Searches at festivals

Murt2024

A friend got strip searched at electric picnic a few years ago. Doesn’t look anyway dodgy whatsoever, works in IT. Had to strip and squat in front of two male Gaurds in a tent.

Not even an apology, just said you can leave.

He registered a complaint on what grounds there was to strip search but was ignored and fobbed off with some generic email response about the law on strip searches that Gaurd had reasonable suspicion. Contacted Solicitor and just said to leave it, no hope of winning.

hullaballoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122249837#Comment_122249837

I'm not in the line of work where I have to grapple with the choice of running such a case, but I thank you nonetheless for the sensible approach. Again I fully agree that from a practical standpoint, this kind of case is better not brought absent some exceptional circumstances, like an actual abuse.

But leaving that aside, I think on the basis of the law, the question is interesting and obviously more complex than it appears on its face.

I don't think it's an entirely novel argument either. The first thing that came to mind when this thread popped up was R v. Brown. I note with some satisfaction that the relevant Irish authority is called DPP v. Brown - and, although these cases focus on criminal liability for assault, there are obvious parallels and the position would be more favourable for a plaintiff in a civil action based in tort. I would say there is authority to say that the issue of whether consent is actually a viable argument for a defendant in a case such as the festival-goer is at the very least dubious.

The sex worker example is a total red herring, perhaps playing to the audience more than addressing the subject. As has always been the case, consent to sexual encounters is an essential element to the nature of the encounter and whether it is sex or rape. However, in your example, the sex worker is exchanging sex for payment. Sex (or an invasion of bodily integrity, if you want) is central to the "contract". In this thread, the contract is for admission to a concert/festival in exchange for payment. The invasion of bodily integrity in this case is barely ancillary to the central subject-matter of the contract. This is where the argument is really.

What I might have failed to highlight adequately previously is that, in tandem with the tangential relevance of the reason for the search to the core elements of the relationship, the relative power of the parties is a significant factor in my view as to the lawfulness of the search. Effectively, the unlucky festival-goer is left with no real option other than to provide a broad-brush consent to being searched in order to access the festival. What's more is that there does not seem to be any need for the thugs on the gates to have any real basis for a search other than their whim.

That for me is a topsy-turvy way to approach the question of the balance of rights and obligations in this question.

Del2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122249682#Comment_122249682

They aren't just checking for drugs, they have to check for weapons and you can hide a knife or other dangerous weapon very easily so that an invasive search is required to find it.

Peregrinus

The sex worker example is a total red herring, perhaps playing to the audience more than addressing the subject. As has always been the case, consent to sexual encounters is an essential element to the nature of the encounter and whether it is sex or rape. However, in your example, the sex worker is exchanging sex for payment. Sex (or an invasion of bodily integrity, if you want) is central to the "contract". In this thread, the contract is for admission to a concert/festival in exchange for payment. The invasion of bodily integrity in this case is barely ancillary to the central subject-matter of the contract. This is where the argument is really.

Well, what about airports? The guy who fondles your bits at the airport is not an agent of the state and has no statutory powers or authority; they're a privately-employed security guard, just like at a festival. They fondle with your consent — they always ask, and you are within your rights to decline — but if you don't consent you won't be alllowed to fly and there will be no refund of your ticket price. The contract is one for transport, so the "invasion of bodily integrity in this case is barely ancillary to the central subject-matter of the contract". And of course there's a massive imbalance of power between the parties to the contract; much more so than in the festival case. So I think we have a pretty close parallel here.

Arguably the airport case is an even more acute one, since the disadvantage of being impeded in your right to travel is potentially much greater than the disadvantage of being impeded in your desire to attend a music festival. Indeed, the right to travel enjoys some constitutional recognition and protection in a way that the right to attend concerts, I think, does not.

All of which gives rise to two questions:

1. Is the implication of your argument that insisting on invasive searches at airports is constitutionally improper?
2. If so, if we're waiting for the right case to try to establish a new precedent here, would an an airport case maybe a better prospect than a festival case?

I think whoever is defending the action we bring will seek to justify the searches not only by saying "patrons agree to consent to searches when they buy their tickets" but also by saying ". . . and in the context of this contract this is a reasonable thing for us to ask them to agree to". (But note that you don't have to point to the Constitution to argue that they must advance that second argument; the unfair contract terms legislation gets you there. Does the Constitution add anything further to that?)

If we're going to distinguish between the airport case and the festival case, I think we're working our way towards an argument about proportionality — the risks of not searching airline passengers (the murder of hundreds in a fireball) justify a will-agree-to-be-searched condition in a way that the risks of not searching festival patrons (accidental death or injury of a smaller number of people resulting from dodgy tablets) does not. But once you concede there's a risk of death at all — and people have died at festivals from consuming dodgy substances smuggled in — then its hard to argue that requiring patrons to agree to searches if asked is disproportionate. Is there an "acceptable level" of festival deaths? What is that level?

Jambonjunior

it seems to be mentioned more prominently in notices for gigs now.

Strict security checks will be
in operation. Everyone will be
subject to a search permissible
under law, per Purchase Policy. It
is a condition of entry, to protect
everyone’s safety. Additional
searches may take place once
inside the venue.

The event venue may conduct security searches of you and other patrons for safety and security purposes and/or may refuse admission to patrons (including you) breaching or suspected of breaching any terms and conditions of the event or any Event Partner

Gary_dunne

You all do realise the searches are mainly just a security guard patting you down, there's very little detailed in depth searches.

It also depends on the gig, Tom Jones was barely even touched, Fatboy Slim was an actual pat down. They're basically just making sure you're not trying to sneak in naggins cans or any weapons (very rare at any Irish festival).