Legality of detaining a passenger

navdra said:

Just adding my 2 cents here...

(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.

This legislation is nearly 130 years old, and doesn't define the meaning of detain. I don't know but I am going to guess that this does not mean the application of force, but merely a request for the person to remain until police arrive.

As has been covered PCSO's have a power to detain, using force, and this is a power granted under legislation.

Even police officers don't have the power to detain, except under a set of limited circumstances. Police officers can merely request that a person remains until details have been ascertained. But that person does not have to remain. If they chose to leave then technically they are free to do so, but then a power of arrest becomes available due to a necessity criteria becoming valid (namely to ascertain their name and address, prevent their disappearance). And Police are granted use of force from Sec 117 of PACE, Sec 3 of Criminal Law Act and Common law, to effect the arrest.

The few exceptions where a police officer can detain are under Sec 1, Sec 60 of PACE, Sec 23 of the Misuse of Drugs act and Sec 44 Terrorism Act (there may be others that I can't recall)

So I don't believe a member of rail staff has any powers, except to politely ask a person to remain.

Click to expand...

That’s not correct. I’m interested to know where your train of thought came from? Lots of legislation is 100s of years old, but it doesn’t make it any less enforceable.

The very definition of the word “detain” indicates force may be used if necessary. Police have the power to detain also, under all manner of separate legislation. If somebody refuses to supply their name and address after being suspected of an offence, the police may arrest that person, which requires them being detained in the first instance.

S5 RRA states in black and white that a railway official can detain for, albeit very limit, reason. Simply saying to somebody, “Can I have your name and address please?” Doesn’t constitute detention, but saying to somebody, “if you refuse to supply your name and address, I’ll keep you here until you do”, does.

PermitToTravel said:

Arrest and detain are synonyms.

Click to expand...

Not under legislation

Stigy said:

That’s not correct. I’m interested to know where your train of thought came from? Lots of legislation is 100s of years old, but it doesn’t make it any less enforceable.

The very definition of the word “detain” indicates force may be used if necessary. Police have the power to detain also, under all manner of separate legislation. If somebody refuses to supply their name and address after being suspected of an offence, the police may arrest that person, which requires them being detained in the first instance.

S5 RRA states in black and white that a railway official can detain for, albeit very limit, reason. Simply saying to somebody, “Can I have your name and address please?” Doesn’t constitute detention, but saying to somebody, “if you refuse to supply your name and address, I’ll keep you here until you do”, does.

Click to expand...

My explanation between detain and arrest has been clearly explained. A police officer can detain in only a certain set of very limited circumstances, and these are in general to search a person, and under these circumstances a person has to be by law informed that they are being DETAINED for the purposes of a search. Police officers don't detain someone when carrying out an initial enquiry, the person remains under their own free will. Its a concept misunderstood by members of the public.

For example consider the situation where your travelling member of the public has a valid ticket, he or she is late for an appointment, police are present, maybe part of a revenue block, for whatever reason the MOP doesn't want to remain and show the ticket or gives details, there is no legalisation that a police officer can invoke to compel the MOP to remain and a police officer cannot use any type of force to compel them or in your words detain them. If a police officer were to use any type of force to prevent them leaving then that would be an assault.

The only option is for the police officer to arrest on the grounds of suspicion of an offence and then under sec 117 of PACE force is available to the officer to effect the arrest. If an arrest is made and it becomes immediately apparent that the MOP has committed no offences or the necessity for the arrest has passed the MOP would be de-arrested.

That is the technical and legal process that a police officer must adhere to. The practicalities on the street might be somewhat different, but if it went very wrong and that process was not followed then the officer has opened himself up to misconduct allegations.

As stated I have only assumed that detain in the RoRA legislation covers a request to remain and does not cover use of force, because as a police officer my use of force has to be justified and legislation covers me for the use of force. And just going back to a police officer searching a person for stolen articles, as an example. The act allows that the person be legally detained for the purposes of a search, the act does not allow the use of force, even though he or she may be detained. The use of force is granted under Sec 117 of PACE.

Stigy said:

That’s not correct. I’m interested to know where your train of thought came from? Lots of legislation is 100s of years old, but it doesn’t make it any less enforceable.

Click to expand...

I mentioned the age of the act as I am in no doubt that when originally drafted "detain" allowed the use of force. That was a Victorian era when, legally a man could rape his wife, a headmaster cane his pupil, a police officer to feel someones collar without having any grounds and a solider could be executed for desertion.

Unless there is a legal definition of detain (for the act), and I don't know, if tested in court today, the word detain for a member of rail staff will reduce to not opening a barrier, standing in the way of the exit, not unlocking a door etc. But again this is just my educated guess on the matter.

navdra said:

Not under legislation


My explanation between detain and arrest has been clearly explained. A police officer can detain in only a certain set of very limited circumstances, and these are in general to search a person, and under these circumstances a person has to be by law informed that they are being DETAINED for the purposes of a search. Police officers don't detain someone when carrying out an initial enquiry, the person remains under their own free will. Its a concept misunderstood by members of the public.

For example consider the situation where your travelling member of the public has a valid ticket, he or she is late for an appointment, police are present, maybe part of a revenue block, for whatever reason the MOP doesn't want to remain and show the ticket or gives details, there is no legalisation that a police officer can invoke to compel the MOP to remain and a police officer cannot use any type of force to compel them or in your words detain them. If a police officer were to use any type of force to prevent them leaving then that would be an assault

Click to expand...

If a police officer requires somebody’s name and address for whatever reason and said person refuses, that’s the nessesity sorted. If one can’t account for themselves after being suspected of committing an offence, they need to ‘come in’ as it’s the only way to deal with said suspected offence. The Railway Byelaws also take this in to account....how is somebody supposed to be dealt with who refuses details if not arrested? I would hazard a guess you’re not a Police Officer? Not wanting to sound rude, but you don’t seem to have much of a grasp on reality and the Daily Mail woukdbhave a field day with a Police Officer portraying that method of thinking.

Regarding detention, the RRA 1889 speaks for itself in that “....may be detained until he can be brought before some justice” or words to that effect. I know you will say it’s how you interpret it, but it really can’t be any clearer, can it?

Stigy, I don't think you have read my posts clearly. Read them again. My posts are specifically about the concept of DETAINED as opposed to ARRESTED.

If you still think I am incorrect please tell me the legislation that allows a police officer to detain a member of public, before an arrest. (excluding the acts related to person searches that I have mentioned).

navdra said:

Stigy, I don't think you have read my posts clearly. Read them again. My posts are specifically about the concept of DETAINED as opposed to ARRESTED.

If you still think I am incorrect please tell me the legislation that allows a police officer to detain a member of public, before an arrest. (excluding the acts related to person searches that I have mentioned).

Click to expand...

I have read your posts. I was just referring to your paragraph about the passenger who didn’t want to show their ticket. Apologies if this was unclear.

Moving back to detaining a suspect, it all comes down to their details, and for a Police Officer specifically, if they need to report someone on the street to avoid their arrest (as an example), then yes, they are detained whilst giving their details by default, surely? With a Police Officer again, if it becomes evident that he or she is not going to be given details, then it becomes an arrest. They are only free to leave once the suspect has given details, as all one legally has to give us their name and address.

As for the RRA, what you’ve said just reinforces the fact that staff can indeed detain a suspect. Allowing them to refuse details and walk off is not detaining someone.

Stigy said:

I have read your posts. I was just referring to your paragraph about the passenger who didn’t want to show their ticket. Apologies if this was unclear.

Moving back to detaining a suspect, it all comes down to their details, and for a Police Officer specifically, if they need to report someone on the street to avoid their arrest (as an example), then yes, they are detained whilst giving their details by default, surely? With a Police Officer again, if it becomes evident that he or she is not going to be given details, then it becomes an arrest. They are only free to leave once the suspect has given details, as all one legally has to give us their name and address.

As for the RRA, what you’ve said just reinforces the fact that staff can indeed detain a suspect. Allowing them to refuse details and walk off is not detaining someone.

Click to expand...

No they are not detained, they are remaining on their own free will and giving their details freely. And logically from that it infers they could easily just walk away and refuse to give details and it lots of cases they do exactly that and hence under those scenarios they are arrested. There is no specific power to detain.

We are taking about semantics. I discussed the concept from a policing perspective to highlight that there is no legal power to detain (except for searches, detained under Mental Health Act), and hence the concept of use of force is only valid when an officer executes an arrest (again with those few exceptions). It would logically extrapolate, that since police are constrained in the use of force so would members of rail staff under RoRA and detain will not sanction the use of force.

I am not disputing that staff can detain, it is clear in the legislation. I am specifically arguing that I highly doubt, under today's interpretation of detain, force is sanctioned.

I think we are agreeing in general.

Does the requirement to give your name and address give the officer or servant the right to demand to see proof of that name and address? Or is giving your name and address as Mickey Mouse, Disneyland, Florida sufficient to meet the requirements of the RoRA

dcbwhaley said:

Does the requirement to give your name and address give the officer or servant the right to demand to see proof of that name and address? Or is giving your name and address as Mickey Mouse, Disneyland, Florida sufficient to meet the requirements of the RoRA

Click to expand...

This is one area that RoRA doesn't address but which I imagima there might be some case law on.

dcbwhaley said:

Does the requirement to give your name and address give the officer or servant the right to demand to see proof of that name and address? Or is giving your name and address as Mickey Mouse, Disneyland, Florida sufficient to meet the requirements of the RoRA

Click to expand...

There’s no requirement to have to be able to prove your name and address details, but it’s probably fair to say that Mickey Mouse would be incorrect and as such, would be covered by the RRA if the accompanying offence was ticket related. Alternatively, you could go down the route of failing to supply a name and or address contrary to Railway Byelaw 23?

Personally, I’d tell them to grow up and stop taking the piss unless they want me to obtain there details the long, inconvenient way

navdra said:

I think we are agreeing in general.

Click to expand...

I think that’s a good place to leave it

Stigy said:

There’s no requirement to have to be able to prove your name and address details, but it’s probably fair to say that Mickey Mouse would be incorrect and as such, would be covered by the RRA if the accompanying offence was ticket related. Alternatively, you could go down the route of failing to supply a name and or address contrary to Railway Byelaw 23?

Personally, I’d tell them to grow up and stop taking the piss unless they want me to obtain there details the long, inconvenient way

Click to expand...

Mickey Mouse is an obvious piss take. But Jack Strachey. 18 Gt Northern Street LS20 0PQ would be quite feasible. The point I am making is that the requirement to give your name and address is pointless if it cannot be verified.

There is no requirement to carry ID to prove your name or address.

There is a requirement to give your name and address to an official of the railway. They can check these details against various databases, the electoral role for example. Giving a false name and address is a criminal offence.

dcbwhaley said:

Mickey Mouse is an obvious piss take. But Jack Strachey. 18 Gt Northern Street LS20 0PQ would be quite feasible. The point I am making is that the requirement to give your name and address is pointless if it cannot be verified.

Click to expand...

As has been said, just because there’s no requirement for ID doesn’t mean staff can’t verify details. I’ll always ask for ID and the amount of people who say they don’t have any is unrealistically high. I won’t push too hard for ID as long as my instinct is telling me they’re being honest. If I see a driving licenece poking out of a wallet and they tell me they have no ID I’ll ask about that, likewise I’ll ask if they have anything at all with their name on at least (bank card etc). If they refuse to show me their driving licence after I’ve seen it poking out, I’ll take what address the give me but be extra cautious with it.

Sometimes you have to just take what you’ve got. If somebody gives me a credible name and address but there’s no registration there or anything to suggest previous dealings, I’m not going to disbelieve them, unless I’ve dealt with them before and I actually know where they live if course

Hadders said:

There is no requirement to carry ID to prove your name or address.

There is a requirement to give your name and address to an official of the railway. They can check these details against various databases, the electoral role for example. Giving a false name and address is a criminal offence.

Click to expand...

The electoral roll is not foolproof: it is only updated twice a year and so if someone moves just after the cutoff date for one roll update, it could take just under six months for their new address to be 'on the system' (probably even longer than that, as I'd be surprised if the rail industry's method of access is instantly up to date with each revision).

Giving the old address would mean it would come back as an OK on the check. But giving that old address would mean any correspondence would not be received, unless the recipient had set up mail redirection (which not everyone does). Giving the new address would mean any correspondence would be received, but it would fail the check.

And then there's the entire issue of overseas residents: I don't suppose the TOCs' systems even make any attempt to verify overseas addresses. In fact, just what is the process for dealing with ticketing irregularities committed by overseas residents?!

ForTheLoveOf said:

Giving the new address would mean any correspondence would be received, but it would fail the check.

Click to expand...

Which would likely go something like this:
"And what's your address?"
" 18 Gt Northern Street LS20 0PQ"
"Hmm... nothing coming up there."
"Oh, I moved a couple months ago - it used to be..."

najaB said:

Which would likely go something like this:
"And what's your address?"
" 18 Gt Northern Street LS20 0PQ"
"Hmm... nothing coming up there."
"Oh, I moved a couple months ago - it used to be..."

Click to expand...

Not much use either way, as you could simply give any old address. I don't hold much for electoral register checks. For people who are settled and who own their own property, perhaps it works. But for many younger passengers it often won't work, as they will likely be renting and moving fairly frequently.

ForTheLoveOf said:

I don't hold much for electoral register checks. For people who are settled and who own their own property, perhaps it works. But for many younger passengers it often won't work, as they will likely be renting and moving fairly frequently.

Click to expand...

The electoral roll is just one of several databases that can be consulted. In any case, this is a problem that would be non-existent if people would just get over the irrational objection to standardised, universal ID documents. While they wouldn't confirm address, they would confirm ID beyond reasonable doubt.

ForTheLoveOf said:

Not much use either way, as you could simply give any old address. I don't hold much for electoral register checks. For people who are settled and who own their own property, perhaps it works. But for many younger passengers it often won't work, as they will likely be renting and moving fairly frequently.

Click to expand...

najaB said:

The electoral roll is just one of several databases that can be consulted. In any case, this is a problem that would be non-existent if people would just get over the irrational objection to standardised, universal ID documents. While they wouldn't confirm address, they would confirm ID beyond reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

I no longer work in Revenue (I only did a short stint), however with today's transient populations in large cities, I found that names and addresses did not check out more often than they did, and you just had to take people's word for it. The fact that 90 out of 100 Penalty fares eventually got paid makes me assume that generally people are honest about where they reside.

Ital is one company that provides this service to some transport operators, you can read more about how they describe their service as operating here: https://www.ital-uk.com/enforcement-solutions/name-address-verification/

ITAL has developed an effective system for transport operators which not only checks the validity of names and addresses against the electoral role, but also taps into over four years’ of shared transport company intelligence to determine if the passengers is a repeat offender. The ITAL Name and Verification Service can flag up any previous fines, penalties or prosecutions, equipping the transport worker to take swift action.

The Name and Address Verification Service from ITAL delivers:

• Staffed help desk services for when direct assistance is required
• ‘Wild keys’ which can check against part address or name information. The provision of post codes is not necessary
• Shared passenger history information from all transport companies enabling speedy identification of persistent offenders
• Choice of next step for the company official who, with all necessary information to hand, can decide how to proceed – penalty fare, unpaid fare, MG11, yellow card etc

Click to expand...

dcbwhaley said:

Mickey Mouse is an obvious piss take. But Jack Strachey. 18 Gt Northern Street LS20 0PQ would be quite feasible. The point I am making is that the requirement to give your name and address is pointless if it cannot be verified.

Click to expand...

If only life were that simple. I know of someone, for example, whose actual legal name is James Bond.

CharlieSpotted said:

If only life were that simple. I know of someone, for example, whose actual legal name is James Bond.

Click to expand...

The simple answer is to give the name and address of someone you really dislike and cause him some aggro

Do any revenue people have bodycams?
That plus a ‘giving a false address escalates this to a criminal offence’ would change some minds.

dcbwhaley said:

The simple answer is to give the name and address of someone you really dislike and cause him some aggro

Click to expand...

Judging by some of the posts we see on here that is actually happening

Meerkat said:

Do any revenue people have bodycams?
That plus a ‘giving a false address escalates this to a criminal offence’ would change some minds.

Click to expand...

I’m not Revenue but do have a body cam. Body worn video is usually only activated when there’s a risk of assault, so wouldn’t work in these cases.

Stigy said:

Body worn video is usually only activated when there’s a risk of assault, so wouldn’t work in these cases.

Click to expand...

Is that a rule, or just practise?
Would be quite handy...”just need your name and address, and a quick smile for the camera please”

Stigy said:

Body worn video is usually only activated when there’s a risk of assault, so wouldn’t work in these cases.

Click to expand...

Is it easy for the punters to know when its been activated? Just drawing attention to the presence of a camera (maybe a slight position adjustment while asking questions) might be enough to keep them honest.

Meerkat said:

Is that a rule, or just practise?
Would be quite handy...”just need your name and address, and a quick smile for the camera please”

Click to expand...

You'd need to set out what your legal basis for taking the photo are. There six possible bases under the GDPR, but the obvious ones like legal contract, and consent are out. Legitimate interests is going to be very questionable, given it has to be balanced against the data subject's right to privacy. That doesn't leave many options. Certainly I would never allow a RPI to take a picture of my face, as a matter of principle. If they were recording video I would also require them to turn that off before I speak to them. It's an invasion of privacy in my eyes.

ForTheLoveOf said:

It's an invasion of privacy in my eyes.

Click to expand...

One has no reasonable expectation of privacy while out in a public area.

Legitimate interests is likely to succeed as a TOC has a clear legitimate interest in preventing, detecting, and deterring fare evasion.

najaB said:

Is it easy for the punters to know when its been activated? Just drawing attention to the presence of a camera (maybe a slight position adjustment while asking questions) might be enough to keep them honest.

Click to expand...

We have a pre-record function which I certainly keep activated at all times (it basically records on a 30-second loop without audio so if an attack occurs you have the first few seconds of footage before you physically activate the camera). This blue light usually makes people think they’re being recorded.

As a TOC, our policy is that it should be overt so as to deter assaults. Fare evasion doesn’t come in to the equation. We also have to tell people they are being recorded when they are.