Interview Under Caution with vulnerable adult

Interview Under Caution Query: if a vulnerable adult was stopped, would it be impossible for them to be interviewed without an appropriate adult and perhaps assessment from a doctor that they are interviewed if PACE is to be followed correctly? Likewise could it be that in the absence of PACE being followed correctly by an RPI then any evidence obtained is inadmissible in court?

It depends how you are defining "vulnerable" - would the staff know the person was vulnerable?

Vulnerable adult as defined in code C of PACE.

And would the staff know or reasonably suspect the person was vulnerable?

Had a brief look at Code C and it is explicit in that it relates to police officers detaining someone, which would not apply in the OP's case.

So my question comes down to this, is RPI's are meant to be trained in and carry out interviews according to PACE then if the person being interviewed is a vulnerable adult and they are interviewed without an appropriate adult (or do not understand the caution or indeed the questions being put to them) then would that make any evidence gathered by the RPI inadmissible in court?

Failing to follow PACE codes does not make the interview inadmissible in itself. Rather, it would give cause for the interview to be excluded under s.78 PACE if the court rule that the evidence was obtained unfairly (which is the point of the codes).

I would suggest that a court would be likely to exclude an interview if an appropriate adult was required but not used. However, depending on the other evidence available, this may not be fatal to a prosecution.

gray1404 said:

So my question comes down to this, is RPI's are meant to be trained in and carry out interviews according to PACE then if the person being interviewed is a vulnerable adult and they are interviewed without an appropriate adult (or do not understand the caution or indeed the questions being put to them) then would that make any evidence gathered by the RPI inadmissible in court?

Click to expand...

I think the more accurate question you should be asking is whether the 'vulnerable adult' is actually capable of travelling by train alone, as the kind of questions asked by an RPI in a simple ticketing matter is not exactly complex and anything more serious is likely to be a sign in itself that they aren't complex. A mental disorder (as they are referred to in PACE) is not an excuse to avoid complying with the law and it is quite clear that RPIs are usually limited to the resources on the train therefore I would argue it is quite reasonable for them to assume that anyone travelling alone is capable of answering their quite basic questions as to not paying and anyone who needs to be treated as a vulnerable adult would be travelling with a carer (either a family member or professional.(

Qwerty133 said:

I think the more accurate question you should be asking is whether the 'vulnerable adult' is actually capable of travelling by train alone, as the kind of questions asked by an RPI in a simple ticketing matter is not exactly complex and anything more serious is likely to be a sign in itself that they aren't complex. A mental disorder (as they are referred to in PACE) is not an excuse to avoid complying with the law and it is quite clear that RPIs are usually limited to the resources on the train therefore I would argue it is quite reasonable for them to assume that anyone travelling alone is capable of answering their quite basic questions as to not paying and anyone who needs to be treated as a vulnerable adult would be travelling with a carer (either a family member or professional.(

Click to expand...

I agree. At the end of the day staff aren’t doctors and certainly aren’t qualified to assess whether somebody is vulnerable in terms of mental health. If there are concerns for welfare and the person is travelling alone, or if they are of clear mental ill-health, then the member of staff has a duty of care, which should usually be passed to the police.

This reply is based on my experience as a parent of an Autistic young man quite capable of independent travel
For him rail travel is a normal but sometimes stressful in unusual ways.
As with all of us situations and circumstances can gang up on us to make travel that much more stressful and a reaction could be 'unusual'.
Before a situation jumps from being an 'unusual' problem to a "the duty of care" Police issue, can we all be a bit careful.
Please, if rail staff are ever worried about dealing with these issues and feel they will be blamed, please protect yourself by recording the events on your phone. No employer, court or relative will take action if you have tried your best.
Staff and public nowadays are much more aware of such conditions as Autism and its often because of real situations they have dealt with and usually all that is needed is calm.
Often another member of staff or a member of public can be very helpful -not interference- helpful.


In our situation I encourage him to show his disability bus pass (not entitled to a rail one) and a card which asks the " Railway Staff" to patient and understanding and to contact me. Never needed, but it is a reassurance. EMT (Sheffield) are very good at providing an appropriate level of support and advice-thanks. They provided a link to a printable card scheme. I know other TOCs have similar schemes.
He cannot lie but he can be bamboozled.

Unfortunately the worst thing to happen is when the "massed bands of the revenue protection teams" descend. Can we please have barriers in Sheffield?

Ooops forgot about the Manchester Piccadilly (bridge above) platform 13 and 14 revenue people- unbelievable. Thank you to the two off duty "Virgin" staff for sorting them out.

Don't let this detract from the level kindness, help and offers of support from rail staff, which has become the norm.

unlevel42 said:

In our situation I encourage him to show his disability bus pass (not entitled to a rail one)

Click to expand...

This shocked me as I had mistakenly assumed ineligibility for a driving licence would be an entitlement to a railcard. That only applies to those with epilepsy. There are plenty of other people not entitled to hold a license on medical grounds who should be able to get the railcard; they don’t all get PIP etc. I wouldn't want to include those ineligible following driving offences.

At the other extremes anyone with a hearing aid is eligible. That seems over generous to me.

This scheme is as bad as the bizarre prescription exemption scheme.

Marton said:

At the other extremes anyone with a hearing aid is eligible. That seems over generous to me.

This scheme is as bad as the bizarre prescription exemption scheme.

Click to expand...

As someone who has a Disabled Rail Card because of exactly that reason, I suggest that you have no concept or experience of the difficulties, and sometimes embarrassment being unable to hear, especially in noisy and crowded situations like railway trains and stations. Consider yourself lucky that you are not disabled in that way, and perhaps think about how YOU would cope with imperfect hearing.

Llanigraham said:

As someone who has a Disabled Rail Card because of exactly that reason, I suggest that you have no concept or experience of the difficulties, and sometimes embarrassment being unable to hear, especially in noisy and crowded situations like railway trains and stations. Consider yourself lucky that you are not disabled in that way, and perhaps think about how YOU would cope with imperfect hearing.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have one for the same reason. People who've met me at forum meets can attest to just how difficult it is for me to hear when there's any noise in the room. If it wasn't for the discount, I'm not sure how much if any I would travel by train. In fact, issuing a Railcard to me probably earns the railway money. Access to rail travel for disabled people has improved and anything they can do to make it easier, I welcome.

Marton said:

At the other extremes anyone with a hearing aid is eligible. That seems over generous to me.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that? Hearing loss is a disability. It's bad enough for those with normal hearing to hear in noisy situations; what do you think it's like for those who are hearing impaired!?

Hearing in noise becomes more of a problem as one gets older as the filtering systems in the brain don't work as effectively

Llanigraham said:

As someone who has a Disabled Rail Card because of exactly that reason, I suggest that you have no concept or experience of the difficulties, and sometimes embarrassment being unable to hear, especially in noisy and crowded situations like railway trains and stations. Consider yourself lucky that you are not disabled in that way, and perhaps think about how YOU would cope with imperfect hearing.

Click to expand...

To be fair to Marton, I don't think (s)he was saying that people shouldn't be eligible for a railcard due to problems with hearing, just that it seems a bit odd that someone can be severely physically challenged and not be entitled to a railcard, where another person who has 10% hearing loss in one ear would be. The degree of physical impairment is a consideration when determining eligibility for the railcard, but almost any degree of auditory impairment counts.

I know someone whose hearing didn't even necessitate wearing a hearing aid but got the DSB railcard anyway.

robert7111a said:

Why do you think that? Hearing loss is a disability. It's bad enough for those with normal hearing to hear in noisy situations; what do you think it's like for those who are hearing impaired!?

Hearing in noise becomes more of a problem as one gets older as the filtering systems in the brain don't work as effectively

Click to expand...

I have mild hearing loss and wouldn't expect any special treatment. In fact my hearing aids have a setting which can reduce the background noise a little and focus more on the person speaking to you. Tried this out wuth the audiologist at the fitting appointment and it worked as expected but never tried it in the big wide world. Never had a need to.

Marton said:

This shocked me as I had mistakenly assumed ineligibility for a driving licence would be an entitlement to a railcard. That only applies to those with epilepsy. There are plenty of other people not entitled to hold a license on medical grounds who should be able to get the railcard; they don’t all get PIP etc. I wouldn't want to include those ineligible following driving offences.

At the other extremes anyone with a hearing aid is eligible. That seems over generous to me.

This scheme is as bad as the bizarre prescription exemption scheme.

Click to expand...

Many people with autism have driving licences so I would imagine that it would be the learning disability category that the majority of autistic bus pass holders use to qualify (while autism is not a learning disability in itself and many people diagnosed with it are of average and above average intelligence a large proportion of autistic people also have a learning disability which would qualify).

Marton said:

This shocked me as I had mistakenly assumed ineligibility for a driving licence would be an entitlement to a railcard. That only applies to those with epilepsy. There are plenty of other people not entitled to hold a license on medical grounds who should be able to get the railcard; they don’t all get PIP etc. I wouldn't want to include those ineligible following driving offences.

At the other extremes anyone with a hearing aid is eligible. That seems over generous to me.

This scheme is as bad as the bizarre prescription exemption scheme.

Click to expand...

Really? That seems surprising. I use two of them but would never even consider myself eligible for any disability provision!

In our case the ENCTS Disabled bus pass is essential and the the Disabled Railcard pointless. He would be quite happy to pay for it.

An autistic person who needs to juggle monies, cards, destinations on a journey involving several buses/trams could easily be suject to a great deal of stress as the events happen quickly. This entitles an ENCTS Disability card.
In our case rail travel is easy and stress free as it is A to B and there is no "rush" so having a Railcard makes no difference.
With the advent of Smartphones and Smartcards on buses etc. you would think life would be easier but the opposite is the case. You are still " juggling" things and when they go wrong, they go really go wrong and although they rarely do, on those occasions things go downhill fast. There is nothing easier than one card at the Driver if the reader does not work.

PS The criteria for entitlement for a Disabled Bus pass differ between Councils/PTEs.The interpretation (on which most claims are based)of the Disability Act also varies. Applications are often accepted on appeal- ask an expert to do it for you.
The Railcard criteria are different and national and focuses on other needs.