Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?

[ian959]

Blatant injustice? Crikey - the lady was travelling on a freedom pass that was not hers and you call the penalty fare as a blatant injustice?

Frankly all the evidence, photographic and otherwise provided to date only makes me convinced that you are doing nothing more than to try and find a tenuous legal loophole to get out of a justified penalty fare.

 

[swt_passenger]

Blatant injustice? Crikey - the lady was travelling on a freedom pass that was not hers and you call the penalty fare as a blatant injustice?

Please note this is about a prosecution, not a penalty fare (PF), according to the first few posts. Discussion about PFs seems to have been a bit of a blind alley, and more to do with why a PF wasn't ever applied.

IMHO a case of using someone else's freedom pass would never result in a PF, always a prosecution. As is often mentioned, PFs are there purely for people who make a mistake...

 

[maniacmartin]

I think the discussion about Penalty Fares was brought up to show that the Penalty Fares posters at Barking are at the TfL rate, therefore giving some credence to the theory that TfL might manage the station, thus a prosecution could be brought under TfL byelaws. I'm not fully convinced that this is the case though.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the discussion about Penalty Fares was brought up to show that the Penalty Fares posters at Barking are at the TfL rate, therefore giving some credence to the theory that TfL might manage the station, thus a prosecution could be brought under TfL byelaws. I'm not fully convinced that this is the case though.

Agree, and I'd also be very surprised if there was any point whatsoever in questioning the joint responsibility for the station, it isn't as if this is a recent change. Someone's bound to have tried this argument somewhere in the London area, there are many stations with joint TfL/TOC areas of responsibility, and have been for very many years, long before Oyster or Freedom passes.

Is it realistic to think that the OP in this thread is the first to have thought of this as a potential loophole?

 

[Mojo]

Are you sure that when stopped, the individual didnt admit they were travelling on the District line? TQH, it's lucky it's not a Regulation of Railways Act case, as 99% of LU's are.

 

[34D]

Was the freedom pass touched in?

I'm asking that as a genuine question. Round here, I see quite a few ENCTS-D passes (inc some Freedom passes) and companions often have the pass in their own purse.

 

[Kel]

Are you sure that when stopped, the individual didnt admit they were travelling on the District line? TQH, it's lucky it's not a Regulation of Railways Act case, as 99% of LU's are.

The question I posed is very restrictive so as to look at the legal aspect. I am not interested in intention or motive as the case as proceeded beyond the stage of pleading guilty or not guilty. It is now a legal issue to be resolved in the court.

I think every other thing is about conjecture whether she did it or not. I was not there when the incident occurred. It has been established in the higher courts that you can only based decision on what someone has said coupled with the behaviour.

I provided in post #4 the relevant situation and the basis of prosecution on post #7. Prosecution could only have been done after TfL had looked at printout of the pass to see if the individual had used any of TfL facilities prior to the incident. To be charged on the basis of #7 is clear beyond reasonable doubt to me that the individual had not made any travel before the incidence.

 

[Deerfold]

I provided in post #4 the relevant situation and the basis of prosecution on post #7.

You really haven't.

You're asking questions in such a manner as to make it very hard for people to give you useful advice whilst not providng so little information as to make anyone involved inthe prosecution unable to recognise it (I would have thought).

 

[Kel]

You really haven't.

You're asking questions in such a manner as to make it very hard for people to give you useful advice whilst not providng so little information as to make anyone involved inthe prosecution unable to recognise it (I would have thought).

My question is Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?
It has nothing to do with violation or no violation of the law.

 

[Deerfold]

My question is Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?
It has nothing to do with violation or no violation of the law.

But there's more going on than that - if you mention the circumstances people may be able to offer other advice.

 

[Llanigraham]

My question is Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?

So, since you seem to not answer any obvious questions, perhaps we need to go back to absolute basics....

Since Network Rail do not run any passenger services, the details we require are:
What operators use and call at the station in question?

 

[Anvil1984]

At Barking C2C,London Overground and London Underground operate through the station

I'll hazard a guess at it doesn't matter who manages the station and that there is an agreement in place for London Overground / Underground staff to perform barrier checks at that station. if the passenger has admitted to using a LO / LU service then they will be subject to TFL rules and if travelling on C2C probably directed to a C2C RPI or the excess fares window. So both have the powers to prosecute in essence but using their own rules on their own passengers

However without knowing who they travelled with hard to say.

 

[MrsDavidCaruso]

The question I posed is very restrictive so as to look at the legal aspect. I am not interested in intention or motive as the case as proceeded beyond the stage of pleading guilty or not guilty. It is now a legal issue to be resolved in the court.

I think every other thing is about conjecture whether she did it or not. I was not there when the incident occurred. It has been established in the higher courts that you can only based decision on what someone has said coupled with the behaviour.

I provided in post #4 the relevant situation and the basis of prosecution on post #7. Prosecution could only have been done after TfL had looked at printout of the pass to see if the individual had used any of TfL facilities prior to the incident. To be charged on the basis of #7 is clear beyond reasonable doubt to me that the individual had not made any travel before the incidence.

But according to your post on the other forum the husband who owned the pass decided to hop on a bus then changed his mind and thats when the error/mistake occurred with the passes, so it's very clear that this pass was in use by the husband and the fact that the husband reapplied to the council (according to your thread on the other board) for a replacement also means that it must have been in use.

Therefore I do not understand how it is beyond reasonable doubt that a printout would have proved the wife hadn't used it before - unless you of course saying that this was the first time the pass had been used by either party.

BTW can you give anymore info about the post that said someone had they had got away with paying a smaller fare by being nice, I cant find that statement on either of the forums, unless you are posting on a third discussion forum.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My question is Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?

I'm sure that we clarified that in the first few posts: any Railway officer may bring about a prosecution under the Byelaws (and in many circumstances they may also prosecute under statute, even if they are employed by a Company which did not suffer loss).

What I'm now curious to learn is:
who is Defending the hapless passenger 'in a few days' and what were their instructions?
What evidence has the Prosecution disclosed?
What evidence has the Defence prepared?
And most intriguing of all, what authorities will the Defence rely on (I can think of just one, and that is very contentious)?

 

[island]

I'm sure that we clarified that in the first few posts: any Railway officer may bring about a prosecution under the Byelaws (and in many circumstances they may also prosecute under statute, even if they are employed by a Company which did not suffer loss).

What I'm now curious to learn is:
who is Defending the hapless passenger 'in a few days' and what were their instructions?
What evidence has the Prosecution disclosed?
What evidence has the Defence prepared?
And most intriguing of all, what authorities will the Defence rely on (I can think of just one, and that is very contentious)?

Agreed. The defence seems, from all I can see, to be attempting to argue technicalities, which unless one is very skilled is fraught with risk. In a real Magistrates' Court it is rare that the television drama plays out in the form of a lawyer raising an "objection" and a judge shouting "case dismissed", complete with gavel slam.

 

[Flamingo]

Agreed. The defence seems, from all I can see, to be attempting to argue technicalities, which unless one is very skilled is fraught with risk. In a real Magistrates' Court it is rare that the television drama plays out in the form of a lawyer raising an "objection" and a judge shouting "case dismissed", complete with gavel slam.

Apart from everything else, a judge sitting in a Magistrates court would be unusual, to say the least.

If I was the defendant, I would be putting the effort into thinking up mitigation and practicing a suitably contrite expression in front of a mirror, not labouring under the illusion they are a latter-day Rosa Parks, battling injustice in the system.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not generally a fan of the Railway Byelaws, however:

I think it's been well established that any "officer of the railway" may enforce revenue protection and the relevant Railway Byelaws.

The person involved has been caught without a valid ticket, and, indeed, with someone else's Freedom Pass. This shows intent not to pay and I'm disappointed that a RoRA prosecution doesn't appear to be in the offing here.

Frankly I'm disgusted at the attitude of the OP in wheedling around technicalities to defend someone who has clearly broken the law. I hope that the court imposes the maximum appropriate punishment within its authority in this case.

 

[Mojo]

Apart from everything else, a judge sitting in a Magistrates court would be unusual, to say the least.

In many Magistrates courts, particularly in major cities like London, a single District Judge often sits in place of three Magistrates.

 

[Flamingo]

In many Magistrates courts, particularly in major cities like London, a single District Judge often sits in place of three Magistrates.

I never knew that!

 

[Fare-Cop]

In many Magistrates courts, particularly in major cities like London, a single District Judge often sits in place of three Magistrates.

......and will frequently be far less tolerant of the amateur 'Perry Mason'.

 

[pitdiver]

I've had experience of a District Judge sitting in a Magistrates Court and that was in Luton. Believe me he very intolerant of my explanation of why the issue had arisen. (not transport related). However the next time I appeared at the same court there were three Magistrates sitting and they were far more understanding. The matter has now been resolverd through the county court.

 

[island]

I'm a bit confused. Aren't Magistrates Courts criminal and County Courts civil?

 

[34D]

I'm a bit confused. Aren't Magistrates Courts criminal and County Courts civil?

Yes. I don't think we need to know too much about his non-railway matter, as to how it has criminal and civil elements

 

[talltim]

I'm sure that we clarified that in the first few posts: any Railway officer may bring about a prosecution under the Byelaws (and in many circumstances they may also prosecute under statute, even if they are employed by a Company which did not suffer loss).

I can understand the concept. However what decides whether railway or TfL bylaws apply? Is it the location of the offence or the body bringing the prosecution?
Could a TfL officer bring a case of TfL bylaw infraction against an Arriva passenger in Wales? (My guess is no)

 

[Fare-Cop]

I can understand the concept. However what decides whether railway or TfL bylaws apply? Is it the location of the offence or the body bringing the prosecution?
Could a TfL officer bring a case of TfL bylaw infraction against an Arriva passenger in Wales? (My guess is no)

The location will be the first point to consider

There is really only any need to consider which is the appropriate legislation when an offence is identified at a location that shares facility with both TfL (LUL) and TOC services.

No, a TfL Byelaw could not be prosecuted in Wales

 

[Kel]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

In an unprecedented hearing lasting well over two hours, as rightly informed, London Underground Prosecutor successfully persuaded the Magistrate Court to accept that the phrase with the exception of byelaw 17 within section 24(1) of the National Railway Byelaws was an outdated law.

 

[Llanigraham]

And?

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us, as the above posting is meaningless.

Or do you like being obtuse?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks for coming back to tell us, but I am also unclear what the Court's Decision was. Perhaps you could post it on here for us all to read when you receive it, please, Kel?
What was "unprecedented" about it? Two hours is quick!

. . . . the phrase with the exception of byelaw 17 within section 24(1) of the National Railway Byelaws was an outdated law.

I'm not sure what significance "outdated" has in this context. It can't be referring to its age per se; it can't be referring to its repeal; it can't be referring to its anachronistic terminology, so I wonder if it is referring to the concept of an Offence which carries no penalty? It doesn't appear to be referring to the defect in that clause which I referred to last week, though I am interested to see that you are highlighting the same clause that I had called "unsatisfactory" . . . but for a different reason!

I also asked what authorities will be relied on in Court. I'm still very interested to know. As I said last week, I can only think of one which applies, but I'd be grateful for any additional references. Can you help me with those, please?

 

[Kel]

Thanks for coming back to tell us, but I am also unclear what the Court's Decision was. Perhaps you could post it on here for us all to read when you receive it, please, Kel?
What was "unprecedented" about it? Two hours is quick!I'm not sure what significance "outdated" has in this context. It can't be referring to its age per se; it can't be referring to its repeal; it can't be referring to its anachronistic terminology, so I wonder if it is referring to the concept of an Offence which carries no penalty? It doesn't appear to be referring to the defect in that clause which I referred to last week, though I am interested to see that you are highlighting the same clause that I had called "unsatisfactory" . . . but for a different reason!

I also asked what authorities will be relied on in Court. I'm still very interested to know. As I said last week, I can only think of one which applies, but I'd be grateful for any additional references. Can you help me with those, please?

The case is about the lawfulness for London Underground Prosecutor to prosecute under TfL Railway Byelaws within National Railway facilities rather than prosecution under the National Railway Byelaws. The issue has nothing to do with validity of ticket. The issue also had nothing to do with intention of the individual to travel which Regulation of Railways Act 1889 would have applied.

Post #4 provided the legal argument of the Defendant. London Underground Prosecutor informed the Magistrates that the copy of the National Railway Byelaws provided by the Defendant in which Byelaw 17 was excepted under section 24 was an outdated byelaw which should no longer be in the new National Railway Byelaw (the prosecutor never showed the magistrate that new National Railway Byelaw). That both TfL Byelaws and National Railway Byelaws have the same laws for Byelaw 17 and 18 as well as basis of prosecution.

London Underground Prosecutor then provided to the court TfL Byelaws of 2010/11 in, which with the exception of Byelaw 17 was included. That all the TOC including London Underground decided to make Byelaw 17 and 18 congruent which led to the updated version. That the National Railway Byelaws provided by the Defendant was therefore an outdated law which was no longer current. That the Defendant provided an old version of the National Railway Byelaws.

In summary, the Magistrate was led to believe that Section 24 with the phrase with the exception of Byelaw 17 has been repealed, then decided the case on the basis of the TfL Railway Byelaws which according to them carried the current version of the Byelaws. The Defendant was thereafter found guilty of the offence. The Defendant was also fined about £350 in total including London Underground Prosecution costs.

 

[Flamingo]

So, the result of the "unprecedented hearing" was that the defendant was found guilty of the offence and fined £350?

So they are a fare-dodger.