Bylaw 13 Warning Letter

[MPotter]

I have been given a warning letter by a BTP officer on behalf a Sergeant based at Norwich railway station whilst they were on routine foot patrol at that station.

This is the text of the letter:

5th April 2019

(Full name and address removed)

Dear Mr Potter

I am writing to you in regards to your recent behaviour at Norwich Rail (sic) Station where you have been seen loitering resulting in a large amount of intelligence being gathered.. (sic) This letter is to advise you that it is against the railway byelaws to loiter or remain at a railway station when asked to leave by an authorised person. This is contrary to byelaw 13(2) and 24 of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Railway Authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000, as amended by Section 46 of the Railways Act 2005
The definition of an authorised person includes any constable acting in the execution of their duties upon or in connection with the railway.
This letter is to advise you that the only reason for you to be at a station is to purchase a ticket or to travel on the next available service. If for any reason you are not doing either or you do not board the next available service then you will be liable to prosecution. This letter serves as direction for you to not remain on the railway unless it is for the above reasons.
Furthermore you are aware you are not permitted to film whilst on the railway without written permission. This also includes filming parts of the rail network and people using it as it will constitute further offences under the railway byelaws.
Should you continue to breach the byelaws then as well as prosecution we will seek to apply banning conditions against you on the rail network.

Yours Sincerely

TPS (Temporary Police Sergeant) (Name and collar number removed)
Norwich BTP

British Transport Police

British Transport Police
Norwich Train Station
Station Approach
Norwich NR1 1EG

(DX contact details removed)

Tel: 0800 40 50 40

A copy of Railway Bylaw 13 and part of Bylaw 25 (1) which highlights the definition of an "authorised person" is then provided.

This letter now raises the question of validity given that the spirit of Railway Bylaw 13 (2) appears to be to allow an authorised person to remove someone loitering on the railway for a short amount of time (not to exceed 24 hours) by requiring that they leave the premises. Does this warning letter actually have any lawful validity or is it just a load of tripe?

[charitynjw]

It is possible that you have been captured on CCTV, so I guess the question would have to be what were you in fact doing to arouse their suspicions?

[MPotter]

Apparently I've been (Content removed) annoying the staff (Content removed).

[efpom]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ay-byelaws.pdf

The Police Acting Sergeant's Byelaw 13 direction is fatally flawed and in consequence, is of no effect.

"This letter is to advise you that the only reason for you to be at a station is to purchase a ticket or to travel on the next available service. If for any reason you are not doing either or you do not board the next available service then you will be liable to prosecution. This letter serves as direction for you to not remain on the railway unless it is for the above reasons."

I can think of at least 10 other reasons why someone could be lawfully at a station.

The power under Section 13 (2) is a single direction to leave railway premises on one occasion.

The Acting Sergeant simply does not have any power to issue any direction, for any future occasion.See 24 2 (iv)

If BTP or Networks Rail (or the operator or occupier of any part of the railway infrastructure wishes to obtain an exclusion order against any person, it MUST apply to the court.

[MPotter]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ay-byelaws.pdf

The Police Acting Sergeant's Byelaw 13 direction is fatally flawed and in consequence, is of no effect.

"This letter is to advise you that the only reason for you to be at a station is to purchase a ticket or to travel on the next available service. If for any reason you are not doing either or you do not board the next available service then you will be liable to prosecution. This letter serves as direction for you to not remain on the railway unless it is for the above reasons."

I can think of at least 10 other reasons why someone could be lawfully at a station.

The power under Section 13 (2) is a single direction to leave railway premises on one occasion.

The Acting Sergeant simply does not have any power to issue any direction, for any future occasion.See 24 2 (iv)

If BTP or Networks Rail (or the operator or occupier of any part of the railway infrastructure wishes to obtain an exclusion order against any person, it MUST apply to the court.

Those are very good points. I will add what you have said in my formal complaint to BTP PSD about the Sergeant's decision to issue this Bylaw 13 direction.

Good reasons for being at a station other than the above would include (in my opinion at least):

Trainspotting
Using station facilities e.g. shops, cafe, toilets
To attend the BTP Police station inside for the purposes of reporting railway related crime or anti-social behaviour
To use the station help point, check arrivals and/or departure boards or speak to the station staff for the purposes of obtaining railway related information
To catch a bus or taxi outside the station
To obtain a refund on an unused ticket
To consume food and/or drink purchased on the premises

However the Sergeant did later say (over the telephone) that if I am allowed to be at the station provided that I have a valid and specific reason to be there e.g. the above reasons.

Funnily enough I have contacted Greater Anglia's (the TOC who manage Norwich) customer services department who have informed me that they have not banned me from entering Norwich station nor have they instructed the BTP to do that. They also added that they couldn't interfere either way as it is a Police matter, not a matter for them to decide.

So if that is the case then it does make me wonder why the BTP got involved in the first place then? If no complaint was made about my presence at Norwich station then the BTP have no right to interfere with what is in fact a matter between me and Greater Anglia.

Thank you for your help. I fully agree with what you have said.

[MPotter]

This is Bylaw 24 (2):

24. Enforcement
(2) Removal of persons
(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
(iii) No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.
(iv) In exercising powers conferred by Byelaws 24(2)(i) and 24(2)(ii) the authorised person shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms prior to exercising the power conferred upon him.

[efpom]

Two brief points:
1 - The BTP letter does not state the nature of the breach alleged - all it says is:

"I am writing to you in regards to your recent behaviour at Norwich Rail (sic) Station where you have been seen loitering resulting in a large amount of intelligence being gathered.."

The byelaws use the word "loiter" at 13 (2) as follows:
"No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised
person"


which begs the question - If you were asked to leave, you are required not to "loiter" i.e you must get out as soon as practicible. But if you ware not asked to leave you cannot be "loitering".

2 One does not need written permission to film on the railway system, unless it is for a commercial purpose.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commun...y-at-stations/

I suggest you post your draft complaint up before sending it.

If I were writing it - it would be addressed to Chief Constable Paul Crowther and would begin "Please may I have an explanation from you about what seems to me to be the unlawful conduct of Acting Sergeant ...

[MPotter]

Dear Sirs,


I wish to complain about the decision to issue me with a loitering warning letter (Bylaw 13) which was made by Sgt Darren Jenkins based at Norwich Railway station. I was served with the actual letter by an unknown male Police officer and a female Police officer, who I believe to be PC 0686. I was then asked to leave the station by the male officer and then followed out by the female officer after I left the station but remained just outside the premises in the car park.

I have read the warning notice and the text of the relevant bylaws which Sgt JENKINS mentioned in the letter. I believe that the letter was invalid on the grounds that the bylaw only requires that anyone loitering on the railway must "leave the railway if asked to by an authorised person". It does not expressly require that they also "must not return to that station if asked not to do so".

Therefore I would like the raise the following points of complaint regarding the decision to issue the letter:

1) The decision to issue the notice was invalid and unlawful.
2) The notice should not have been issued at all.

3) The restriction imposed on me by the notice was disproportionate.
4) The grounds for issuing the notice were not sufficent or valid.

I would like to highlight that I have contacted Sgt JENKINS and the BTP on numerous occasions regarding this notice in order to request that it is rescinded or varied. I have been unsuccessful which is the reason I have decided to formally complain.

Please note that this letter is a formal complaint relating to the decision to issue me with this notice. I would like it to be investigated efficently and proportionately. I would like you to respond within 21 days to acknowledge reciept of my email.

I would like any contact regarding this issue to be in writing or by email. You may contact me at the above home address or reply to this email.

Regards,




Marcus Potter

(Signature removed)

[MPotter]

Two brief points:
1 - The BTP letter does not state the nature of the breach alleged - all it says is:

"I am writing to you in regards to your recent behaviour at Norwich Rail (sic) Station where you have been seen loitering resulting in a large amount of intelligence being gathered.."

The byelaws use the word "loiter" at 13 (2) as follows:
"No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised
person"


which begs the question - If you were asked to leave, you are required not to "loiter" i.e you must get out as soon as practicible. But if you ware not asked to leave you cannot be "loitering".

2 One does not need written permission to film on the railway system, unless it is for a commercial purpose.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commun...y-at-stations/

I suggest you post your draft complaint up before sending it.

If I were writing it - it would be addressed to Chief Constable Paul Crowther and would begin "Please may I have an explanation from you about what seems to me to be the unlawful conduct of Acting Sergeant ...

You are correct, thank you for your informative reply. I think I'll take this matter up with BTP's Professional Standards Department as the Chief Constable will simply pass it onto them anyway.

[Truthhurts]

Perhaps having a crimimal behavior order against filming police in Norfolk as per potters police video films would have a bearing?

[charitynjw]

Perhaps having a crimimal behavior order against filming police in Norfolk as per potters police video films would have a bearing?

One might question why such an order would be imposed after a complaint was made?
Why was it not done at the time of the alleged behaviour?

[MPotter]

One might question why such an order would be imposed after a complaint was made?
Why was it not done at the time of the alleged behaviour?

Which complaint are you refering to?

[Truthhurts]

Which complaint are you refering to?

I see your point there have been numerous complaints?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-42748351

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTi...mdrdv9uI7U-L5g

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/a...-a3732476.html

[charitynjw]

Which complaint are you refering to?

You are proposing (or already have) a complaint about the way you were treated.
Truthhurts seems to be....suggesting?....a criminal behaviour order as a....suitable response?....to your complaint.
Seems a bit fishy to me, but that's only my take on it.
(My apologies to Truthhurts if that is not the intention. It's a bit difficult to see which direction his/her posts are coming from.)

[Truthhurts]

You are proposing (or already have) a complaint about the way you were treated.
Truthhurts seems to be....suggesting?....a criminal behaviour order as a....suitable response?....to your complaint.
Seems a bit fishy to me, but that's only my take on it.
(My apologies to Truthhurts if that is not the intention. It's a bit difficult to see which direction his/her posts are coming from.)

My direction if any is the Op has a proven serious mental health issue as repeatedly shown by him and should be using it to his advantage Link: http://www.npaa.org.uk/statement-mar...18975830078125