Do RPIs have to give the PACE caution? If so, when?

[ForTheLoveOf]

I've just witnessed an RPI pass through the train I was on. One person hadn't bought a ticket, and so was sold a ticket by the TM, but the RPI asked them for their name and surname, though not their address. Then the RPI asked how often the person travelled on the train.

That was the direct order of what was said - the RPI didn't issue a PACE caution ('you do not have to say anything...' etc.) at all, just saying to the person 'Now, I'm sure, [name] I won't see you boarding again without a ticket'. The RPI had evidently noted all this, along with a description of the person, on their notebook.

If this were to go to Court - would the passenger's statement as to the frequency of their travel be inadmissible evidence due to the non-cautioning? I'm not familiar enough with PACE to be able to say. Or would it be enough for the RPI to give the caution after the name, address and travel was identified - or is it not required at all?

Thanks.

 

[Fare-Cop]

One person hadn't bought a ticket, and so was sold a ticket by the TM, but the RPI asked them for their name and surname, though not their address. Then the RPI asked how often the person travelled on the train.

The need to caution would be completely irrelevant in this instance. The traveller had been sold a ticket, so no direct prosecution would be envisaged.

It is not always necessary to caution. If there had been a facility to pay before the traveller boarded, then a breach of Byelaw 18 may be evident and staff are entitled to record the details of the traveller in those circumstances. Byelaw 23 clarifies this, but if a gentle warning is given, as outlined in FTLO post, then no prosecution will follow.

 

[najaB]

As I understand it, there's no hard requirement for them to issue a PACE caution since they aren't police. Doing so does, however, lend more 'weight' to any evidence presented later.

 

[randyrippley]

Passenger was sold a ticket by the TM so was traveling legally.
Is there any legal requirement to provide identity details to the RPI? My personal feeling would be to tell him where to go. No law has been broken, so what is his reason for asking?

 

[najaB]

Is there any legal requirement to provide identity details to the RPI?

Yes.

#filler#

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Passenger was sold a ticket by the TM so was traveling legally.
Is there any legal requirement to provide identity details to the RPI? My personal feeling would be to tell him where to go. No law has been broken, so what is his reason for asking?

Byelaw 18(1) says:

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

Hence, even though the passenger had been sold a ticket, they had still committed an offence in failing to buy a ticket before boarding (as the ticket machines and ticket office were working/open at the time of boarding). Thus it would have been an offence for the passenger to refuse to give the name and address under Byelaw 23(1).

 

[Fare-Cop]

Passenger was sold a ticket by the TM so was traveling legally.
Is there any legal requirement to provide identity details to the RPI? My personal feeling would be to tell him where to go. No law has been broken, so what is his reason for asking?

As I said earlier, it depends on whether a facility to buy a ticket had been available before the traveller boarded the train

If there were facilities available to pay before boarding then yes, the traveller would have failed to comply with the strict liability requirement of National Railway Byelaw 18.1 [2005] and in those circumstances rail staff have authority to apply National Railway Byelaw 23 [2005], which requires that the traveller must provide their name and address if asked by rail staff.
​

18. Ticketless travel in Non-Compulsory Ticket Areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel

23. Name and address
(1) 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.

 

[Starmill]

23. Name and address
(1) 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.

I would have thought that in order to invoke this, it would need to be stated (either in full or by number) which Byelaw the person was suspected of breaching or attempting to breach.

 

[najaB]

I would have thought that in order to invoke this, it would need to be stated (either in full or by number) which Byelaw the person was suspected of breaching or attempting to breach.

The requirement is that the suspected offence is described '...in general terms...', so no obligation to quote the Byelaws.

 

[Stigy]

I've just witnessed an RPI pass through the train I was on. One person hadn't bought a ticket, and so was sold a ticket by the TM, but the RPI asked them for their name and surname, though not their address. Then the RPI asked how often the person travelled on the train.

That was the direct order of what was said - the RPI didn't issue a PACE caution ('you do not have to say anything...' etc.) at all, just saying to the person 'Now, I'm sure, [name] I won't see you boarding again without a ticket'. The RPI had evidently noted all this, along with a description of the person, on their notebook.

If this were to go to Court - would the passenger's statement as to the frequency of their travel be inadmissible evidence due to the non-cautioning? I'm not familiar enough with PACE to be able to say. Or would it be enough for the RPI to give the caution after the name, address and travel was identified - or is it not required at all?

Thanks.

It wouldn't go anywhere with just a name. Sounds like he was jotting down basic info in case he met this person again.

Because the person was also sold a ticket in front of the RPI by the Guard, although the offence had been committed and retrospectively buying a ticket doesn't rectify this, it probably also wouldn't go to court as the question would be raised as to why, on the one hand the Guard was happy to sell a ticket, yet on the other hand the company now want to prosecute. One can't have one's cake and eat it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It wouldn't go anywhere with just a name. Sounds like he was jotting down basic info in case he met this person again.

Because the person was also sold a ticket in front of the RPI by the Guard, although the offence had been committed and retrospectively buying a ticket doesn't rectify this, it probably also wouldn't go to court as the question would be raised as to why, on the one hand the Guard was happy to sell a ticket, yet on the other hand the company now want to prosecute. One can't have one's cake and eat it.

In the case of a train company, they could indeed get prosecute that event, were they to have the requisite information and inclination (as it was a breach of Byelaws 18(1) and 18(2)). Or, perhaps more likely, they could present it as further evidence in the case of a future prosecution in relation to another occasion of a Byelaws/RoRA offence.

Sadly this is the problem when there is a strict liability Byelaw for train passengers but nowhere near the same for train companies...