False Imprisonment!! By RPI!!

[Folkiedave]

I wonder of anyone else has come across this.

I was travelling from Sheffield to Manchester Airport and went to Sheffield Midland and asked for a period return to Manchester Airport.

This ticket was checked by an inspector who was told I was going to Manchester Airport - indeed because there were not many people on the train we had a discussion about where I was going and why I was going there. (To Ireland to appear at a festival in Kilkenny via Manchester Airport of course)

When I arrived at Manchester Airport there were two revenue protection people at the barrier who pointed out that the ticket was vaid for "Manchester Stations" (note plural) and NOT Manchester Airport station.

I refused to pay - and offered my name and address validated by my driving licence and my passport so there was no question of my trying to evade paying.

I would have challenged any penalty but this was not enough for them.

They would not let me leave. I kept saying I had a plane to catch and each time someone stood in front of me to stop me. I had the choice of assaulting them with my luggage trolley or staying - I chose to stay.

I continued to refuse to pay (asking them to prosecute me) but eventually they took my (perfectly valid) return ticket from Manchester Stations away from me - by subterfuge in fact - and said it was needed as evidence.

The ticket machine they had would not issue a valid ticket (!!) only a ticket for that day - so they had to issue a ticket from Manchester Airport to Sheffield and write on the back that it was validated to November 1st by Revenue Protection at MIA (Manchester Airport). Clearly going 20 feet to the ticket office was not sufficient.

It is my understanding that Section 5(1) of the 1889 Railway Act says I have to have a valid ticket, pay the fare on demand, OR GIVE A VALID NAME AND ADDRESS. (My capitals).

I was kept for approximately 30 minutes in total - at no time was I cautioned or charged.

I would have argued that since I had asked for a ticket to Manchester Airport, that the ticket had been inspected by someone who also knew I was going to Manchester Airport then they really didn't have much of a prayer charging me with travelling without a ticket.

There are obviously other issues involved but my understanding of the law is that by detaining me like this they are open to a charge of false imprisonment once I have given my name and address - since at that point they have enough evidence to prosecute me should they wish to.

Any comments anyone?

[Esio Trot]

There are some magic words you, or anyone, should use in any situation like this, or store detectives asking you to "return to the store". They are:

"Am I under arrest?"

Had you asked, then the situation would have been clear. If you were under arrest then the full protection of PACE would have been at your disposal; if not, then you were free to go.

Not sure how you can follow this up, but it is worth a written complaint initially to see the company's response.

[JonCris]

If they physically blocked your departure & even though you didn't ask "Am I under arrest" they ARE almost certainly guilty of kidnap.

As far as I'm aware they have no powers of arrest other than those already available to an ordinary citizen.

Under the circumstances what they should have done was summon a police officer

[seftonview]

If the RPIs physically blocked you from leaving you were unlawfully detained, unless they head a specific power of detention or arrest.

I can't see any valid power they might have used (assuming that they did any have statutory powers, which is unlikely) given that you gave them your name and address, so I would say that they are most certainly guilty of assault, battery, and false imprisonment.

If you have not already done so, I would make a full and detailed written statement of absolutely everything that happened, in your own handwriting, and in chronological order. This serves as your contemporaneous record, and will be useful evidence.

Next step, complaint to police (via solicitor usually more effective).

[Folkiedave]

Thank you all for your messages and thoughts on this.

I have already done my contemporaneous notes so thanks very much for that.

The advice I have is that the best way to proceed is via a civil action for false imprisonment. It is not necessary to be held in a prison (for example) and there was no doubt that I was being held.

You will be interested to know in the process of chasing this over the internet I came across a couple of things.

Section 5 1 of the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889 clearly says I can give my name and address - so I was acting legally by doing so.

Anyone else may do so, therefore I do recommend it!!

Interestingly a little further down Section 6 says that a ticket issued by a railway company should have the cost written on it. The ticket they issued to me in lieu of the ticket they took from me has a zero price option.

That's how much I intend to pay!!

I should add I am retired - plenty of time foir this sort of thing!!

[seftonview]

Civil action is definitely more likely to be fruitful, however I'd still suggest you make a report to the police.

It won't prevent you taking civil action, and they may adduce evidence you would not be able to (which you can then seek to use in civil proceedings).

Plus, seeing the buggers arrested might be a little satisfying

When it comes to your civil suit, I would definitely plead assault and battery in addition to false imprisonment, because I imagine you were in fear of assault should you try to leave. It gives you a further head for damage.

SV

[mc661]

First off I must say I am also an RPI.

Here are the relevant bits you are quoting from....

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (c.57)
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; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, level 2 on the standard scale.

(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 or . . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

Now as you have not breeched this in anyway that I can see, I belive the RPI has detained you illegally and at worse has falsely imprisoned you.
What kind of RPI were they? First Transpennine (i.e. were they wearing lots of them pink F's) or those useless secuicor security guards. First dont wear peaked hats.

I would suggest putting your information on an MG11 police statement, (it tells the police you know what your doing and dont mess around with you. It also does one of the most annoying parts of their job, getting the statement.) I can E-mail this MG11 form to you.

The company may try using s.24A (4)d against you, but I cannot see how it would work as fare evasion is not an indictable offence.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24A (1)-(4) - Arrest without warrant: other persons. (as amended by SOCPA 2005)

24A
Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)
A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)
anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)
anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

(2)
Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)
anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)
anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(3)
But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)
the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)
it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4)
The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a)
causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)
suffering physical injury;
(c)
causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)
making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

[mc661]

You might like this one ive dug up for you. We often use it against people who swear at us while we question them.
S5 is what the police nick people for swearing.

Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)

4. Fear or provocation of violence.
— (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)
uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)
distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,


with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

4A. Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
— (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a)
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,


thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove— (a)
that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)
that his conduct was reasonable.


(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

5. Harassment, alarm or distress.
— (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,


within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove— (a)
that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)
that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)
that his conduct was reasonable.


(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if— (a)
he engages in offensive conduct which [F2 a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)
he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.


(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

[Folkiedave]

Thank you so much for that. Sheffield Transport Police have offered me an MG11 and I am seeing a solicitor so I think I am well covered - but the offer is much appreciated.

The advice re: the Public Order Act is also appreciated I hadn't thought of that one.

In fact the "actual" 1889 Act is here:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...ct_Reg1889.pdf

It was reading this that alerted to me to the clause about the ticket has to have a price on it!

Another interesting fact which may help me is that "false imprisonment" would normally be tried by a jury. I'll take my chances!

County Courts Act 1984 (c. 2

Section 66 3 (b)

[Folkiedave]

I have now issued a summons in the civil tort of false imprisonment. Looking forward to seeing them in court!

[seftonview]

Could you post up your Particulars?

SV

[mc661]

Originally Posted by seftonview

Could you post up your Particulars?

SV

I actually think it would not be wise to post these on this forum until the case has been heard, or at least been allocated..
If it was a bank charges case I would agree with posting the partics, but as this case could get serious, what with it being alleged false imprisonment, I still believe it would be wise not to post it on a public forum.

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[seftonview]

Originally Posted by mc661

I actually think it would not be wise to post these on this forum until the case has been heard, or at least been allocated..
If it was a bank charges case I would agree with posting the partics, but as this case could get serious, what with it being alleged false imprisonment, I still believe it would be wise not to post it on a public forum.

Piffle.

If the contributors to this thread can't see the pleadings, we can't assist the OP. Which defeats the object of the thread and the forum.

I'm sure the OP has the sense to redact names etc.

SV

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[Lula]

FWIW I certainly wouldnt be mentioning assault and battery as I dont think you were beaten or physically abused and if this wasn't the case just makes your case look vexatious

[Folkiedave]

Thanks for all your comments. There is no question of mentioning assault and battery - since they didn't.

[Folkiedave]

And sorry I meant to mention - I will post full details once the case is over - but not before.

[Lula]

ooooo you tease

[Folkiedave]

MMMM....but I like you................

[Lula]

<snigger>

[Osborn85]

Can't be false imrisonment if therfe was a way out. Despite you having your luggage you could have turned around and got back on the train. SO long as there was a way out it can not be classified as false imprisonment.