Legality of detaining a passenger

[tom73]

I would like to know which piece of legislation provides the legal right for a railway employee, whether directly employed or on contract, to prevent an incoming passenger (leaving a train) from exiting the station.
What can possibly be done if the passenger being detained simply leaves rather than giving the details requested?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If we are talking purely in terms of the rights of a railway employee or agent, as opposed to the police, to detain passengers, they are quite succint. Section 5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA) gives the power to an "officer or servant" of a train company to detain a passenger who 'commits' the 'three fails':

• Fails to show a valid ticket (and deliver up, if requested, if its validity has finished)
• Fails to pay the fare due
• Fails to give their name and address

Note that a passenger who had a valid ticket, but who refused to show it (and also refused to pay for a new ticket or give their details), would still be able to be detained under this law, and equally, under Section 5(1) of RoRA, they would be guilty of an offence.

There could be offences committed under the Railways Byelaws, but there is no power of arrest granted by the Byelaws so they are not really relevant to this discussion.

The power of anyone to arrest someone who is committing a crime - also known as a citizen's arrest - under Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is not applicable here. This is because offences under RoRA (as well as the Byelaws) are not indictable - that is to say they are summary-only and hence can only be tried in the Magistrates' Court (at least initially).

 

[island]

I would add to ForTheLoveOf’s good summary only one thing: the training given to most railway staff possessed of the power to detain instructs them not to exercise it under any circumstances.

 

[185]

I would like to know which piece of legislation provides the legal right for a railway employee, whether directly employed or on contract, to prevent an incoming passenger (leaving a train) from exiting the station.

Has a particular revenue contractor been physically restraining passengers? Witnessed something myself some weeks ago, curious to know if it's the same ones.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Further, a police constable can detain someone for byelaw offences if necessary. The necessity most likely to be relevant is that if you have committed a byelaw offence (or in fact any offence, however minor) and the police cannot determine your name or address to report you for it, detention to allow these to be ascertained is permitted.

 

[NoOnesFool]

Has a particular revenue contractor been physically restraining passengers? Witnessed something myself some weeks ago, curious to know if it's the same ones.

Carlisle Security?

 

[Bensonby]

I assisted a Southeastern RPI physically detain someone the other week. Why would TOCs prohibit staff from allowing their staff from lawfully exercising their powers? That sort of policy would essentially license suitably aggressive persistent fare evaders to travel for free whilst penalising the more meek. Surely that’s not desirable for anyone?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I assisted a Southeastern RPI physically detain someone the other week. Why would TOCs prohibit staff from allowing their staff from lawfully exercising their powers? That sort of policy would essentially license suitably aggressive persistent fare evaders to travel for free whilst penalising the more meek. Surely that’s not desirable for anyone?

Because the risk of staff injury, or accusations (whether correct or not) of incorrect detainment could lead to a PR disaster. If the detainment does indeed turn out to be incorrect, the company is at risk of being sued for false imprisonment (though the success or otherwise of such a lawsuit would depend massively on the circumstances).

Far easier to threaten with the police, which almost but the most hardy passengers will succumb to.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I would like to know which piece of legislation provides the legal right for a railway employee, whether directly employed or on contract, to prevent an incoming passenger (leaving a train) from exiting the station.?

​

In answer to the specific request

Regulation of Railways Act 1889
1889 CHAPTER 57 52 and 53 Vict

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;

(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.

It is correct that TOCs generally advise staff not to make an 'arrest', but the law provides for that authority to be exercised in the circumstances described by the Act

Far easier to call BTP who will make the arrest should it prove necessary

 

[Halifaxlad]

But does 'detain' include use of physical force? Im thinking its like PCSO's who I remember correctly can detain you but can't actually physically hold you.

 

[jimm]

PCSOs can use reasonable force to detain someone, the same as anyone making a citizens' arrest, so the same goes for railway staff. There are various pieces of legislation covering this point.

 

[Randomer]

A BTP PCSO in particular has the power to detain for up to 30 minutes awaiting the arrival of a constable using reasonable force to do so. The law changed this year so if BTP wished to do so a PCSO could carry PAVA spray as well as handcuffs as you see now (legally a PCSO as an employee of a police force could always carry a baton if issued; no force has chosen to do so.) The power to detain is actually defined for all PCSO with any police force but some forces don't train or encourage it.

This is defined separately from a citizen's arrest (section 24a PACE) which generally PCSOs are trained not to do unless absolutely necessary, they have no more powers in this regard than anyone else. Generally it will only be done is the detention time is running out and a constable cannot get there in time (and of course it is a indictable offence which the main bit of railway legislation RoRA 1889 doesn't make so for ticketing matters.)

Likewise a BTP PCSO are a designated person so can enforce the railway bylaws using reasonable force to do so (ejection from stations being the main bit there). Any PC can enforce the railway bylaws not just BTP and pretty much all of the tram and light rail bylaws which generally just state any police officer is a designated person.

 

[PermitToTravel]

This is defined separately from a citizen's arrest (section 24a PACE) which generally PCSOs are trained not to do unless absolutely necessary, they have no more powers in this regard than anyone else. Generally it will only be done is the detention time is running out and a constable cannot get there in time (and of course it is a indictable offence which the main bit of railway legislation RoRA 1889 doesn't make so for ticketing matters.)

Isn't every arrest by a PCSO a s24a arrest, unless authorised another way e.g. by the railway byelaws?

 

[Bertie the bus]

PCSOs can use reasonable force to detain someone, the same as anyone making a citizens' arrest, so the same goes for railway staff. There are various pieces of legislation covering this point.

Most people have no understanding whatsoever of how or when a citizen's arrest can be made. A byelaw offence isn't an indictable offence, therefore anybody detaining somebody for it would need specific authorisation via a byelaw or act of Parliament.

 

[Randomer]

Isn't every arrest by a PCSO a s24a arrest, unless authorised another way e.g. by the railway byelaws?

Yes in terms of arrest. However most people fail to realise they have a separate power to detain until the arrival of a PC on reasonable suspicion of an offence or if they fail to give details for an offence the PCSO intends to issue an FPN for.

The railway bylaws are an offence for which a BTP PCSO can detain not arrest.

 

[Wolfie]

I assisted a Southeastern RPI physically detain someone the other week. Why would TOCs prohibit staff from allowing their staff from lawfully exercising their powers? That sort of policy would essentially license suitably aggressive persistent fare evaders to travel for free whilst penalising the more meek. Surely that’s not desirable for anyone?

Frankly a rather risky move on your part. Had the individual been injured and litigated you would be on very dubious ground. As long as the RPI had acted properly (i.e. lawfully and in compliance with the employer's policy/rules) he/she is legally covered by the byelaw and should be indemnified by the employer wrt legal costs. You have zero cover.. ..

 

[Stigy]

PCSOs can use reasonable force to detain someone, the same as anyone making a citizens' arrest, so the same goes for railway staff. There are various pieces of legislation covering this point.

PCSOs have specific legislation allowing them to detain a suspect. There’s only one piece of legislation covering railway staff detaining someone, and that’s the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (s.5.2), and ONLY covers detention for refusal of supplying name and/or address after having not paid their rail fare.

 

[pemma]

I would add to ForTheLoveOf’s good summary only one thing: the training given to most railway staff possessed of the power to detain instructs them not to exercise it under any circumstances.

Yet there's been reports in various parts of the country from the Glossop line to the Southern commuter services of doors remaining locked at a station until BTP arrive.

 

[Bensonby]

Frankly a rather risky move on your part. Had the individual been injured and litigated you would be on very dubious ground. As long as the RPI had acted properly (i.e. lawfully and in compliance with the employer's policy/rules) he/she is legally covered by the byelaw and should be indemnified by the employer wrt legal costs. You have zero cover.. ..

Sorry, I should have clarified, I’m a police officer.

 

[Wolfie]

Sorry, I should have clarified, I’m a police officer.

Ah, that makes one heck of a difference...
My day job is handling litigation against HMG... 'nuff said

 

[Bensonby]

Ah, that makes one heck of a difference...
My day job is handling litigation against HMG... 'nuff said

It does, in all practical senses. But if a lawful arrest is being made any person may use reasonable force to assist under s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Indeed, if a police officer requests help from a person when dealing with a breach of the peace then it is an offence not to assist them (though it is rarely prosecuted).

None of this, in a practical way, makes any difference to having no legal cover should you be sued: even if you are on the right it could get very expensive very quickly.

The reason I have quite strong feelings about this, however, is that if staff aren’t able/willing to take aggressive fare evaders to task then it almost gives them a license to travel for free. I’ve heard anecdotally of agressovd fare dodgers being let off whereas your average meek “mrs miggens” who may well have just made a mistake is given a penalty fare. That seems profoundly unjust - though I have never witnessed it myself.

I will also add that I’ve assisted guards and gate line staff numerous times with fare evaders: from physically chucking them off trains, to arresting them, to ensuring names and addresses are obtained. And to be clear, I certainly don’t blame rail staff who cannot physically deal with fare dodgers etc for whatever reason.

 

[Starmill]

I’ve heard anecdotally of agressovd fare dodgers being let off whereas your average meek “mrs miggens” who may well have just made a mistake is given a penalty fare. That seems profoundly unjust - though I have never witnessed it myself.

This is exactly the point though. It's very difficult to apprehend aggressive fare evaders and then have them prosecuted. Even if the company wins it's unclear what they'll actually gain from that, especially if the fare evader hasn't got any cash or assets to speak of. In contrast they changed their rules recently to make it much easier to charge people who accidentally get on the wrong train double the usual fare with a minimum £20. Most of these people will just pay. Presumably this makes the train company a lot more money.

 

[Stigy]

It does, in all practical senses. But if a lawful arrest is being made any person may use reasonable force to assist under s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Indeed, if a police officer requests help from a person when dealing with a breach of the peace then it is an offence not to assist them (though it is rarely prosecuted).

None of this, in a practical way, makes any difference to having no legal cover should you be sued: even if you are on the right it could get very expensive very quickly.

The reason I have quite strong feelings about this, however, is that if staff aren’t able/willing to take aggressive fare evaders to task then it almost gives them a license to travel for free. I’ve heard anecdotally of agressovd fare dodgers being let off whereas your average meek “mrs miggens” who may well have just made a mistake is given a penalty fare. That seems profoundly unjust - though I have never witnessed it myself.

I will also add that I’ve assisted guards and gate line staff numerous times with fare evaders: from physically chucking them off trains, to arresting them, to ensuring names and addresses are obtained. And to be clear, I certainly don’t blame rail staff who cannot physically deal with fare dodgers etc for whatever reason.

I see your point, and agree that in theory aggressive fare evaders should be dealt with by whatever means necessary. My role, although a lot different to Revenue Protection, entails quite a large element of dealing with aggressive fare evaders. In fact, we are usually called to assist in these circumstances. Even though the role I do requires me to deal with quite frankly, scum, I am still not technically allowed to detain anybody under our “Reducing Violence At Work Policy” and our imaginary “no touch” policy people within our organisation like to quote a lot. I tend to interpret the former policy, in that the nature of my role requires me to act differently, mainly because I’m dressed not a lot differently to a Police Officer and thus I have the public perception to take in to account. I’ve detained fare evaders, ejected people, chased people (though I admit I’m built more for comfort than I am speed...) and had “roll arounds”. If a fare evaders needs dealing with, they need dealing with.

The problem arises sometimes, with the calibr of staff within the organisation, and their physical and mental ability to deal with fare evaders in an effective manner, and the comapny’s stance on them doing so. In a world of social media and camera phones etc, having a member of staff who isn’t trained effectively enough and is dressed usually the same as all other uniformed staff who work at their company, seen ‘fighting’ is corporate suicide.

It’s often easiest for Revenue Protection staff to focus on the more organised fare evaders (who need to be made an example of admittedly) evading fares often to the tune of thousands rather than hundreds of pounds (and often the more professional people such as solicitors and accountants). This in my eyes is Revenue protections bread and butter. The stuff which causes disorder and is often up to no good in other areas, are often best left to different teams.

 

[Stigy]

This is exactly the point though. It's very difficult to apprehend aggressive fare evaders and then have them prosecuted. Even if the company wins it's unclear what they'll actually gain from that, especially if the fare evader hasn't got any cash or assets to speak of. In contrast they changed their rules recently to make it much easier to charge people who accidentally get on the wrong train double the usual fare with a minimum £20. Most of these people will just pay. Presumably this makes the train company a lot more money.

By recently do you mean the mid-eighties?

That’s the exact point of Penalty Fares. These are meant as deterrents against deliberate fare evasion and should be issued to the one-time misdeamenors. Fare evaders should be reported and go to court. Issuing £20 PFN to Johnny Scroat who has evaded Fares to the tunes of thousands of pounds over the years through his £2.40 tickets he should have bought, needs to be prosecuted. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the Penalty fare system.

Realistically however, it still happens to the contrary and is annoying to witness. Not least because taking details is actually a lot less confrontational sometimes than telling somebody it’s about £20 for a £3 journey. Don’t know if it’s the psychology of people seeing what’s in front of them, or just that they’re stupid, but your average fare evaders seems not to mind giving details as long as it’s not another penalty fare.

 

[jon0844]

Long may they continue to think that too, as it creates less risk of confrontation or assault, and could lead to a much more positive outcome (for the railway, and consequently other fare payers).

Having seen revenue staff offer to just take a few details, going down the MG route, it's always hard to not chuckle when the person thinks they've been let off.

Of course, there's always the risk of giving false details (even if they check out over the phone).

 

[Stigy]

Long may they continue to think that too, as it creates less risk of confrontation or assault, and could lead to a much more positive outcome (for the railway, and consequently other fare payers).

Having seen revenue staff offer to just take a few details, going down the MG route, it's always hard to not chuckle when the person thinks they've been let off.

Of course, there's always the risk of giving false details (even if they check out over the phone).

Indeed....obviously staff have to tell the ‘susect’ they’re being reported, but the average fare evaders would still rather this than the thought of another £20 PF

True about false details too, and unless staff have a reason to believe them to be false, there’s not really a valid reason to question these. It’s a hazard, but to be honest, one that doesn’t present itself as often as one would think really. Most people given themselves away when they stumble and trip on their details if they’re being dishonest.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Sorry, I should have clarified, I’m a police officer.

Presumably you also kept that secret from the person you were restraining too?

 

[Bensonby]

Presumably you also kept that secret from the person you were restraining too?

No, of course not. I identified myself with my warrant card and a clear verbal warning of the same.

 

[navdra]

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.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Arrest and detain are synonyms.