Consequences of drinking wine or beer on a 'dry train'

[Murph]

Q-have you got any alcohol?
A-no

Q-can I look in your bag?

Not an unlikely scenario.

You then come on here for help and you get a barrage of why did you lie to a railway person

Do remind me, which byelaw enables them to search a bag? I see nothing in the byelaws which requires you to submit to any form of search. If it's a closed bag with no obvious signs of alcohol externally, "No, not a chance!" seems like a reasonable response to the second question if it's coming from railway staff. I certainly would not be automatically inclined to permit any speculative search of my person or property by railway staff.

If it's being asked by a police officer, slightly trickier, but they still need reasonable grounds/suspicion for an involuntary search. (Hint, abuse of section 44 searches has attracted quite widespread criticism and bad PR, so they certainly shouldn't be using that to enforce alcohol.)

 

[jopsuk]

I was once asked if I was carrying alcohol at the gateline at Kings Cross, when all the intercity services were dry. But I was travelling to Cambridge. The local trains weren't dry.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Do remind me, which byelaw enables them to search a bag? I see nothing in the byelaws which requires you to submit to any form of search. If it's a closed bag with no obvious signs of alcohol externally, "No, not a chance!" seems like a reasonable response to the second question if it's coming from railway staff. I certainly would not be automatically inclined to permit any speculative search of my person or property by railway staff.

If it's being asked by a police officer, slightly trickier, but they still need reasonable grounds/suspicion for an involuntary search. (Hint, abuse of section 44 searches has attracted quite widespread criticism and bad PR, so they certainly shouldn't be using that to enforce alcohol.)

Wouldn't they just say the grounds are that it is a dry train and that you have refused to co-operate therefore are suspicious.

 

[Murph]

Wouldn't they just say the grounds are that it is a dry train and that you have refused to co-operate therefore are suspicious.

Somewhat backwards logic there, in my opinion. Not consenting to something which you are not required to consent to, and is an abnormal and intrusive request doesn't seem like suspicious behaviour to me in a free country. It certainly does not grant any right to the railway staff to perform a search. Do you have any basis for that assertion, or are you just guessing/speculating?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Somewhat backwards logic there, in my opinion. Not consenting to something which you are not required to consent to, and is an abnormal and intrusive request doesn't seem like suspicious behaviour to me in a free country. It certainly does not grant any right to the railway staff to perform a search. Do you have any basis for that assertion, or are you just guessing/speculating?

I've witnessed some of the logic/reasoning of police officers. So yes can quite often be backward and very frustrating however they have the power but can often lack common sense or a sense of perspective.

 

[najaB]

Wouldn't they just say the grounds are that it is a dry train and that you have refused to co-operate therefore are suspicious.

But how was the search reasonable and justified in the first place?

Edit: On reflection, this is irrelevant. (Post 43)

 

[A-driver]

Lets get some perspective here, there are a limited number of staff and police trying to quickly board trains and remove any alcohol being smuggled on by some of the hundreds of passengers walking down the platform. No way will they ever start searching suitcases. And the platform presence is only half of it anyway as the police will then patrol onboard so if anyone does smuggle it on and drink it they will have it removed on the train.

You can argue all the 'what ifs' but in reality consider their ultimate goal here and you see that drink football hooligans are their target here, no one else.

 

[VauxhallandI]

But how was the search reasonable and justified in the first place?

It's not. Since when did the police always stick to the letter of the law.

I've even read stories on here of RPi's asking for more than they are entitled too.

Do you think it is out of the realms of possibility that the scenario wouldn't escalate?

- You have no right to search my bag

- Oh yes what are you hiding? I have reasonable grounds to search you now.

You really need to be versed with the ins and outs to stand your ground. Otherwise you could be digging a bigger hole for yourself, this is what is relied upon.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I once recall passing through Waverley on a Rugby Day when many trains were dry and BTP very Active. I had several bottles of COOP Own Branded Sparcling Fruit Juice in a backpack and got a good chuckle when a group of 3 officers stopped me on the way to the pub for a swift half prior to my (non dry) departure down the WCML and when requested opened my bag to show the contents giving the plods rather embarrased stutters!↲

 

[theboywho]

What time do I need to catch this train?

If it was a pleasant experience I would relay the details. They save love is blind...........must be deaf and dumb too judging by that train

 

[Llanigraham]

Do remind me, which byelaw enables them to search a bag? I see nothing in the byelaws which requires you to submit to any form of search. If it's a closed bag with no obvious signs of alcohol externally, "No, not a chance!" seems like a reasonable response to the second question if it's coming from railway staff. I certainly would not be automatically inclined to permit any speculative search of my person or property by railway staff.

If it's being asked by a police officer, slightly trickier, but they still need reasonable grounds/suspicion for an involuntary search. (Hint, abuse of section 44 searches has attracted quite widespread criticism and bad PR, so they certainly shouldn't be using that to enforce alcohol.)

And I suggest that both could quite legitimately say you couldn't travel!

 

[PermitToTravel]

It's the same as searches for knives or drugs on entrance to football stadia or high schools. You can say no to the search, but they won't let you in.

 

[najaB]

And I suggest that both could quite legitimately say you couldn't travel!

I had another look to remind myself exactly what Byelaw 4.3 says:

Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway, or has with him intoxicating liquor contrary to Byelaw 4(2), an authorised person may:
(i) require him to leave the railway..."

So the whole 'right to search' is a bit of a red herring.

 

[First class]

Section 121 Railways Act 1993?

(1)For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to give an instruction to any person, or of ascertaining whether any instruction or enforcement notice is being or has been complied with, a person authorised for the purpose by the Secretary of State in writing (in this section referred to as “an authorised person”) shall have power, on production (if required) of his credentials, to inspect any relevant asset.

(2)An authorised person inspecting a relevant asset under subsection (1) above shall have power—
(a)to subject any property found by him on or in the relevant asset, or any apparatus or equipment installed in the relevant asset, to such tests as he considers necessary for the purpose for which the inspection is carried out;
(b)to take such steps as he considers necessary for that purpose—
(i)to ascertain what practices or procedures are being followed in relation to security; or
(ii)to test the effectiveness of any practice or procedure relating to security; or
(c)to require the owner or operator of the relevant asset to furnish to him such information as the authorised person considers necessary for that purpose;


This power is normally used to plant the "fake" devices etc to test terrorism/security reactions, but any luggage/belongings etc within a railway asset could lawfully be inspected IMO, by an authorised person.

 

[PermitToTravel]

It doesn't need any primary legislation. The railway is private land and if the owner doesn't want you there, you're trespassing.

 

[island]

Do remind me, which byelaw enables them to search a bag? I see nothing in the byelaws which requires you to submit to any form of search. If it's a closed bag with no obvious signs of alcohol externally, "No, not a chance!" seems like a reasonable response to the second question if it's coming from railway staff. I certainly would not be automatically inclined to permit any speculative search of my person or property by railway staff.

If it's being asked by a police officer, slightly trickier, but they still need reasonable grounds/suspicion for an involuntary search. (Hint, abuse of section 44 searches has attracted quite widespread criticism and bad PR, so they certainly shouldn't be using that to enforce alcohol.)

The railway is private property. You do not have to consent to a search of your bag, and the railway does not have to allow you to remain on its premises and trains.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It doesn't need any primary legislation. The railway is private land and if the owner doesn't want you there, you're trespassing.

I don't disagree, but there has been a strong trend for the past 20 years or so to duplicate and/or replace many of the provisions in Common Law (including Trespass) with new statutes. Many find the new statutes to be simpler to apply to specific situations, and many find the old provisions rooted in principles which are well illustrated in Case Law.
Whatever one's opinions, we now tend to have multiple offences for all manner of activities. I don't see this situation changing or becoming clearer anytime soon.

 

[Wolfie]

I've witnessed some of the logic/reasoning of police officers. So yes can quite often be backward and very frustrating however they have the power but can often lack common sense or a sense of perspective.

my italics

They think they have the power. A string of litigation against the police over various scenarios, which have led to multiple 5-figure payouts, suggests that the Courts often do not agree...

 

[WelshBluebird]

After reading this thread, was I mistaken for thinking dry trains just meant you couldn't drink on them then? Because all this talk about searching bags implies you can't even carry unopened alcohol that you have no intention of drinking on the train.

 

[cool110]

Yes, you can't carry any alcohol on a dry train, however the blanket bans by TfL and Merseyrail do allow carrying unopened containers.

 

[talltim]

One train that should be 'dry' but currently isn't is the 1552 Aberdeen to Kings Cross - there's almost always rig workers heading home after not having had a drop of alcohol (and in some cases seeing womenfolk) for two or three weeks.

By that logic, perhaps they should ban women on that train too...

 

[Murph]

The railway is private property. You do not have to consent to a search of your bag, and the railway does not have to allow you to remain on its premises and trains.

Ok, so let's suppose railway staff request to search my closed bag which has no external signs of alcohol. I will calmly refuse that every time, as I'm simply not prepared to submit to what I see as an unlawful search and invasion of privacy. I won't have been acting in an unruly manner prior to them approaching me. If they choose to eject me from the railway, the next immediate step from me will be to start an audio recorder (if available), produce a pen and notebook, then say "Persuant to Railway Byelaw 24(3), I require you to produce your identification for my inspection", followed by asking them to state clearly the basis for asking me to leave. I will offer to drop the matter if they back down and allow me to travel, or leave if they insist. Letters of complaint would certainly follow if they did not back down, and that would be made clear to them at the time.

Byelaw 24(2) does allow removal from the railway, but pre-conditions have to be met. I do not believe that refusing a search would meet the requirements of 24(2). Byelaw 4 does not provide any power of search for alcohol. No other byelaw provides power of search.

That's just how I would handle it. I see searching of personal property by railway staff as being way beyond appropriate behaviour, other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. unattended or lost bags).

 

[221129]

Ok, so let's suppose railway staff request to search my closed bag which has no external signs of alcohol. I will calmly refuse that every time, as I'm simply not prepared to submit to what I see as an unlawful search and invasion of privacy. I won't have been acting in an unruly manner prior to them approaching me. If they choose to eject me from the railway, the next immediate step from me will be to start an audio recorder (if available), produce a pen and notebook, then say "Persuant to Railway Byelaw 24(3), I require you to produce your identification for my inspection", followed by asking them to state clearly the basis for asking me to leave. I will offer to drop the matter if they back down and allow me to travel, or leave if they insist. Letters of complaint would certainly follow if they did not back down, and that would be made clear to them at the time.

Byelaw 24(2) does allow removal from the railway, but pre-conditions have to be met. I do not believe that refusing a search would meet the requirements of 24(2). Byelaw 4 does not provide any power of search for alcohol. No other byelaw provides power of search.

That's just how I would handle it. I see searching of personal property by railway staff as being way beyond appropriate behaviour, other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. unattended or lost bags).

Then you would likely attract the attention of BTP...

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes, you can't carry any alcohol on a dry train, however the blanket bans by TfL and Merseyrail do allow carrying unopened containers.

I'd hope discretion would be used! I can just imagine being denied travel because I have done part of my weekly shop before boarding the train (something that I have done on occasion when returning from my girlfriends).

 

[Murph]

Then you would likely attract the attention of BTP...

Frankly, I'd be more than happy to talk to BTP in such a situation.

 

[duncanp]

Ok, so let's suppose railway staff request to search my closed bag which has no external signs of alcohol.

As has been stated earlier, the railway is private property, and there is certainly no law which says that they HAVE to allow either the consumption of possession of alcohol.

The railway is entitled to ban alcohol from its trains if it wants to, and they usually do so in specific circumstances, such as when a large number of football fans are travelling, or certain southbound trains from Aberdeen (eg the 09:52 to Kings Cross is dry until after Newcastle)

Your bag may not have any external signs of alcohol, but that does not mean that there is no alcohol inside. You may say that there is no alcohol inside, but how are railway staff supposed to know whether you are telling the truth? If they just accepted everyone's word for it, then the ban would become a joke and be pointless.

When you buy a train ticket, you agree to be bound by the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which include provision for making certain trains dry.

So you have a choice, either allow your bag to be searched or don't travel.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I see searching of personal property by railway staff as being way beyond appropriate behaviour, other than in exceptional circumstances . . . . .

Then you would likely attract the attention of BTP...

Frankly, I'd be more than happy to talk to BTP in such a situation.

Shouldn't be difficult. BTP Officers are often the people conducting the seaches.

 

[Murph]

So you have a choice, either allow your bag to be searched or don't travel.

I choose the third option which you omitted. Travel, obeying the rules and behaving in a civilised manner, but exercise my right to refuse all unlawful searches.

I stand by my previous position. Railway staff should not be asking to search any bag which does not show any external signs of containing alcohol. If someone smuggles some onboard and proceeds to consume it, they can be prosecuted for a breach of Byelaw 4, that's the appropriate way to deal with it, not searching people without good reason (and I do not accept that the train being declared as dry to be a valid reason to request a search, if that is the only reason for the request).

 

[island]

Ok, so let's suppose railway staff request to search my closed bag which has no external signs of alcohol. I will calmly refuse that every time, as I'm simply not prepared to submit to what I see as an unlawful search and invasion of privacy. I won't have been acting in an unruly manner prior to them approaching me. If they choose to eject me from the railway, the next immediate step from me will be to start an audio recorder (if available), produce a pen and notebook, then say "Persuant to Railway Byelaw 24(3), I require you to produce your identification for my inspection", followed by asking them to state clearly the basis for asking me to leave. I will offer to drop the matter if they back down and allow me to travel, or leave if they insist. Letters of complaint would certainly follow if they did not back down, and that would be made clear to them at the time.

Byelaw 24(2) does allow removal from the railway, but pre-conditions have to be met. I do not believe that refusing a search would meet the requirements of 24(2). Byelaw 4 does not provide any power of search for alcohol. No other byelaw provides power of search.

That's just how I would handle it. I see searching of personal property by railway staff as being way beyond appropriate behaviour, other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. unattended or lost bags).

Do let me know how you get on when you try this, and in particular whether you end up with a fine under section 5 of the Public Order Act (behaving in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress). You can be sure that your "third option" is not one that will be offered to you and the BTP will remove you (by force if necessary) if you kick up a fuss. The common law right to revoke an implied licence to be on private property is independent of any bylaws.

 

[Murph]

Do let me know how you get on when you try this, and in particular whether you end up with a fine under section 5 of the Public Order Act (behaving in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress). You can be sure that your "third option" is not one that will be offered to you and the BTP will remove you (by force if necessary) if you kick up a fuss. The common law right to revoke an implied licence to be on private property is independent of any bylaws.

Sorry, but that's frankly ridiculous. Calmly, politely, and quietly refusing to comply with a baseless request for a search is not going anywhere near S5. Requiring staff to produce identification doesn't go anywhere near it, it's right there in the Byelaws. Taking notes of a negative encounter and informing them that you will be taking the matter further if they don't back down doesn't go near S5. At no point have I suggested any behaviour which would reach S5 territory, or any other unlawful conduct.

The third option is most certainly available, and I would leave if lawfully required to do so. My objection to submitting to a search has nothing to do with wanting to smuggle alcohol onto a dry train, and everything to do with finding the concept of being searched while peacefully going about one's everyday business to be entirely abhorrent.

It's not so long ago that we fought a war at great cost to preserve the right to peacefully go about our day to day lives, amongst other things. Back then, we were fighting against an evil that included oppression via frequent demands to see papers, searching private property without good reason, etc.