Transperth Security and Transit Officers

Fastlane · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:24 pm **Posts:** 1688

singkenten wrote:

Sorry Fastlane but they are considered a public officer whilst they a performing a function of their 'office'.

Sorry, but this isn't what the law says - read it and you will see that. I didn't write it!

singkenten · **Joined:** Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:47 pm **Posts:** 109

I am well aware of what the law says, but there is strong case law relating to this, and as such i can guarantee that is how it is applied prima facie...

Nafenn · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1136

killer wrote:

Hi I am writing to put this forum to rest in a way....

I am a transperth security officer.
We do have powers, yes we do arrest under citizens act however we have PTA acts we operate under also.
Alot of our guys are really pissed off about this forum you have all been mislead highly.
We are proffessional ok first things first we will definitely not going to be wearing white wilson shirts any time soon thats a fact.
the guy who started this forum is not who he says he is, he is actually an ex guard of ours and now a revenue protection officer.
We are public officers hense why we have the queens crown on our uniform did any of you take the time to look at that.... no u didnt.
We have alot more trouble then transit officers they can not go off their station we deal with our incidents alot of the times on the streets big difference.
Just because we are hired by wilson does not mean we are half-ass security guards. An average person could not take one day of what we deal with.
Do any of you guys even work in the industry its ok to sit on the computer on bag us but lets see if you can do it.That incident mentioned was false we have never had 30 ic3s bash our guards in maddington on a bus.
As for the vests blue checkers are not polices own colour anybody can use them besides we use green.

Any comments or questions please go ahead i will answer them as soon as i can

But remember we do our job to protect you so think before u bag you could very well end up introuble at the bus station yourself and u will rely on us to help you...

Thank you for your time.

alphabravo wrote:

As a former Transit Guard then Transit Officer and now a current serving WAPOL officer, I would like to put all rumors and myths aside and explain who Transperth Security really are and what a Transit Officer is.

Transperth Security are NOT Transit Officers, they are a group of security guards hired from private security group WILSON Security.

Most of them have transferred from Secureforce including their operations manager Mal Evans. The reason why the PTA have hired these people to provide frontline security on the bus network is that there is not enough PTA Transit Officers to cover the entire system. When PTA took over from Westrail or WAGR in late 2003, CEO Reece Waldock vision was to have law enforcement officers ie Transit Guards who have powers of arrest to patrol and maintain the public transport system. His vision was to model it off other networks around the world and have his very own transit police.

Recruiting people to do the job is hard enough nowadays as people who do not want to deal with the antisocial behavior find better jobs and working conditions elsewhere, such as the mines, construction, IT and sales to name a few. We at WAPOL have this problem and so does PTA.

This problem started when Alannah McTiernan had an election promised to have two transit officers on every train after 7pm but obviously she could not find enough people to do the job so they resorted to MSS Security (formally Chubb) to provide these services. If you are not aware, they have revenue protection of their badges and no wreath, meaning that they are not governed by the government, do not have any legal powers and are private security ONLY. Transperth Security ie Wilson Secuirty also fall under this status aswell.

A PTA Transit Officer is a law enforcement officer who do have the same power as police officers except they can only exercise those powers on Public Transport Authority property.

Transit Officers use the same legislation as WAPOL officers including:

• Public Transport Authority Act 2003 and Regulations 2003;
• Government Railways Act 1904;
• Criminal Code;
• Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002;
• Protective Custody Act;
• Young Offenders Act 1994;
• Preparing Court Briefs and Prosecution Notices / Summonses;
• Presenting Evidence in Court, and
• Lock-up Procedures and Search Techniques

The only legislation that transit officers cannot legally exercise is the Road Traffic Act.

Transperth Security DO NOT have the powers of arrest, they can only act under the Citizens Act which means that they have the same powers as an ordinary citizen.

Transperth Security are ONLY authorized officers as stated in Sect 56 of the PTA Act and can only request your name, address and date of birth for the purposes of issuing an infringement only. Basically it means that they are a ticket inspector and they cannot do anything if you walk away.

You often hear of Tranperth Security claiming to have arrested someone, ill tell you right now…. All they do is call WAPOL or PTA Transit Officers to attend and we take the offender away. We do not prosecute or take the offender to lock up or watch house. As we do not rely on hearsay evidence as it is admissible in court, as most WAPOL and Transit officers know, all we do is take them around the corner, give them an active move on notice and tell to walk away… that’s it.

Transit Officers on the other hand when they arrest an offender will take them to lock up, compile an arrest brief and prosecution notice and will take you to court. The outcome is the same and you will get a criminal record. Transit Officers have the same access to IMS (police mainframe) and can look up anybody if needed.

The amount of times I’ve attended Mirrabooka, Booragoon, and City bus stations to deal with transperth security that have no idea what they have just done and arrested someone for something weak like smoking. Ask them where do they get their powers from, most of them wont even know or they'll just say that their boss said they can. Ask them where the charge of disorderly behaviour comes from, what section and what legislation it comes from? They have no idea of the WA legal system.

I have spoken to most bus drivers and they have even told us that Transperth Security are useless and if they have any trouble on their bus they will divert straight to the railway station, as they know PTA Transit Officers can actually deal with the situation.

Transperth Security are now wearing PTA Transit Officer uniforms and WAPOL style yellow safety vests with stripes on their shoulders (yes I know, going above and beyond their job description) to make it look like that there are more transit officers on the network I’ll tell you right now that this wont be happening much longer as the commissioner of WAPOL and PTA Senior Management and the RBTU have and will rectify this issue. You will see them wearing white Wilson Security shirts very soon.

Also, the reason why PTA Transit Officers where orange safety vests is that orange in railway by law is a signal of caution and this is recognized worldwide.

PTA made the biggest mistake in putting these people in the blue uniform, alot of these Wilson guards are telling everyone that they are transit officers and even WAPOL, its makes WAPOL and PTA Transit Officers look unprofessional.

I hope this thread is useful to help identify the different law enforcement/security on the PTA network.

I dont see him denying being a Transit officer at all

killer · **Joined:** Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:09 pm **Posts:** 3

guys as you know it has passed legislation in parliament we will know in 2 weeks most probably becoming auxilary police officers so yeah that just proves how hard our job is. Its Not easy we carry baton and spray for a reason. And when this legislation passes we will be higher ranked powers then train guards as we will be special constables.
I am not ignorant guys just want you to know there are some comments on here where you call us idiots and useless, we break up fights all the time and remove disordely and intoxicated and beggers so you the public can ride safely if we stopped doing this and just observed and reported like you guys think we do perth bus stations would be a murder zone!

Please we need support not criticism

Fireguard · **Joined:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:41 pm **Posts:** 16

singkenten wrote:

Sorry Fastlane but they are considered a public officer whilst they a performing a function of their 'office'. So while they are checking tickets, intervening in a disorderly incident, on patrol, etc, etc, they are considered a public officer. The legal definition of a public officer is applied to Transit guards (both train and bus) in the same way it is applied to Police. If a police officer is at maccas getting lunch and someone was to randomly walk up and hit them in the back of the head it would be a charge of common assault and not assault public officer as the Police officer was not performing a function of his office at the time...

Criminal Code:

318. Serious assaults
(1) Any person who —
(d) assaults a public officer who is performing a function of
his office or employment or on account of his being such
an officer or his performance of such a function; or

The bit that is open to interprotation with regards to the Wilsons and TO's guys is the "Performing a function of their office" if you are interveining into a common assault etc that is " NOT ON AUTHORITY PROPERTY " you can't assess any of your powers under the PTA act, and are not covered with regard to Vicarious Liability (Sec 54 PTA Act), you are purely acting as a CITIZEN and a technicaly therefore not a Public Officer at that time. At any time that the any PTA officer is using Citizens Arrest powers, or assesing any other powers not specified via the PTA act/Regs you are not covered by vicarious liability IE. You are completely on you own!!.

You could try and argue the APO case "or on account of his being such an officer or his performance of such a function", but you would have to prove that the assault took place BECAUSE you are a Public Officer I.E, you have had previous dealing with the POI prior whilst you were a Public officer (On Property) , not just because you were there in a uniform.

To the Cop at Maccas example, if you baddie said something like "bloodie Copper" etc ie. identified that he knew the person was a WAPOL officer, wether in uniform or not then assaulted them, "On account of being such an officer" then the charge of APO applies. Or if the officer can prove that they have had dealings with the POI and that is why they were assaulted, then APO still applies............ The same examples also apply to Wilsons and TO's

Zebedee · **Posted:** Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:33 pm

killer wrote:

I am not ignorant guys just want you to know there are some comments on here where you call us idiots and useless,

The best thing you can do is drop the attitude and the collective "you".

If you have an objection to what an individual poster has said, then take it up with them. But don't come on here crying that "you call us idiots" as your posts so far haven't done much to improve that impression.

bawds25 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:07 am **Posts:** 25

Just adding my piece:

318. Serious assaults
(1) Any person who —
(d) assaults a public officer who is performing a function of
his office or employment or on account of his being such
an officer or his performance of such a function; or
(e) assaults any person who is performing a function of a
public nature conferred on him by law or on account of
his performance of such a function

The legislation states "performing a function of his office" not "exercising a power". So when it comes to assault, a Transperth Security Officer is covered as long as he or she is acting within his JOB DESCRIPTION (i.e. function of his office). Officers are also covered by (e) as they are performing a function of a public nature (i.e. providing security services to public transport). I, being a Transperth Security Officer, have been assaulted while arresting an offender, and the offender was charged with assaulting a public officer. Even though I was utilising citizen arrest powers, not the powers afforded to me as an authorised person, I was still acting within my job description and the function of my office. That is why I was covered by the serious assault legislation. I hope this ends the confusion.

Also, when it comes to the actual definition of public officer in the Criminal Code, Transperth Security Officers fall into the following highlighted catagories:

The term public officer means any of the following —
(a) a police officer;
(aa) a Minister of the Crown;
(ab) a Parliamentary Secretary appointed under section 44A of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899;
(ac) a member of either House of Parliament;
(ad) a person exercising authority under a written law; [When exercising power as an authorised person]
(b) a person authorised under a written law to execute or serve any process of a court or tribunal;
(c) a public service officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Sector Management Act 1994;
(ca) a person who holds a permit to do high-level security work as defined in the Court Security and Custodial
Services Act 1999;
(cb) a person who holds a permit to do high-level security work as defined in the Prisons Act 1981;
(d) a member, officer or employee of any authority, board, corporation, commission, local government, council of a
local government, council or committee or similar body established under a written law;
(e) any other person holding office under, or employed by, the State of Western Australia, whether for remuneration or not;

The last two (d) and (e) are open to interpretation but I suspect the term 'officer' would include Transperth Security Officers as they are officers of the PTA, even though they may not be employees. I imagine that is why the legislation includes both terms "officer" and "employee" as they are not the same thing. An employee is actually employed by an organisation, whereas an officer is a person authorised to act on behalf of an organisation. Also, a Transperth Security Officer is appointed to the office of 'authorised person' by the Authority (the State of WA), therefor (e) applies also. Please note though that (d) and (e) are my interpretation (as an ex Murdoch law student) only and I have not confirmed them with a legal practitioner, but it would explain why the offender who assaulted me was charged with assaulting a public officer.

alexdavis · **Joined:** Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:29 am **Posts:** 1

Fastlane wrote:

woobla1 wrote:

Oh and if I get my ticket checked by one of these fella's

and you mentioned I can just walk away? Do I have to give them my details? or only to a cops, pta officer?

I guess hard to tell right?. Oh and I always have a ticket

Think you'll find they are authorised to check your ticket and request name/address etc details for the purposes of writing an infringement. You are within your rights under the act to request to see their written authority (same goes for Transit Officers - or Security Officers as they are still called under the act).

yeah right coz there are lot of people who only trick you. Keep watching! only give it to the real policeman.

bawds25 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:07 am **Posts:** 25

Quote:

only give it to the real policeman.

Cant wait to run into you, hope you catch buses :wink:

written_ficton · **Joined:** Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:08 pm **Posts:** 1925

There is alot of confusion on these people.

Security officers can ask for your name and address but you have the right to refuse! Some 'security officers' like Wilson have the right to ask - however, only under certain circumstances. You have of course the right to refuse and you can however...

Only then if you have done something that would possible result in jail time than failure to give your name is an offence and you can be charged for it. Same goes for giving a false name

Its law for Police Officers and Transit Officers that you must give name and address when asked.

Fastlane · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:24 pm **Posts:** 1688

written_ficton wrote:

Its law for Police Officers and Transit Officers that you must give name and address when asked.

only under certain circumstances though, its not a blind 'requirement'.

bawds25 wrote:

Quote:

only give it to the real policeman.

Cant wait to run into you, hope you catch buses :wink:

This says it all, really.. and you wonder why some people aren't impressed with bus security/wilsons etc..

bawds25 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:07 am **Posts:** 25

Officer in this section means a police officer, PTA transit officer, Wilson Transit Officer (or Transperth Security Officer), and revenue protection officers along with many others that draw powers from the Criminal Investigation (IP) Act.

Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act states:

Part 3 — Personal details of people

16. Officer may ask for name, address, etc.

(1) In this section —
personal details, in relation to a person, means —
(a) the person’s full name;
(b) the person’s date of birth;
(c) the address of where the person is living;
(d) the address of where the person usually lives.

(2) If an officer reasonably suspects that a person whose personal details are unknown to the officer —
(a) has committed or is committing or is about to commit an offence; or
(b) may be able to assist in the investigation of an offence or a suspected offence,
the officer may request the person to give the officer any or all of the person’s personal details.

(3) If an officer reasonably suspects that a personal detail given by a person in response to a request is false, the officer may request
the person to produce evidence of the correctness of the detail.

(4) A person to whom a request is made under subsection (2) or (3) may request the officer making the request to identify himself or
herself.

(5) An officer who is requested by a person to identify himself or herself must do so.

(6) A person who, without reasonable excuse, does not comply with a request made under subsection (2) or (3) commits an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), the fact that an officer did not comply with subsection (5) as soon as practicable is a
reasonable excuse.

bawds25 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:07 am **Posts:** 25

Quote:

This says it all, really.. and you wonder why some people aren't impressed with bus security/wilsons etc..

Haha sorry if I came accross the wrong way mate. What i meant was i am always up for a debate and if i ran into this person (who doesnt want to give name and address to me) i would love to discuss the issue and correct them.

Dont look down on us all, there are many officers who are firm believers in serving the community and doing it without getting physical or being 'thugs'. But dont expect me to not be upset when people constantly belittle my occupation, especially those who know nothing of what the role involves and obviously have no respect for the officers who are out there protecting the public.

If you take a stance not to give your personal details to anyone but a police officer, fine, thats your decision. But i believe that you have the wrong attitude towards persons in authority. Maybe even a small case of the aussie 'tall-poppy syndrome' that seems to be imbedded in us all to some degree. Personally, if a ranger, transit officer, police officer, transperth security officer, parking enforcement officer, or anyone in a position of authority asked me for my details, i would give them the respect of providing them. For if i have done nothing wrong, i have nothing to fear. There is no point arguing over nothing. Especially if it will result in being arrested and charged for an offence.

Once again, apologies for coming accross the wrong way, i meant no harm. Its just my cheaky sense of humour

Fireguard · **Joined:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:41 pm **Posts:** 16

Public Transport Authority Act 2003

57. Obtaining details of certain offenders
(1) A person who is a security officer or an authorised person may
investigate —
(a) an offence against this Act; or
Public Transport Authority Act 2003
(b) an offence referred to in section 58(2) committed in the
circumstances described in that provision,
and that person’s office is prescribed for the purposes of the
Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 and in
particular the definition of public officer in section 3 of
that Act.
(2) The person may exercise powers under the Criminal
Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 Part 3 but only in
relation to a person’s personal details as defined in
subsection (3).
(3) In subsection (2) —
personal details means —
(a) the person’s full name;
(b) the person’s date of birth;
(c) the address of where the person is living;
(d) the address of where the person usually lives.

This is the actual piece of Legislation that gives PTA officers the ability to ask for your details. This includes Transit Officers, Revenue Protection Officers, CSA's and PTA's, as will as Transperth Security Officers (As far as the PTA is conserned there is no such thing as a "Wilson Transit Officer")

bawds25 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:07 am **Posts:** 25

As far as Wilson is concerned, officers are and have always been hired under the job title of "Transit Officer" and they are also called this in their Union Collective Agreement. The only thing thats changed is that PTA has recently asked Wilson not to refer to their officers as Transit Officers when dealing with the public as it creates confusion as to the powers of the officers. Which is fair enough, I can totally understand that.

But then i think, wow, if people actually read into the powers of transit officers then they would see that PTA transit officers are actually "security officers" appointed under the PTA Act. So, when wilson staff start calling themselves 'Transperth Security Officers' it could taken by an educated member of the public that they are security officers as appointed under the PTA Act.

Realistically, the only reason the term transit officer was taken from wilson was because PTA transits had a hissy fit. The PTA transit officers have tried to distance themselves from the title of "security officer" even though its really what they are. Transit Officer is just a job title, not what they have been appointed as. A police officer is a police officer because thats what they are appointed as under the Police Act.

So PTA transit officers have no right to the title any more than a revenue protection officer or a 'transperth security officer'. And if they did, then the government would change the legislation and appoint them as 'transit officers' not 'security officers'.

No disrespect intended. Have a wonderful Christmas

WA Radio Scanner Users' Group

Transperth Security and Transit Officers

Who is online