24

It is in the news that police have forced a number of children aged 10 and up onto trains against their will.

What powers do police have to require people to board trains?

Improve this question
2
  • 11
    If you're going to downvote, please consider why you're doing it and ideally post a comment to explain. This is a reasonable question about the law; concisely written; not asking for legal advice, etc.
    – JBentley
    Commented Nov 27 at 9:51
  • 3
    This, somehow, feels like a horribly prescient question.
    – BWFC
    Commented Nov 28 at 14:43

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
31

The linked article says of these circumstances that there was a "dispersal notice" or "dispersal order". These are provided for in part 4 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (explanatory notes).

The officer must specify the area from which the person is excluded (section 35(5)(b)) and may specify when and by which route they must leave the area (section 35(5)(c)).

The linked article quotes an assistant chief constable's statement:

“Due to intelligence of groups causing antisocial behaviour on trains on the way into Manchester and similar reports rising around the city centre, alongside increasing footfall, we issued a dispersal order. This included plans for officers to reroute arriving groups back home.”

My understanding from other reports (e.g. from Manchester Evening News) is that the people arriving by train were put on a train. People were not plucked from the high street and put on a train.

At the time of writing it was four calendar days ago (two working days) - people should allow some time for a full report.

Improve this answer
6
  • 7
    Well, they weren't exactly being rerouted "back home". Often it was to random other locations.
    – hegel5000
    Commented Nov 27 at 18:22
  • 9
    @hegel5000: Indeed, but the police claim they intended to send the children home. Both “was the actual result legal?” and “was the claimed intent legal?” are interesting and relevant questions.
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    Commented Nov 27 at 20:51
  • 2
    @hegel5000 I thought of raising that point myself, but the media quote is misleading and if you check the legislation (from the link in the answer) it doesn't actually require that they be rerouted back home. It says they may direct the person to "leave the locality" and that in doing so they may specify "the manner in which the person must do so (including the route)". The only somewhat related restriction is that the direction must not "[prevent] the person to whom it is given having access to a place where the person lives", and it must not be applied to people who appear to be under 10.
    – JBentley
    Commented Nov 28 at 11:53
  • 1
    @JBentley I'd argue that "Being put on a random train" probably prevents you having access to where you live, but certainly "being put on a train back to where you live" is fine. Probably the better PR thing for the police here would have been to exercise 35.7 of this code, and taken the kids home or got their parents to pick them up from the police station
    – lupe
    Commented Nov 29 at 13:12
  • The Manchester Christmas Market has become an important part of the social calendar for the UK Traveller community. Members of that community travel from many parts of the UK to attend. According to the Manchester Evening News, this 'has also proved something of a headache, particularly for security and retailers'. In November 2022, police were called to break up a 'huge' gathering of young traveller people at the Arndale amid reports that fire alarms had been triggered, fireworks set-off and people were 'running up and down the tram tracks'
    – Michael Harvey
    Commented Nov 30 at 11:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .