The Law - And Fare Evaders !

Passengers using the Sydney rail network regularly see fare evaders vault the barrier both entering and leaving train platforms.  In many cases this is in full view of station staff but there is a curious lack of action to apprehend the culprits and put an end to these free rides.

The actual degree of authority in the hands of railway employees seems to be uncertain and they leave the task of dealing with fare offenders to the police, but even here the degree of authority to stop and search seems to have limitations, as a recent court case illustrated.

Two cops observed a twenty-four year old man use both an Opal card and a concession card at Liverpool train station.   They approached him and demanded that he produce both his Opal card and the concession and provide his identity.   He objected, and one of the police called him a '" Smart Arse ".   It was made plain that he was " not leaving " until the officers had verified his identity.  He was asked to produce his photo driving license for that purpose.

This man took the state to court with a claim that he had suffered false imprisonment.   The time he was detained by police was four minutes and fifteen seconds.  The police told the magistrate that they had reasonable suspicion that the concession card may have been either stolen or was being used illegally because the traveller appeared " young and fit " and was evasive when asked to supply proof of identity.

The detainee denied he had been evasive and objected to the request to produce his photo driving license " when he was not in possession of a car at that time ".   The judge agreed that the police had an " honest suspicion " about the validity of the concession card, but this was based on " tenuous " rather than " reasonable " grounds.   He ruled that a case of false imprisonment had been established and awarded damages of $ 3201 - which included interest.

Is it any wonder that the police seem reluctant to intervene when what seems blatant fare evasion is taking place before their eyes.   They observed a young man using a concession card that is usually  granted to pensioners and decided to check that it was being legally used to obtain a discounted fare.  They did not put the card holder in handcuffs or place him in a patrol car or a police cell.   They merely had a conversation with him - on a public street - and made it clear he was not free to go until their enquiries concluded.

No doubt both these officers will have a notation that they were found guilty of false imprisonment recorded on their police record and this may tip the balance in some future promotional evaluation.  It seems that there is a very fine line between the job expectation we require from the men and women in blue uniforms and the limit the judiciary now places on their actions.

These unreasonable decisions deter the police from implementing the rule of law we expect to apply in our multicultural society !