Public Transport , Private Property ?

[Bogflogger]

What seems to be happening here, is that BTP Officers are "making it up as they go along."

There is a Definite Clash between English LAW and what BTP are doing - even allowing for Sec.44 Terrorism Act [which is being misused here] and Railway Specific Legislation.

I am still trying to find LEGISLATION, as opposed to "Whim of Senior BTP Officer" that shows this to be a Legal Policing Operation.

In spite of Several Attempts to get clarification from BTP, I am still none the wiser, as to what LEGISLATION Sanctions this policy by BTP.

[Martyn]

What seems to be happening here, is that BTP Officers are "making it up as they go along."

There is a Definite Clash between English LAW and what BTP are doing -

Can you be specific BF, can you tell me what the clash is?

I cant see it. All they need is s44 to do random stop and searches outside. Inside same, plus they are perfectly within thier rights to frisk everyone using BTP, cos it's all private property. Lastly, they can arrest you any time under the 1953 prevention of crime act for carrying an offensive weapon, lock or no lock.

Where is the clash?

[mojofilter]

Basically, to me it appears that they are using sec 44 as an excuse for random stop searches to back up the hard line approach to knife carrying.

As far as I'm aware, sec 44 is there to be used when there is a specific threat of terrorism, not as an excuse for hustling 33.333% of joe public through a metal detector.

BTP are not Network Rail's private security service, if Network Rail decide that there shall be no knives, legal or not, on their infrastructure, then that is up to them to enforce as they see fit, it is certainly not BTPs job to do so. Also, even if NR have stated that there shall be no knves of any sort to be allowed on their property, which I doubt they have (but I may be wrong) that does not make it an arrestable offence. I could have a party and say there is to be no smoking in my living room, but I couldn't have you arrested for doing so.

[Bogflogger]

I Am aware of that, Martyn.

To be honest, you have a much Clearer knowledge of the Law, then All of the BTP Senior Officers that I have spoken to, not one of them was able to give me the list of legislation that you have!

This is what Really Concerns me here, this Trawling - "Nick em' first, then find a charge" approach!

I am NOT Advocating allowing criminals free rein to travel, my Major Concern is the way normal travellers on Public Transport, can and will, end up being Criminalised simply for carrying a SAK or similar tool.

This is NOT what Sec.44 of the Terrorism Act was introduced for!

[Martyn]

Basically, to me it appears that they are using sec 44 as an excuse for random stop searches to back up the hard line approach to knife carrying.

As far as I'm aware, sec 44 is there to be used when there is a specific threat of terrorism, not as an excuse for hustling 33.333% of joe public through a metal detector.

It's not ad-hoc mojo, they can use s44 only if a chief constable passes an order for it to happen. He must specify the duration of the order and it is scrutinised for justification by the home secretary.

BTP are not Network Rail's private security service, if Network Rail decide that there shall be no knives, legal or not, on their infrastructure, then that is up to them to enforce as they see fit, it is certainly not BTPs job to do so.

Actually, it is. The law is the law. If someone breaks it, doesnt matter if they are on private property or not, the police have a duty to deal with it. If the police deem an offensive weapon offence has been commitedthey have to arrest.

Also, even if NR have stated that there shall be no knves of any sort to be allowed on their property, which I doubt they have (but I may be wrong) that does not make it an arrestable offence. I could have a party and say there is to be no smoking in my living room, but I couldn't have you arrested for doing so.

NR havent done that. What is happening, is that many police are using their (legal) discretion with regard to carrying knives and the offensive weapons act. It would seem under the current climate, that any carriage of a knife on public transport, is being viewed as carrying an offensive weapon ...and therefore arrestable (under the individual officers discretion).

[Martyn]

I Am aware of that, Martyn.

To be honest, you have a much Clearer knowledge of the Law, then All of the BTP Senior Officers that I have spoken to, not one of them was able to give me the list of legislation that you have!

This is what Really Concerns me here, this Trawling - "Nick em' first, then find a charge" approach!

I am NOT Advocating allowing criminals free rein to travel, my Major Concern is the way normal travellers on Public Transport, can and will, end up being Criminalised simply for carrying a SAK or similar tool.

This is NOT what Sec.44 of the Terrorism Act was introduced for!

Ahh, I think we have reached something of a paradox, in that we now probably have a more complete grasp of knife legislation than any other body in the country.

How much can we expect the average copper to know? As a working nurse, I have great sympathy for their predicament. I am expected to digest huge volumes of information. The reality is, no one is a walking encyclopedia of thier subject. Being a professional, is not about having encyclopedic knowledge, it's about how you execute your role. If your find your knowledge is lacking, then you read and learn. It's an ongoing process.

Cops will be in the same situation. They will have an excellent working knowledge of their subject, but it wont be encyclopedic. It's taken me 4 years to learn what I know of British knife law. There is no way an average copper will have spent that much time covering this one tiny aspect of the law. His duty is to have a broad knowledge of it all, sufficient to execute his role in a professional manner. This means he will assimilate a "distilled" version of the law. Often he will know his actions are lawfull, but will have to consult texts to give a detailed and legally accurate answer.

I'm afraid BF, your knife law knowledge probably exceeds that of many cops. It doesnt mean what they are doing is unlawfull, just thatv you have this knowledge on the tip of your tongue, while they have to dig for it. If you catch them off guard and unprepared, many will go so far, then flounder.

But somewhere along the process of arrest and charging, the details will be examined and a good legal judgement will be made. If there is an error in the cops knowledge, it'll probably get picked up by the desk sargeant before you get charged, if not by the duty solicitor, or crown prosecution service or finally, the magistrates/courts.

You may get a dodgy arrest from time to time, but you wont get a dodgy conviction.

[mojofilter]

Actually, it is. The law is the law. If someone breaks it, doesnt matter if they are on private property or not, the police have a duty to deal with it. If the police deem an offensive weapon offence has been commitedthey have to arrest.

Of course you are right, but only if the law is broken, having an S139 compliant knife tucked away in a pocket or briefcase is not breaking the law. NWR or LUL policy is not the law!

NR havent done that. What is happening, is that many police are using their (legal) discretion with regard to carrying knives and the offensive weapons act. It would seem under the current climate, that any carriage of a knife on public transport, is being viewed as carrying an offensive weapon ...and therefore arrestable (under the individual officers discretion).

Surely you agree that this is outwith the spirit of the law?

If there is a "blanket arrest for possession of an S139 allowed knife" policy, then the officer is not using his discression, he is simply arresting you for possession of something you are legally permitted to carry, without making a case that you are in fact, carrying it as a weapon.

[Stew]

I'm afraid BF, your knife law knowledge probably exceeds that of many cops. It doesnt mean what they are doing is unlawfull, just thatv you have this knowledge on the tip of your tongue, while they have to dig for it. If you catch them off guard and unprepared, many will go so far, then flounder.

But somewhere along the process of arrest and charging, the details will be examined and a good legal judgement will be made. If there is an error in the cops knowledge, it'll probably get picked up by the desk sargeant before you get charged, if not by the duty solicitor, or crown prosecution service or finally, the magistrates/courts.

You may get a dodgy arrest from time to time, but you wont get a dodgy conviction.

A good point Martyn!

[mojofilter]

How much can we expect the average copper to know? As a working nurse, I have great sympathy for their predicament. I am expected to digest huge volumes of information. The reality is, no one is a walking encyclopedia of thier subject. Being a professional, is not about having encyclopedic knowledge, it's about how you execute your role. If your find your knowledge is lacking, then you read and learn. It's an ongoing process.

Fair point if it was a random encounter on the street, but they are specifically being tasked to target knife carriers, surely it is only right that they are brought upto speed on the relevant laws beforehand?

Pouring concrete founds is not my usual scope of work, but it's something I've covered. If I get told "stuarty, next friday you will be pouring concrete founds", surely it's my duty to brush up on the finer points of doing so before I get put on the spot?

[Martyn]

Of course you are right, but only if the law is broken, having an S139 compliant knife tucked away in a pocket or briefcase is not breaking the law. NWR or LUL policy is not the law!

It breaks the law if you are carrying it to use as a weapon.

Surely you agree that this is outwith the spirit of the law?

If there is a "blanket arrest for possession of an S139 allowed knife" policy, then the officer is not using his discression, he is simply arresting you for possession of something you are legally permitted to carry, without making a case that you are in fact, carrying it as a weapon.

Yes I agree it may be outside the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it. I doubt there has been a blanket policyb implimented. If the general feeling among BTP is that all knife carriers are a threat to public safety under the current climate, they dont need a blanket policy to make a lawfull arrest. The desk sargeant may kick it out, but that's a different issue.

[mojofilter]

It breaks the law if you are carrying it to use as a weapon.

But it is not an illegal item per se, so surely you must need to be doing more than having it on your person for anyone to make a case that you are carrying it as a weapon.


I'm outta here now!

[Mr_Yarrow]

But it is not an illegal item per se, so surely you must need to be doing more than having it on your person for anyone to make a case that you are carrying it as a weapon.


I'm outta here now!

The law is actually worded so that an officer only has to believe you are intending to use it for such a purpose.

So if he finds it on your person and believes you are going to be naughty with it, then you have broken the law according to the 1953 provention of crime act.

Rgds

[Martyn]

The law is actually worded so that an officer only has to believe you are intending to use it for such a purpose.

So if he finds it on your person and believes you are going to be naughty with it, then you have broken the law according to the 1953 provention of crime act.

Rgds

Egggzakerly.

Officer discretion.

The law hasnt changed, but following the tube bombings, I think we have seen a change in the way officers are exercising their discretion.

[Danzo]

Excellent discussion everyone!



I think it is very important that everyone remembers the very complex role of the police. They must both uphold and enforce the law, whilst preventing crime and disorder.

To achieve the second may on occasion mean a loose interpretation of the first. This is why we then have subsequent stages independent of the police: the CPS makes the decision to prosecute and the open court decides guilt.

That may mean the the absolute letter of the law is not followed at the first stage. When we are the victims, or even potential victims, of crime we are generally happy with that. Imagine a police officer knocking on your door at midnight who tells you that there were three big youths loitering outside your back gate. He then tells you that despite no evidence of a crime he's nicked the youths and taken them down the station to be on the safe side. He even winks and says 'I'd give 'em a bl**dy good clip on the ear if I had my way, sir, but you know how things are nowadays....' I think many of us would be going back inside to tell SWMBO that at least there are a few decent coppers left.

However when we, perceiving ourselves as law abiding citizens, think that OUR rights are being infringed by over-enthusiastic coppers we get more than a little self-righteous.

But that is why we have the subsequent stages of a decision to prosecute and an open trial.

Danzo

[PHIL562]

Excellant post Danzo