Searches at festivals

I'm just curious how it works. Can you be subject to strip searches for simply going to see your favourite artists?

Unless someone challenges this in court, it's not going to change.

Not sure it would rise to the level of a "strip search", that would/could leave them open to "allegations" of some form of assualt.

The top of this page says Legal Discussion, not Moral Discussion.

Who asked you?

I feel like, it's a level of intrusion that wouldn't happen to a crowd going to a leinster rugby match. But, it's fine for young people going to a music event.

People would have bigger quantities of drugs for a festival than going to a match.

Have you ever seen me wear clothes?
Have your ever seen me go into a bathroom and close a door?

Have you ever seen blinds on my windows. If people have things to hide they shouldn't be going to places where they will be checked if they don't want their secrets unveiled.

They need to qualify what a 'search' entails as their T&Cs are quite loose. There is a big difference between a pat down, emptying your pockets, or running over with a wand versus a strip search or intensive/ invasive body search.

People go to concerts to enjoy themselves and should be able to make an educated decision about what they should expect, and if they are willing to accept it. Finding out at the gate/ entry point is a bit late when you have shelled out €€€ for tickets.

I think if you turned up and declined to be searched and they searched you anyway, that would be an assault, despite the terms and conditions of the ticket contract. But that's not what happens; if you decline to be searched they refuse you admission (or, if you're already in, they escort you out) and they refuse to refund your ticket price on the grounds that it is you, not they, who has breached the terms of the contract. So I don't think there's any basis on which you could complain of assault.

If invasive searches (anything other than a pat down for concerts/matches), were commonplace, would it be an abuse of the imbalance of power by the party drawing up the contract? The only way to attend the event would be to allow someone to do what would, in other situations, be deemed sexual assault.

Not being much of a festival-goer myself, I don't know how invasive the invasive searches are, in practice, or how often they are conducted, or on what basis patrons are selected for an invasive search. But let's assume that someone is required to undergo a very invasive search, and they feel so uncomfortable about that that they refuse, and as a result they are excluded from the event, with no refund of the ticket price. Do they have a remedy?

I think they're looking to rely on the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995, which deal with consumer contracts that are not individually negotiated. That definitely covers the terms and conditions of a ticket to attend a commercial performance. Under reg. 6, an "unfair term" in such a contract is not binding on the consumer. So the question is, is the term by which the patron consents to be searched, or must consent if asked, an "unfair term"?

By reg. 3(2), a contract term is unfair . . .

". . . if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded . . ."

(There's more, but that's the guts of it.)

There's an indicative list of terms which may be regarded as unfair in Sch 3 to the regulations. It covers terms which do things like:

• limiting the liablity of the service provider in the event of death or injury
• making the agreement binding on the consumer while leaving the supplier free to honour it or not, as he alone wishes
• making a deposit non-refundable when the consumer cancels but providing no compensation when the supplier cancels
• automatically extending a fixed-term contract unless the consumer actively cancels it
• irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which they had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before entering into the contract

Etc, etc. Conspicously missing here is anything to do with the substance of the contract itself. If you and I contract for the sale of a clapped-out wreck of a car at a price which vastly exceeds its true value, one of us is probably ripping off the other but there's nothing "unfair" about that as long as we both understand the terms of the deal in advance.

So, the term consenting to searches: it seems to me that there's two ways you could argue that it's not binding.

First, I didn't know about, and couldn't reasonably have found out about, this term before I bought the ticket. That's a question of fact — were the terms and conditions avaialable on the website on which I bought the ticket? And the answer is usually going to be "yes"; for obvious reasons, it's very much in the interests of suppliers to ensure that the contract terms are available, so they usually do. To be blunt, they rely on you not reading the T&Cs much more than they rely on you not being able to read them. So this one is probably not going to succeed very often.

Secondly, the term causes a "significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations" — the supplier can strip-search the consumer but the consumer can't strip-search the supplier — and this is "contrary to the requirement of good faith". (Note that an imbalance in rights and obligations isn't unfair unless it's contrary to good faith.) The supplier is going to argue that the search requirement is, or at least may be, onerous, but that it's reasonable in a context where illicit drugs are known to circulate and to be consumed at festivals, etc, and people have suffered injury and even death as a result. Plus, he has a duty of care to festival-goers. Plus, he typically needs various licences and approvals to conduct events, and getting these may involve an assessment by the licensing authorities of what he does or can do to mitigate this risk. All of this, he will argue, means that it's not contrary to good faith for him to include in his contract terms provisions which enable him to seek to control the introduction of drugs into the event venue by requiring patrons to agree to searches as a condition of entry.

I think if there ever is a challenge, a huge amount is going to depend on the actual facts of the case. The questions looked at will not be about what generally happens at festivals, but what happened on this occasion, at this festival, with respect to this particular patron? What kind of search, in fact, were they invited to accept — a bag search, a pat-down, or an intimate cavity search? Was there privacy, or was it to be public? Was the search to be conducted by security staff of the appropriate gender? On what basis was the patron selected for search? Etc, etc.

Look, I see where you're coming from, and it redoubles my view that, in an actual challenge, a huge amount would depend on the exact facts. If you want to run this case, wait until someone is required to undergo a cavity search; don't run it when someone is just patted down, or required to turn out their pockets.

Even then, I think it's a novel argument. You are essentially arguing that a person cannot waive certain constitutional rights. There are inalienable and imprescriptible rights, but the personal rights are not among them, and these searches involve bodily contact of a kind that, in other contexts, people do consent to, sometimes enthusiastically. Is this consent irrelevant in all cases, or just in some?

Consider the implications of this. A contract of prostitution was not, until relatively recently, prohibited in Ireland. A sex worker consents to sexual contact in exchange for money and, in many cases, does so in circumstances of considerable economic stress — they are often under much greater pressure to enter into the transaction than a concert-goer is under to attend a concert. Is the implication of your argument that the sex worker's consent to this contact is irrelevant, and that the transaction is a violation of their constitutional rights for which they can obtain a remedy?

Powers of forcible search are rightly limited by law, but that doesn't mean people can't validly consent or agree to the kind of contact that a search involves even circumstances where no power for forcible search applies. If they couldn't consent to that kind of contact, a lot more than searches would be affected.