that far (or I would hope so!!)

 

[Deerfold]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

That doesn't sound like "reasonable force" by any definition.

 

[jon0844]

I think the problem is that when it comes to RJ, some members of staff have used excessive force/non-existent powers to try and 'get even' with someone they perceive to be 'trying it on' or a 'wise guy'. RJ is in fact doing nothing wrong, but it riles staff and they seem to act totally different to how they'd dare treat a genuine fare evader, or someone who looks like they might cause trouble.

It's the usual problem where RPIs are given conflict avoidance training and wouldn't dream of taking on a group of kids causing trouble on their own (or even in pairs) and, as witnessed by myself, will do something stupid like saying 'I'm going to give you a warning this time' and quickly retreating. Yes, probably making some notes afterwards, but that's it.

Of course, they can suddenly feel all powerful when the other person(s) look innocent and unthreatening.

My concern is that, while I wouldn't want to see RPIs fighting a bunch of drunk kids with no tickets sitting in first class, smoking and drinking with feet on seats and generally showing zero respect to anyone, we've got a situation where some members of staff use powers on the wrong people and not those where it would be justified, in law even if a TOC would say no.

It sends out the wrong message and ultimately ensures that if you want to stand the best chance of getting away with something, you actually act as threatening as you can and gamble on BTP not being called or attending. At worst, you might have to leave the train at the next station but that's about it.

The other day, travelling into London at 5.30pm, I witnessed at Hatfield what must be a big problem - people with bikes.

You can go into London with a bike, but not on trains going north. There was just one member of staff on the gate, and three bike owners had twigged that you just say you're going to London. First two got through and went over the bridge to get trains north, and the third was stopped and asked to show a ticket that showed he wasn't going into London. He was told he couldn't travel and the bike owner kicked off about how he'd worked all day and he WAS going to take his bike.. and pushed through.

An argument then started, witnessed by loads of people on platform 1 (including other bike owners that looked embarrassed) and the passenger was swearing at the staff and walking on. He was allowed to go, of course.

Another day, someone was stopped by the gate with an invalid ticket and went out to jump over the wall. Staff noticed and shouted at him, but he just laughed back, and - again - they didn't do anything even though this time, there were four members of staff by the gate. I'm sure they just hoped he'd get caught further up the line, but ideally I'd have liked to see at least two or three of them go after him.

 

[185]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

A certain TOCs claimed, under oath they had a 'hands off policy' but it 'wasn't written down'. They later admitted in court they had no policy.

When asked to see a copy of the no-contact type rules First Transpennine Express had mentioned seven times, senior manager Alex Walker first claimed they were in the staff handbook. The handbook appeared, and he changed his story. "Where are they, Mr Walker?" asked the judge.

He then claimed the rule was a "verbal" rule..... (?!? laughter in court) to which the judge made him admit he had made it up, and retract his statement.

I can understand rules in place for handling Revenue issues, but where an employee has a legal duty of care (say in an armed incident, or a vulnerable person has been assaulted) they should be commended for using a degree of appropriate force to resolve a situation under common law.

 

[jon0844]

Sounds just like the way 'health and safety' is always used to justify taking action, or alternatively not taking action - whichever is most convenient to the person citing it.

 

[Llanigraham]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

What utter tosh!!
They can use "reasonable force" which does not mean "they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property"

 

[Wolfie]

Certain TOCs do allow their staff do whatever it takes to physically move their customers, with no holds barred. Unfortunately the wording of that byelaw does mean if you are a difficult person to shift, they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property if that's what it takes to move you and not be subject to any legal recourse.

I would be most interested to see any evidence of where rail byelaws can supercede the other laws of this country, particularly those relating to abh, gbh and indeed potentially, if your assertion is correct, manslaughter/murder.....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The extract below is taken from the SIA training coursebook.....

The Common and Criminal Law of the UK permits the use of force as "Reasonable in the Circumstances" which includes the use of banned tequniques such as choke throat and even the techniques which are designed to make one feel discomfort and even the intentional pain. There is no necessity that someone has to be attacked at first before attacking, which is generally called pre-emptive strike.

 

[Yew]

The extract below is taken from the SIA training coursebook.....

The Common and Criminal Law of the UK permits the use of force as "Reasonable in the Circumstances" which includes the use of banned tequniques such as choke throat and even the techniques which are designed to make one feel discomfort and even the intentional pain. There is no necessity that someone has to be attacked at first before attacking, which is generally called pre-emptive strike.

Is that an extract from the law, of is it the SIA's interpretation of the law? As if it is their interpretation, I am seriously concerned as that would not be how I would define 'reasonable in the circumstances'.

 

[Deerfold]

Is that an extract from the law, of is it the SIA's interpretation of the law? As if it is their interpretation, I am seriously concerned as that would not be how I would define 'reasonable in the circumstances'.

Perhaps if someone had been agressive and threatening, but not otherwise.

 

[Flamingo]

I never remember RJ claiming to have been assaulted? Staff refusing to take his word for it when confronted with some obscure interpretation of the routing guide, yes, but I don't remember a GBH case where he was the victim.

 

[tony_mac]

I never remember RJ claiming to have been assaulted? Staff refusing to take his word for it when confronted with some obscure interpretation of the routing guide, yes, but I don't remember a GBH case where he was the victim.

I can't find the thread, but as I recall two members of staff attempted to drag him off the train and were not being too gentle about it.

 

[Flamingo]

I can't find the thread, but as I recall two members of staff attempted to drag him off the train and were not being too gentle about it.

Oh, ok, I missed that one. Did it end up as a court case? I'm presuming BTP got involved.

 

[RJ]

What utter tosh!!
They can use "reasonable force" which does not mean "they can beat you up, break every bone in your body and damage your property"

I used to think like this. I'll explain why I don't any more.

I reported an incident in which officers of the railway physically apprehended me. This involved them applying a Chinese Burn to my wrist, twisting my arm until my bones cracked and gripping my upper arm as tightly as possible, when I asked them to let go because I had wound from a recent accident there. The OBM on the train summoned them with the intention of them physically removing me from the train. This was because of a ticketing dispute in which I held a valid ticket, but he did not approve of it because he felt it was too cheap and manually endorsed it "NOT HS1." He was fully aware that the ticket was valid, but aggrieved because I refused to give him any money.

During the incident, one of the REOs placed a cup of cola in a certain position with the intention of it ending up all over me, which it did. They did not let up when my glasses fell to the ground, resulting the the frame being damaged beyond repair and they also damaged my laptop.

Removing me by force was a near impossible task owing to my size, where I was sitting and my position relative to the nearest exit door. The only way they would have achieved this would have been by them taking away my ability to move autonomously (i.e by taser) or making me lose consciousness. The REOs were both grown adults and due to my position in the carriage, even extra staff getting involved would not have done anything without the use of an offensive weapon.

I got off the train of my own accord and once on the platform, waited for the BTP to arrive. I asked several Southeastern staff and the BTP to summon medical assistance as I was injured and required it, but they all declined. I did complaint but Southeastern were entirely indifferent, despite the fact that I had purchased a valid ticket at the beginning of the journey.

I called the British Transport Police - one of them saw my laptop was showing messages of component failure upon arrival and another asked me if my wrist was normally bruised and swollen. I asked why they chose not to arrest the REOs and they said it was because they knew them personally and didn't think it would be necessary. I then spent almost three hours in the station reporting the incident.

After weeks at a time of not hearing anything from the police, I kept chasing them up. The conclusion was that they were not going to take the matter any further, because one of their managers said that the byelaws excused the actions of the REO. They said that reasonable force was whatever force was required to perform the removal and in my case, they felt that the force used was insufficient. They said that any damage to property would not be considered as criminal because of that byelaw. I asked them if any of my bones had been broken or if they beat me up, if it would have made any difference. Again, they said that it that's what it took to remove a person, it would be deemed as reasonable and there would be no case. Finally, they said it was irrelevant whether or not the ticket was valid. Because the staff said that they suspected it was not, that was sufficient to justify their actions.

They decided that there would be no case in course and closed the matter so no, it didn't go to court. So there you have it. Southeastern have approved of the conduct of the REOs and chose to take no action. Their MD, Charles Horton was made aware of the incident as I personally delivered a number of messages to him, but he has chosen not to respond. I have lodged a number of complaints and they repeatedly declined to comment, save for the last response whereby they said that they were sorry if I was not happy with the service I received on that day.

 

[maniacmartin]

Here is how it is worded in the current Byelaws:

Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.

Note that staff only have to 'reasonably believe' you are in breach of the byelaws - even if after the fact it's determined you haven't broken them.

 

[34D]

Surely RJ should start a private prosecution for assault?

 

[RJ]

Here is how it is worded in the current Byelaws:


Note that staff only have to 'reasonably believe' you are in breach of the byelaws - even if after the fact it's determined you haven't broken them.

Like I said, that gives staff a free licence to make up any old rubbish to ensure they can manhandle and injure their customers with complete impunity. The day has come and gone where the industry has used it as a get out.

I'm aghast that Southeastern takes actions to suggest that it's there to be abused. It paints all of us who work for the railways, on the front line in a bad light. But for the purposes of this topic, beware of the powers that are bestowed upon even the cowboy operators , who are prepared to go plenipotentiary with them. No touch policies are a customer service thing, but just remember that it's not always a legal requirement to treat customers well.