There is no reason why an Inspector cannot seek to interview a passenger beyond the platform - or even beyond the station perimiter. However, they do not have the authority to compell the person to answer any questions nor to detain them. An interview conducted under PACE should include the explanation that the person is not obliged to answer any questions and in fact, that remark does permit the person to simply walk away; of course many people will think (rightly perhaps) that their refusal will be interpreted as indicating guilt whether they have anything to feel guilty about or not!
In such circumstances the passenger is free to walk away, and if they have not even reached the point of indentifying themselves then there can be little chance of any consequences. A well trained Inspector may stand in such a manner to give the impression of physically blocking the person's departure but it should only be an impression.
Any Inspector or other Officer attempting to detain a passenger by way of an Any Person Arrest (f.k.a. a Citizens' Arrest) or any other physical restraint would be taking quite a risk.
Dave.
With respect I really do wish you would not continue to act as some sort of surrogate legal adviser, as on a number of occasoions in the past your "advice" has been wrong.
What you have stated is quite incorrect.
The power still exists under section 5 of the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act to detain a person suspected of fare evasion. This is reinforced by PACE by virtue of a power of arrest.
Just one further point.
The legal system of the UK is based upon every person acquainting themselves with an understanding of the relevant Legislation. There is no defence in UK law that a person was not aware of the applicable Law.
In the case of railway travel, the passenger is assumed under this general convention to have made themselves fully aware of the relevant Legislation as well as any specific requirements of the Railway, such as the Railway Byelaws, National Conditions of Carriage.
Reference to these quite clearly requires the passenger to hold a valid ticket before commencing their journey or to pay the correct fare for the journey undertaken.
Talk of "entrapment", "trapping" and all these other silly and emotional arguments represent personal views and opinions which are not supported by Law.
Until and unless the Law is changed, it will always be the case that a person is required to make themselves aware of the elements of Law that apply to anything they are engaged upon. No end of opinion or disagreement will alter that.
MODS
I have previously asked that we have a "sticky" which addresses the sorts of issues that are being debated here (yet again) at great length. It seems silly to me that we hear the same old personal viewpoints propounded as fact, and end up with the same arguments and disputes. There is nothing NEW here, simply the continuing replay of the same old argument a bit like a record playing over and over.