Refusing to give address - what happens next ?

[sheff1]

Not sure if this is the right section, but here goes ...

Yesterday, I was travelling from Maidstone to St Pancras via Strood. Sitting in the rear carriage I overheard the guard talking to someone he apparently knew about a passenger who had boarded the train and refused to buy a ticket. He had told the person to alight at Yalding (I think) but they had just walked up the platform and got on via the next door. The guard said that he could not delay the train but had sent an email reporting the situation and asked for Revenue people to attend, but he didn't hold out much hope. To the guard's surprise, 3 Railway Enforcement Officers dressed in police style clothing were waiting on the platform at Cuxton and were directed to the miscreant.

At Strood the 3 RFOs surrounded the person whilst they got off the train and then on the platform. Walking past it was clear the person had refused to give an address and his demeanour suggested he had absolutely no intention of ever doing so. As I boarded the train to St Pancras, the Mexican standoff was continuing at the top of the station steps.

Obviously, the RFOs could not stand there indefinitely yet the passenger seemed quite content to wait indefinitely - he was perfectly calm and showed no aggressive tendencies.

In reality, what would happen with the continued refusal to give an address ? Would the RFOs give up, call the police or what ? If the police were called, would they actually turn up ?

Any insight welcome. Don't worry, I do not intend to put this strategy into practice - there are far better things to do than stand on a station platform for hours !

 

[AM9]

Despite the inconvenience of arranging an arrest, I can't see any alternative than to call a BTP officer for that purpose. To do nothing would send all the wrong signals which I am sure the individual concerned would amplify as much as possible.

 

[Wombat]

Out of interest, what happens if the miscreant (love that word) cheerfully provides a name and address but is carrying no means of identification to verify his/her assertion?

 

[AM9]

Out of interest, what happens if the miscreant (love that word) cheerfully provides a name and address but is carrying no means of identification to verify his/her assertion?

Presumably, it would be part of the official's task to question the individual in order to verify the address. I've seen it done on a SWT train. Unfortunately, the RPI (or whatever he was) on hearing the address given which was in Tilbury, he then said that the postcode, RM18 ..., was for Romford, so assumed that the passenger was lying. He then went onto his phone and asked a colleague.
Those required to do this sort of apprehension will have to adopt a more educated approach such as the police do, to prevent embarassing mistakes being made.

 

[bearhugger]

Presumably, it would be part of the official's task to question the individual in order to verify the address. I've seen it done on a SWT train. Unfortunately, the RPI (or whatever he was) on hearing the address given which was in Tilbury, he then said that the postcode, RM18 ..., was for Romford, so assumed that the passenger was lying. He then went onto his phone and asked a colleague.
Those required to do this sort of apprehension will have to adopt a more educated approach such as the police do, to prevent embarassing mistakes being made.

Postcodes can really lead you astray, for example my local area - TS covers Middlesbrough, Stockton, Thornaby, Billingham and possibly even extends out to Hartlepool and some of the villages in North Yorkshire such as Great Ayton and Stokesley. I guess it's from the area of Teesside.

 

[grumblingalong]

Out of interest, what happens if the miscreant (love that word) cheerfully provides a name and address but is carrying no means of identification to verify his/her assertion?

There are organisations (I believe they vary, I use IRCAS at work) who can provide address checks and other basic details from railway registered mobile telephones. Generally speaking if those details check out you've got good details!

 

[AlterEgo]

There are organisations (I believe they vary, I use IRCAS at work) who can provide address checks and other basic details from railway registered mobile telephones. Generally speaking if those details check out you've got good details!

But not necessarily details which match the person in front of you.

 

[Joe Paxton]

But not necessarily details which match the person in front of you.

And this is normally the point where someone says compulsory-carry ID cards would solve such an issue. But like many I'm not up for carrying around a bit of state-issued plastic (and possibly electronics/RFID) all the time.

Besides, photos don't eliminate impersonation - one of the things photocard driving licences were meant to help with was other people impersonating someone in order to pass a driving test, but alas this does still happen a bit.

 

[Antman]

Not sure if this is the right section, but here goes ...

Yesterday, I was travelling from Maidstone to St Pancras via Strood. Sitting in the rear carriage I overheard the guard talking to someone he apparently knew about a passenger who had boarded the train and refused to buy a ticket. He had told the person to alight at Yalding (I think) but they had just walked up the platform and got on via the next door. The guard said that he could not delay the train but had sent an email reporting the situation and asked for Revenue people to attend, but he didn't hold out much hope. To the guard's surprise, 3 Railway Enforcement Officers dressed in police style clothing were waiting on the platform at Cuxton and were directed to the miscreant.

At Strood the 3 RFOs surrounded the person whilst they got off the train and then on the platform. Walking past it was clear the person had refused to give an address and his demeanour suggested he had absolutely no intention of ever doing so. As I boarded the train to St Pancras, the Mexican standoff was continuing at the top of the station steps.

Obviously, the RFOs could not stand there indefinitely yet the passenger seemed quite content to wait indefinitely - he was perfectly calm and showed no aggressive tendencies.

In reality, what would happen with the continued refusal to give an address ? Would the RFOs give up, call the police or what ? If the police were called, would they actually turn up ?

Any insight welcome. Don't worry, I do not intend to put this strategy into practice - there are far better things to do than stand on a station platform for hours !

I think fare evasion is fairly (no pun intended!) rife on the Medway Valley line so this doesn't surprise me at all.

I don't know why these 'REOs' dress like police officers as the miscreants seem to be fully aware that they are not police. In the situation you describe all that they can really do is call for police assistance, whether they actually turn up is another matter.

 

[rpjs]

I think fare evasion is fairly (no pun intended!) rife on the Medway Valley line so this doesn't surprise me at all.

I don't know why these 'REOs' dress like police officers as the miscreants seem to be fully aware that they are not police. In the situation you describe all that they can really do is call for police assistance, whether they actually turn up is another matter.

IIRC Southeastern's REOs have been granted some quasi-police powers, akin to those held by PCSOs, and (again IIRC) a PCSO can legally "detain", by force if necessary, until a constable arrives.

 

[tspaul26]

Postcodes can really lead you astray, for example my local area - TS covers Middlesbrough, Stockton, Thornaby, Billingham and possibly even extends out to Hartlepool and some of the villages in North Yorkshire such as Great Ayton and Stokesley. I guess it's from the area of Teesside.

Wick with its Kirkwall postcode is another example that catches people out.

The number of times I came across letters and parcels in the sorting office with a 'WK' outward code (totally made up) would probably surprise you.

 

[swj99]

Presumably, it would be part of the official's task to question the individual in order to verify the address.

It's up to the RPI if they want to check or validate the name and address details they are given, but 23 (1) of the railway byelaws simply says,

Name and address
Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or
attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address
when asked by an authorised person

There is no mention of any requirement that a person is under any obligation to produce evidence of these details, so it would seem that once they have provided them, they have satisfied this requirement, whether the authorised person believes the information to be true or not.

 

[Antman]

IIRC Southeastern's REOs have been granted some quasi-police powers, akin to those held by PCSOs, and (again IIRC) a PCSO can legally "detain", by force if necessary, until a constable arrives.

Citizens arrest that we can all make, probably best only done in extreme circumstances?

 

[tspaul26]

Citizens arrest that we can all make, probably best only done in extreme circumstances?

A lot of misinformation regarding 'citizen's arrest' does the rounds in my experience. The starting point is that detention of another person is prima facie unlawful: it is both a crime and an actionable civil wrong. This applies to PCSOs and REOs as much as any other layman.

There are in fact two types of arrest that may lawfully be made by a person other than a constable (i.e. PCSOs, REOs and Joe Public). This relates only to England [and Wales].

It will generally not be prudent for a member of the public to do so and especially not alone.

At common law
There is at common law a power of arrest where there is a 'breach of the peace', which is not in itself a crime in England. This might include instances where harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or, in his presence, to his property or where a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, riot, &c.

A civilian may conduct an arrest in these circumstances only if:

1. a breach of the peace is committed in his presence;
2. the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested; or
3. a breach of the peace has been committed or the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that a breach of the peace has occurred and that a further breach is threatened.

The question of whether the belief was reasonable is determined having regard to the circumstances as perceived by the person carrying out the arrest at the time. Where a reasonable apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace exists, the preventive action taken must be reasonable and proportionate. Any force used in the arrest must be reasonable and proportionate.

Anyone contemplating a common law arrest should be extremely cautious: it is not to be undertaken lightly.

Under statute
The statutory power of any member of the public in England to detain someone whom he considers to be involved in criminal activity is set out in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

This is subject to several limitations and restrictions. In particular, section 24A may not be used in relation to offences connected with 'racial hatred', 'religious hatred' or 'hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation' under Parts III and IIIA of the Public Order Act 1986.

In addition, all of the following criteria must be satisfied.

A. The power may only be exercised to arrest a person:

• who is in the act of committing an indictable offence*;
• whom the civilian has reasonable grounds for suspecting is committing an indictable offence;
• who is guilty of an indictable offence AND that offence has been committed; or
• whom the civilian has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an indictable offence AND that offence has actually been committed.

* An indictable offence is one that can be tried in a Crown Court in front of a jury.

B. It must appear to the civilian making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

C. The civilian making the arrest must have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person in question to prevent him from:

• causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
• suffering physical injury;
• causing loss of or damage to property; or
• making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

D. Anyone carrying out an arrest may only use reasonable force when arresting the person in question. This is a matter of fact and degree.

The question of whether one of the required 'beliefs' (A., B., C. or D.) was reasonable is determined having regard to the circumstances as perceived by the person carrying out the arrest at the time.

Once again, I would caution anyone even thinking about making a statutory arrest to be extremely careful. If you cannot identify a specific offence or you are not sure if the offence is indictable, it is extremely risky to get involved and you leave yourself open to potential criminal and civil legal action.

 

[tspaul26]

IIRC Southeastern's REOs have been granted some quasi-police powers, akin to those held by PCSOs, and (again IIRC) a PCSO can legally "detain", by force if necessary, until a constable arrives.

For the avoidance of doubt, a failure to give name and address is not an indictable offence.

However, an officer of a railway company may detain the offender for the purpose of bringing him in front of the magistrates. In practice, this would normally entail handing him over to the police when they arrive.

 

[AM9]

For the avoidance of doubt, a failure to give name and address is not an indictable offence.

Out of interest, would giving a false address in itself be an offence or considered by a court to be an aggravation of any fraud/theft activity in which it may be a fact?

 

[John @ home]

IIRC Southeastern's REOs have been granted some quasi-police powers, akin to those held by PCSOs, and (again IIRC) a PCSO can legally "detain", by force if necessary, until a constable arrives.

It seems likely to me that a Revenue Enforcement Officer is an officer of a railway company and therefore holds specific statutory powers to detain a person who refuses ... to give his name and address until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

Regulation of Railways Act 1889

Section 5

(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(2) If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

 

[Llanigraham]

A lot of misinformation regarding 'citizen's arrest' does the rounds in my experience. The starting point is that detention of another person is prima facie unlawful: it is both a crime and an actionable civil wrong. This applies to PCSOs and REOs as much as any other layman.

There are in fact two types of arrest that may lawfully be made by a person other than a constable (i.e. PCSOs, REOs and Joe Public). This relates only to England.

It will generally not be prudent for a member of the public to do so and especially not alone.

At common law
There is at common law a power of arrest where there is a 'breach of the peace', which is not in itself a crime in England. This might include instances where harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or, in his presence, to his property or where a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, riot, &c.

A civilian may conduct an arrest in these circumstances only if:

1. a breach of the peace is committed in his presence;
2. the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested; or
3. a breach of the peace has been committed or the person effecting the arrest reasonably believes that a breach of the peace has occurred and that a further breach is threatened.

The question of whether the belief was reasonable is determined having regard to the circumstances as perceived by the person carrying out the arrest at the time. Where a reasonable apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace exists, the preventive action taken must be reasonable and proportionate. Any force used in the arrest must be reasonable and proportionate.

Anyone contemplating a common law arrest should be extremely cautious: it is not to be undertaken lightly.

Under statute
The statutory power of any member of the public in England to detain someone whom he considers to be involved in criminal activity is set out in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974.

This is subject to several limitations and restrictions. In particular, section 24A may not be used in relation to offences connected with 'racial hatred', 'religious hatred' or 'hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation' under Parts III and IIIA of the Public Order Act 1986.

In addition, all of the following criteria must be satisfied.

A. The power may only be exercised to arrest a person:

• who is in the act of committing an indictable offence*;
• whom the civilian has reasonable grounds for suspecting is committing an indictable offence;
• who is guilty of an indictable offence AND that offence has been committed; or
• whom the civilian has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an indictable offence AND that offence has actually been committed.

* An indictable offence is one that can be tried in a Crown Court in front of a jury.

B. It must appear to the civilian making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

C. The civilian making the arrest must have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person in question to prevent him from:

• causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
• suffering physical injury;
• causing loss of or damage to property; or
• making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

D. Anyone carrying out an arrest may only use reasonable force when arresting the person in question. This is a matter of fact and degree.

The question of whether one of the required 'beliefs' (A., B., C. or D.) was reasonable is determined having regard to the circumstances as perceived by the person carrying out the arrest at the time.

Once again, I would caution anyone even thinking about making a statutory arrest to be extremely careful. If you cannot identify a specific offence or you are not sure if the offence is indictable, it is extremely risky to get involved and you leave yourself open to potential criminal and civil legal action.

Correction to the above.
In all cases that should read "ENGLAND and WALES".
That is what the Statute says.
Scotland different "rules" may apply.

 

[swt_passenger]

Out of interest, would giving a false address in itself be an offence or considered by a court to be an aggravation of any fraud/theft activity in which it may be a fact?

The current thread about the £1000 fine - the news reports state that he was found guilty of ticketless travel AND of giving a false address.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=145747
We won't really know if it significantly increase the fine, but then I doubt it was able to be used as mitigation either...

 

[tspaul26]

Out of interest, would giving a false address in itself be an offence or considered by a court to be an aggravation of any fraud/theft activity in which it may be a fact?

In theory, the false statement could ground a prosecution for fraud by misrepresentation, which is indictable.

Theft is difficult, because it is not clear if the provision of train travel is property for the purposes of the offence. Making off without payment may be a more appropriate charge. Both are indictable.

The main issue with these offences is that the additional ingredient of mens rea - the guilty mind - is required in order to make out the offence. This is generally more difficult than using the strict liability offences in the byelaws or RoRA s.5.

Moreover, if no indictable offence has been committed due to lack of mens rea the civilian undertaking an arrest opens himself to significant legal risk, especially if the only damage in question is pecuniary loss.

As to sentencing, proven dishonesty could be taken into account as an aggravating factor. However, a not guilty plea - which puts the prosecution to proof - would not generally count as dishonesty for this purpose. There must be a demonstration of some external dishonesty.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Do also remember the primary legislation referred to by MoJ in advice to CPS and other prosecutors with regard to deliberate avoidance of fare:

The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

Section 5.2

If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.


Having read and noted that fact, in training inspectors we always recommend that they should not carry out this action and should call BTP (or the local force if appropriate) to effect an arrest if it is considered essential.

There are a many other considerations to be taken into account before any rail staff should ever resort to such action, but the legislation makes the basic position perfectly clear.

.

 

[Fare-Cop]

The current thread about the £1000 fine - the news reports state that he was found guilty of ticketless travel AND of giving a false address.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=145747
We won't really know if it significantly increase the fine, but then I doubt it was able to be used as mitigation either...

There are normally two charges in such a case:

1. Having not previously paid, did travel on a railway with intent to avoid payment of the fare contrary to Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889]

2. Having not previously paid, did in response to a request by an officer of the railway company, give a false name and address when asked for his details, contrary to Section 5(3)(c) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889]


Both offences carry the same level of penalty - if convicted on both counts it is a matter for the Magistrates to decide whether they impose a fine on both charges. ( 2 x £400 if proven in absence with no previous known )

 

[tspaul26]

Correction to the above.
In all cases that should read "ENGLAND and WALES".
That is what the Statute says.
Scotland different "rules" may apply.

I never talk about Wales: it distracts from the now.

(I have made an insertion in the original post to clarify, although I analysed the issue only with respect to England itself. I am not so old-fashioned that I use the old legal practice of using England to mean both England and Wales!)

 

[tspaul26]

Correction to the above.
In all cases that should read "ENGLAND and WALES".
That is what the Statute says.
Scotland different "rules" may apply.

I have nevertheless noticed a minor typographical error: the Act is of course the 1984 Act, not 1974. I have corrected the original post.

 

[maniacmartin]

Pretty poor postcode knowledge re RM18, whose postal town is Tilbury.

For non-London compass points postcode areas, generally only the first few postcode districts are the town whose name is shorted to make the area (RM1 to RM7 in this case), with higher numbered districts assigned to other surrounding postal towns. I'd have thought this would be common knowledge for people who verify a lot of addresses.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This is entirely a hypothetical thought experiment as I am a proper fare-paying passenger who pays over £2000 a year in fares to the railway (!), but I'm just interested in what would happen in these situations.

A passenger gets on a train without a ticket, means of payment or any form of identification. A member of the train operator's staff checks tickets and comes to the passenger. The passenger won't show a ticket, won't say where they got on, and won't pay for a new ticket. In fact, they don't say anything at all.

Theoretically speaking (of course, I know practice will be different), what could be done to identify the passenger? If they have no identification on them and they're not on any police/national databases, how can they be identified?

The same goes if they do give a name and address - apparently these are always verified (I've heard against the Electoral Register) - but what if the details given are correct, but not on the system as they're not on the electoral register, or if they genuinely live in another country?

Thanks for any comments!

 

[JDi]

This is entirely a hypothetical thought experiment as I am a proper fare-paying passenger who pays over £2000 a year in fares to the railway (!), but I'm just interested in what would happen in these situations.

A passenger gets on a train without a ticket, means of payment or any form of identification. A member of the train operator's staff checks tickets and comes to the passenger. The passenger won't show a ticket, won't say where they got on, and won't pay for a new ticket. In fact, they don't say anything at all.

Theoretically speaking (of course, I know practice will be different), what could be done to identify the passenger? If they have no identification on them and they're not on any police/national databases, how can they be identified?

The same goes if they do give a name and address - apparently these are always verified (I've heard against the Electoral Register) - but what if the details given are correct, but not on the system as they're not on the electoral register, or if they genuinely live in another country?

Thanks for any comments!

I'm not a ticket inspector, however, I have travelled enough by trains myself to know that in this instance, the guard would most likely get the British Transport Police (BTP) to intervene if they had any reason to suspect the passenger.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm not a ticket inspector, however, I have travelled enough by trains myself to know that in this instance, the guard would most likely get the British Transport Police (BTP) to intervene if they had any reason to suspect the passenger.

What would the BTP be able to do?

 

[Fare-Cop]

A passenger gets on a train without a ticket, means of payment or any form of identification. A member of the train operator's staff checks tickets and comes to the passenger. The passenger won't show a ticket, won't say where they got on, and won't pay for a new ticket. In fact, they don't say anything at all.

Section 5.2 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) makes the scenario that you have described an arrestable offence, even for the member of rail staff. It is commonly known as 'the 3 Fs'

1. Fail to show a valid ticket
2. Fail to pay the fare if asked (it has been ruled that you cannot give what you do not have and therefore the offence is made out by default.)
3 Fail to give your name and address if asked.

In practice, revenue inspectors these days are generally instructed that, although they do have that authority under the said Act, they ought not attempt to make the arrest themselves, but as JDi says, will call BTP to meet the train at the next convenient point. If BTP are not able to attend it isn't unknown for Home Office Police to attend instead.

Faced with a person who fails all three points by refusing or failing to speak, Police of whichever force, will have more serious concerns than a rail ticket and will ultimately do all that they can to identify that person.

 

[JamesRowden]

I witnessed a similar scenario on a Hastings to London Charing Cross service. The guard asked a child who was traveling alone to show his ticket. The child said that he didn't have a ticket and had no money to buy one. The guard told the child to either pay for a ticket or get off at Frant the next station, or he would call the British Transport Police (BTP) to be ready for the child at Tunbridge Wells the station after Frant. The child didn't pay or get off at Frant. The guard came back to the child after leaving Frant and the child again refused to pay, and subsequently the guard called the BTP to be ready for the child at Tunbridge Wells. When we arrived at Tunbridge Wells the guard walked down the platform after opening the doors. The child sat in his seat for about 30 seconds after the doors opened and then walked off the train. I didn't see or hear any evidence after that point to indicate what happened with regards to the child.