Is it legal to be detained by a private rail or bus company for not having a valid ticket? My question relates specifically to the UK. Is it legal for a private company, say a train or bus company, to detain you if they determine that you don't have a valid ticket? Furthermore, if it is legal, what rights do you have in such circumstances? Obviously, if you were arrested by the police you would have a given set of rights, but train companies, and the private companies that run the train stations in the UK, whilst government owned, are private companies (if I understand correctly).
I'm not a lawyer; I'm not your lawyer. In this case, if you don't have a valid ticket (or refuse to produce one), and don't provide your name and address, the officer of a railway company may detain you1 (my emphasis): 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. Essentially, if you don't have a ticket and are asked to show one, it would seem that you are required to provide either your name and address, or pay your fare. The only cases I can find where s 5(2) has been cited were: Covington v. Wright [1963] 2 QB 469 The defendant boarded a bus and travelled further than the fare was paid for. However, being a case involving a bus and a train, one would assume that the legislation and therefore the case is not authoritative for trains. However, the London Passenger Transport Act cited herein seems to have the same effect as the Regulation of Railways Act. Ormiston v. Great Western Railway Company [1917] 1 KB 598 This case involves a passenger travelling on a valid, first-class ticket, then being detained by a porter who claimed that they had held only a third class ticket. He was released and was not entitled to special damages simply as a result of slander. On the relevant question of citizens' arrests, it was found later that2: Court had to consider the question whether it is necessary to allege that the words impute an indictable offence, and it was held that it was not necessary. Pollock B. in giving judgment said: “The expression ‘indictable offence’ seems to have crept into the text-books, but I think the passages in Comyns' Digest are conclusive to shew that words which impute any criminal offence are actionable per se. That is, the notion that the offence must be indictable seems not to be based in common law. As for your question about your rights - the power to arrest you though the punishment is only a fine does not support an action for special damage on its own. You should probably consult a lawyer if you are so detained, as there does not seem to be anything in the Act that allows the company to prohibit you from doing so - or from doing else, for that matter, so long as you do not breach the peace or act in some other tortious manner. You would also likely to be free to pay the fine (or produce the ticket, if you had one and had not done so by this point in time), or provide your name and address. If you were detained without cause - that is, you were not given the option to supply your name, or not given the opportunity to produce your ticket or pay the balance of the fare, then you may be entitled to damages under a claim of an action of false imprisonment. Apologies for the lack of links to the cases - I've used paid databases so they likely wouldn't work, but you can try to find these cases in BAILII or some other database you might have access to. 1. Regulation of Railways Act 1889 52 &amp; 53 Vict c 57 s 5(2) This legislation has had numerous amendments and restrictions applied - you should consider the full extent of these as applicable to the specific location where such an incident occurs. 2. Hellwig v Mitchell [1910] 1 KB 609
While it is from a different jurisdiction, the following goes to the heart of the matter: Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. Directorate of Enforcement v Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 at ¶46 (SC of India) In your example, the police officer has been deprived of "personal liberty of movement"; if they can still speak there would be no legal impediment to them placing the person who arrested them also under arrest. It would then be incumbent on both parties to deliver each other into lawful custody. The citizen would need to seek out a law enforcement officer to do this; the police officer has already done so, being their own law enforcement officer. After this, comes the paperwork.
The principle of constitutional law is that in order to arrest you, the officer would need probable cause. Certain acts are in themselves violations of the order (being closer to another person that 6 feet, illegal sneezing). Walking in public does not per se constitute a violation. In order to briefly stop a person walking on the street (a "Terry stop"), the officer needs a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of the law. That means there has to be a reason, and a gut feeling does not count. An officer would not (legally) be able to stop every person they see walking down the street / driving, and demand an explanation of where they are going. If a person is just aimlessly wandering down the strees with friends (even if they are sufficiently separated), that could suffice to justify a stop, given the limited legal excuses for being outside your home.
Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels, and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else. Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.
Police officers can lie to you He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this. You said no. You’re allowed to do this. He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies. You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search. He legally searched, confirmed your admission and booked you. Seems legit to me.
If I have correctly untangled the law, Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act part 3 identifies as a condition where you are not prohibited from revealing personal data: The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. The Animal Welfare Act 25(1) says An inspector may require the holder of a licence to produce for inspection any records which he is required to keep by a condition of the licence I can't tell if you are required to keep customer names, but if you are, it looks like the pieces fit together and you would have to provide the records. Call a solicitor to be sure, though.
england-and-wales The length of time a suspect is held in police custody before being released is unrelated to the police's power (and duty) to sieze potential evidence for further examination or to require e.g. the surrender of a passport as a condition of pre-charge bail (along with the requirement not to apply for international travel documents or tickets etc). If the suspect is assessed to be a flight risk, under section 50A(2)(a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) they can retain a passport if they see... the need to secure that the person surrenders to custody The retention of property, such as a phone, is allowed under section 22 PACE: (1) Subject to subsection (4) below, anything which has been seized by a constable or taken away by a constable following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 above may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above— (a) anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation may be retained, except as provided by subsection (4) below— (i) for use as evidence at a trial for an offence; or (ii) for forensic examination or for investigation in connection with an offence; and (b) anything may be retained in order to establish its lawful owner, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence. (3) [...] (4) Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose. [...]
If they have no legal grounds then it would be trespass to chattels However, they do have legal grounds. Following the procedure laid out in the relevant Act makes the car refuse under the Act notwithstanding your opinion. Move it or lose it. Or seek an injunction preventing the council removing the vehicle- this will likely fail.