Legality of detaining a passenger

[ForTheLoveOf]

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

Legally speaking, no. But I still don't expect people to go filming my face solely for their own nefarious (as may be the case for Northern or their contractors) purposes, certainly not an organisation.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

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

Those are legitimate interests for the TOC, but they must be balanced against the "interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data" (from Article 6(1)(f)). Filming passengers with a body cam is an intrusion into their privacy, and quite a substantial one at that - more so than generic CCTV I would say.

Anyway, it hardly matters whether or not the TOCs can justify it: neither the railway nor the data protection regulators will clamp down nearly hard enough on non-compliant companies, so the TOCs have nothing to fear.

 

[RJ]

The rules are very much by the by. In the real world, illicit tactics are used as a means to an end if it's deemed there will be no recourse. Covering up such actions so there is no comeback and denying it ever happens is part of the job.

 

[sprunt]

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

As we're frequently reminded here by railway employees, the railway is not a public area.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As we're frequently reminded here by railway employees, the railway is not a public area.

There are public rights of way across and along certain parts of the railway. And I am sure it would be deemed a public area for the purposes of something like the Public Order Act 1984.

Obviously, it remains private property (albeit private property owned by a company which is indirectly owned by the SoS!) despite the foregoing.

 

[dcbwhaley]

As we're frequently reminded here by railway employees, the railway is not a public area.

There are public rights of way across and along certain parts of the railway. And I am sure it would be deemed a public area for the purposes of something like the Public Order Act 1984.

Obviously, it remains private property (albeit private property owned by a company which is indirectly owned by the SoS!) despite the foregoing.

Quite: there is no contradiction between "private property" and "public area", A football stadium is a classic example. It is privately owned but if you start throwing bottles at the referee you can be prosecuted under the Public Order Act or more specific legislation.
A "public place" is a place to which the general public, or a subset of the general public, are admitted. Such as a railway station or train.

 

[sprunt]

A football stadium is a classic example. It is privately owned but if you start throwing bottles at the referee you can be prosecuted under the Public Order Act or more specific legislation.

Not really. If I start throwing bottles at anyone in my own home I can be prosecuted. My point is simply that the railway can't have its cake and eat it: it is either public or private and can't pick and choose as it suits.

 

[najaB]

My point is simply that the railway can't have its cake and eat it: it is either public or private and can't pick and choose as it suits.

You are confusing two completely different things - public ownership and being a public area. They have (almost) nothing to do with each other.

 

[Stigy]

Not really. If I start throwing bottles at anyone in my own home I can be prosecuted. My point is simply that the railway can't have its cake and eat it: it is either public or private and can't pick and choose as it suits.

The railway is private land on which the public have routine access as long as they (usually) have business with the railway. Therefore they very much can have their cake, and eat it.