Decriminalise ticket offences?

[TonyR]

Now that TV license evasion is under consideration for being a civil not criminal offence is it not time the same happened to ticketing offences?

 

[Bushy]

Yes, good idea, decriminalise theft and fraud.

Now that TV license evasion is under consideration for being a civil not criminal offence is it not time the same happened to ticketing offences?

 

[Mojo]

I'd agree to an extent and state that the non-intentional act of boarding a train without a valid ticket should be decriminalised. However, one of the biggest 'punishments' for many is being given a criminal record, and given how easy it is to get away without paying for a ticket, the criminal record must act as a big deterrent for otherwise law abiding people.

 

[PermitToTravel]

TV Licensing is a little different, but in my opinion railway ticketing offences should be repealed, as they're already covered by other legislation (fraud and theft!).

3 Making off without payment.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)For purposes of this section “payment on the spot” includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work has been done or in respect of which service has been provided.
(3)Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

 

[All Line Rover]

Yes, good idea, decriminalise theft and fraud.

That is oversimplifying the matter far too much.

First, although they don't result in a criminal record I believe that the strict liability byelaw offences (railway byelaws 17 and 18) should be scrapped, as the strict liability nature of the offences can capture those who have made innocent mistakes and are not worthy of stress/substantial penalties beyond the payment of the correct fare (and, perhaps, the penalties prescribed under the Penalty Fares regime).

Second, the way in which 'intent to avoid payment' is construed in the case law for the purpose of s 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is far too wide.

The current law appears to allow the prosecution of someone who had no (subjective) intention to avoid payment, potentially capturing individuals who did not pay because of a lack of suitable ticket purchasing facilities or because they did not 'seek out the guard'. For example, broken TVM at origin station, massive queue at ticket office at destination station, important meeting to attend in 30 minutes (by 'massive queues', I'm referring to those I have occasionally stood in for unacceptable lengths of 45 minutes to 1 hour, although I believe that anything greater than 15 minutes is inappropriate).

I believe that 'intent to avoid payment' needs to be re-construed such that it only applies in situations where the individual's objective behaviour indicates a (subjective) intention to wilfully avoid payment. For example, walking past open ticket purchasing facilities with a short queue or no queue, or deliberately not attracting the attention of a guard who walks through the train selling tickets.

I did add the important proviso 'potentially' in my fourth paragraph, as I have no idea how the law is applied in practice in magistrates courts in the examples I postulated. However, I do not believe the current law is satisfactory as it creates too much uncertainty at a theoretical level.

In general, however, and although I don't support drawing extensive analogies between routine railway ticketing offences and the more serious (legal) concepts of theft and fraud, I don't support a full decriminalisation of routine railway ticketing offences as persistent ticketless travellers would then have to be pursued for theft and fraud offences which could (potentially) create unnecessary expense, delay and complexity for train operating companies attempting to prosecute such individuals.

 

[PermitToTravel]

In general, however, and although I don't support drawing extensive analogies between routine railway ticketing offences and the more serious (legal) concepts of theft and fraud, I don't support a full decriminalisation of routine railway ticketing offences as persistent ticketless travellers would then have to be pursued for theft and fraud offences which could (potentially) create unnecessary expense, delay and complexity for train operating companies attempting to prosecute such individuals.

I think that the vast majority of RoRA S5 prosecutions could go ahead as fraud or theft prosecutions, to be honest.

For example, a passenger telling the lie "I've come from Salford Crescent" ticks off all the points to prove for an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006:

The defendant:

• made a false representation
• dishonestly
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

 

[455driver]

So because they have decided to decriminalise the tax on watching BBC1 and BBC2 you think they should decriminalise a type of fraud!

 

[All Line Rover]

TV Licensing is a little different, but in my opinion railway ticketing offences should be repealed, as they're already covered by other legislation (fraud and theft!).

The Theft Act 1968 certainly wouldn't cover railway ticketing offences. The Theft Act 1978, which seems more analogous to fraud than 'classic theft', I haven't studied and I have no idea whether it has the potential to stretch to covering railway ticketing offences. Perhaps others would be able to shed some light on the matter?

With regards to TV licensing this is radically different. Detection is difficult, the net benefit of prosecutions is claimed to be a negative value, and with the rapid transfer to online streaming it's going to become redundant. Within the next decade the iPlayer is going to have to have to become a registrable service, similar to Lovefilm/Netflix in being restricted to those who have paid a yearly 'subscription fee' (similar to a licence fee) otherwise the BBC won't survive. Unless, that is, the source of its funding switches to general taxation, which I would wholeheartedly support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that the vast majority of RoRA S5 prosecutions could go ahead as fraud or theft prosecutions, to be honest.

For example, a passenger telling the lie "I've come from Salford Crescent" ticks off all the points to prove for an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006:

I'm always reluctant to rely on a bare reading of legislation in an attempt to understand the law as the law often interprets legislation in ways you'd least expect! I'm especially reluctant to rely on CPS guidelines as although they provide a good indicator of how the CPS prosecute criminals in practice, they frequently misrepresent what the law is. For example, for offences against the person - colloquially known as 'assaults' - they'll often go for a more minor offence to avoid the complexities of prosecuting for a more serious offence. (Not that this is necessarily a bad thing - the CPS has limited resources and has to spend them in a way that achieves the greatest overall benefit.)

 

[PermitToTravel]

I understand that section 3 quoted above is frequently used to prosecute (or at least arrest) people who don't pay for meals in restaurants, fuel from petrol stations, or rides in taxis.

I don't have a list of the points to prove (are there any police officers reading this?), but I believe that there is case law stating that it must be proven that the person never intends to pay, and that for petrol theft this is demonstrated by waiting for the person to send a cheque or return with the money. In my opinion this requirement should not exist, but instead it should be a defence for the defendant to show that they had intent to pay, i.e. shift the burden of proof.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Before the enactment of the Regulation of Railways Act many fare evasion matters were dealt with in the Criminal Courts as a Fraud, but these were not without difficulty and sentences could be extremely severe.
Railway Companies employed private detectives to observe suspects at various points on their journeys, and other complex techniques, before intercepting the passenger for an interview. To illustrate the sentences imposed, we can look at the 1851 case of Williams and Brown who told the inspector of the London & North Western Railway Co that they'd travelled to London from Wiliden (fare 6d) after travelling from Birmingham (fare 9s 4 1/2d). They were imprisoned for 6 and 3 months respectively. It required the consolidated evidence of several witnesses presented and cross-examined in Court.

The Fraud Act was a blunt instrument in fare evasion, we could consider the 1862 case of Simon Graham and Thomas Waugh who offered a special cheap ticket to a passenger who was about to pay more than 3 times as much at the ticket office (as today, the ticket was 'not transferrable'). We can imagine from the way in which the pair operated and the way in which the detectives recorded their conversations, that they were regular ticket resellers. The three were arrested by police and interviewed and subsequently tried for Fraud at the Old Bailey. However, the details provided were not enough to secure a prosecution under the Fraud Act and they were all aquitted. This was despite the oral evidence of several witnesses presented and cross-examined in Court.
The ticket touts were presumably able to resume their operation the next day.

When the RRA and the preceeding Railway Clauses Consolidation Act were enacted, it became possible to provide evidence of willful fare evasion based on specific circumstances to rail travel. Subsequently, many straightforward fare evasion prosecutions became simpler to secure. I wouldn't want to see a return to the general requirements to have to demonstrate a Fraud. However there is still much that the industry could do to improve the availability of tickets to all passengers before travel and I believe that better retailling deserves a higher priority than any relaxation of statutes.

We shouldn't forget that this forum often provides a biased slant on the matter of ticket irregularities - the interest some forum members shiw in arcane routings and restrictions (and the consequential potential for a dispute between staff and passenger) might draw our attention away from the serious and sometimes large scale and organised crime that takes place every day across the rail network - to detect, capture and prosecute these willful crimes, we need clear, appropriate and effective legislation. The persistent fare evader who might claim that rail travel is free (or who pays only if challenged) falls somewhere between theses extremes, and it is in the detection and prosecution of those opportunist passengers that the industry benefits from the specific railway legislation of the RRA, RCCA and Byelaws.

I have reservations over the Byelaws, however. While I am content that they exist in the broad sense, and they offer useful tools in ensuring the safe operation of the railways, I am concerned that they provide such a wide window of opportunity for the careless but harmless person to be prosecuted in some of the more trivial cases.

Now that TV license evasion is under consideration for being a civil not criminal offence is it not time the same happened to ticketing offences?

When we consider the opportunities for reform, I wonder if you read my piece, to be found right at the top of this forum's Rail Fares and Ticket Guide, that begins by stating that in 2012 the government swept away hundreds of obsolete or innapropriate railway statutes in their "Red Tape Challenge" initiative. I think it is unrealistic to expect this or any other government to revisit the sector anytime soon.

 

[island]

I'd agree to an extent and state that the non-intentional act of boarding a train without a valid ticket should be decriminalised. However, one of the biggest 'punishments' for many is being given a criminal record, and given how easy it is to get away without paying for a ticket, the criminal record must act as a big deterrent for otherwise law abiding people.

The strict liability offence of joining a train without a valid ticket already doesn't carry a criminal record.

 

[Yew]

Personally I would like to the the record-ability of the offence decided by the court, with criminal records saved for more serious occurances

Not sure if there is a legal precedent of the court deciding if they wish to record an offence however

 

[yorkie]

Now that TV license evasion is under consideration for being a civil not criminal offence is it not time the same happened to ticketing offences?

agreed. Disputes with other forms of transport would be a civil matter.

At the very least the 'strict liability' Bylaw 18 offence should be de-criminalised/abolished.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, good idea, decriminalise theft and fraud.

If fraud occurs, then why does railway legislation need to be used?!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Personally I would like to the the record-ability of the offence decided by the court, with criminal records saved for more serious occurances

Not sure if there is a legal precedent of the court deciding if they wish to record an offence however

I'd rather have less decided by courts. Sentences are already wildly inconsistent.

 

[tony_mac]

In most of the country it's not a criminal offence to avoid paying for parking, or a congestion charge, but these can still bring legally enforceable penalties without tying up nearly so much of the courts' time.

I would be concerned that a similar move on the railways would result in an organised attempt to extract revenue from the public, in the same way that many local authorities have been seen to do. (For instance, bus-lane cameras in operation at 3am; yes, it's a breach of the regulations, but I don't think that dogmatically enforcing it is in the best interests of society.)
However, the current situation would allow TOCs to do that anyway, being underpinned by the threat of the criminal courts without having the same level of oversight that penalty charge notices carry.

 

[TEW]

However, the current situation would allow TOCs to do that anyway, being underpinned by the threat of the criminal courts without having the same level of oversight that penalty charge notices carry.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with current system. TOCs seem happy to use the threat of criminal action as a way of receiving what is in effect civil redress, in the form of accepting administrative fees in order to not proceed with prosecutions. Such an approach is much more analogous to settling a civil dispute rather than any process normally associated with the criminal system; you can't pay an administrative fee to the CPS in order for them to drop charges against you. Northern have taken this to a whole new level with the implementation of their formalised Fixed Penalty scheme. If TOCs want to seek civil redress, which is probably no less in their interest for the minor bylaw offences, then they should seek to do this through civil actions to recover their losses, and not by threatening criminal action.

 

[Mojo]

The strict liability offence of joining a train without a valid ticket already doesn't carry a criminal record.

I know, and didn't state anything to the contrary

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Rather than add detail in a new post, I've updated my comments on the historical use of the Fraud Act in post #10 by adding an illustration of the severe sentences that followed, as well as the difficulties in securing a conviction even for regular and deliberate offenders.

 

[Llanigraham]

Perhaps we should go the other way and make ALL fare evasion attempts a criminal conviction. Perhaps it would stop even more of them!

 

[Yew]

Perhaps we should go the other way and make ALL fare evasion attempts a criminal conviction. Perhaps it would stop even more of them!

Because someone who can find the only hidden TVM on the other platform at a northern station, and then boards the train and asks for a ticket obviously deserves a criminal record...

 

[jon0844]

Why don't stations have a sign at the entrance and by each machine to say where all the machines are if they're placed at various points*?

At Hatfield, you could have arrived at night, seen the TVM next to the gate saying out of order and not realised there's another one around the other side of the building by the main (closed) entrance.

* given they're connected, it would be even better if an out of order (e.g. No ticket stock) machine could even tell you not only where each machine is, but the status of them too. But that would be far too clever...

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[aleph_0]

I would be concerned that a similar move on the railways would result in an organised attempt to extract revenue from the public, in the same way that many local authorities have been seen to do. (For instance, bus-lane cameras in operation at 3am; yes, it's a breach of the regulations, but I don't think that dogmatically enforcing it is in the best interests of society.)

I'd disagree, things quickly become messy with such thinking. A bus lane still provides useful benefits even at 3am, if we show discretion in enforcement because it's quite at 3am, you'll also have people wanting discretion shown in other situations.

If the public interest is in there being no bus lane at 3am, the correct approach would be a non-24 hour lane, rather than endorsing breaking the rules.

In fact, this is what's happening on the railways at the moment, there are quite strong rules, enforced in wildly different ways depending on where you are, which causes confusion and unintentional rule breaking.

However, the current situation would allow TOCs to do that anyway, being underpinned by the threat of the criminal courts without having the same level of oversight that penalty charge notices carry.

Agreed. The effect is that some people are genuinely unaware of the rules and find themselves inadvertantly breaking them, whereas others take advantage of the rules or are good at breaking them without getting caught.

What's needed is a far more consistent, fair, national system. We shouldn't have the threat of byelaw prosecutions allowing a ToC to operate a pseudo-Penalty Fare system. We need the system for penalty fares and 'settling byelaw offenses' to be properly regulated, with an independent appeals service. Whether a station has sufficient purchasing facilities should be something that should also be assessed independently - with clear guidance in terms of facility location and signage requirements.

It's not clear how the RoRA/Byelaws should fit into this. It sould like there are good reasons for having rail-specific legislation. But, as a wise man once said, with great power comes great responsibility, it could be that regulating how the ToCs can use them is required.

 

[Oswyntail]

...What's needed is a far more consistent, fair, national system. ....

Hear hear. There should be no differences between TOCs in the rules, how they are enforced, and the penalties applied (Just as for fare regulations). EG. A passenger should not have to know what company runs the train to work out whether they can buy a ticket on board or not.

 

[tony6499]

For the more blatant types of evasion such as I forgot what station I got on and just remembered one 3 stops closer thus a cheaper fare I'd make more severe penalties and a criminal record.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . such as I forgot what station I got on and just remembered one 3 stops closer thus a cheaper fare . . . .

This seems to be a recurring affliction which affects the poor passengers regularly arriving into Manchester stations. The people most susceptible to this unfortunate illness seem to be those studying law. I assume that there is something in the local water supply which causes this widespread tendency to remember the name of a station nearer to the destination. Maybe something in the water supply of the Law Faculty.

We really shouldn't blame the poor passenger for this unfortunate disease.

Hmmmm. As if anyone would believe these stories.

 

[Sleepy]

Yes IF penalty fare for having no ticket goes up to 300 reduced to 150 if paid in 7 days otherwise leave it as it is.

 

[34D]

Scrap the BBC licence fee. Scrap the ability for railway companies to commence private prosecutions.

Both can sell advertising space to get more revenue.

TOC's can make claims in the small claims court, or involve the police in cases where fraud is suspected.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I agree with previous posters that the criminal offences should remain as they are an invaluable deterrent - just look at all the posters in the 'prosecutions' thread for whom it will destroy their job prospects. Otherwise for many people the fine would be nothing more than a trade-off for the money they have saved by not buying tickets on X amount of journeys.

I think the real solution though is better and more thorough policing across the network and eliminating the 'legitimate' reasons for not having a ticket by having more pro-active conductors on board the trains and more ticket sellers on station platforms during rush-hour.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It depends on what we mean by "ticketing offences" and what we mean by "decriminalisation".

The Byelaws need to be scrapped. Many of the individual Byelaws are unfit for purpose (e.g. it being an offence to "molest the comfort [of a passenger]"). The TOCs are abusing the Byelaws to inflict significant civil penalties on passengers who make innocent mistakes. And that's not before we consider the likes of Merseyrail prosecuting passengers for putting a foot on a seat (ah, good old Serco).

The likes of Northern and East Midlands Trains are particularly bad examples of TOCs abusing the badly-drafted Byelaws to secure huge amounts of money from passengers. It should not be a criminal matter when someone gets on a train after walking past a ticket office (especially as some TOCs say you can do it). Northern's actions, in particular, are profiteering, pure and simple. I'd compare Northern's behaviour with their "penalty fare" scheme to be exactly the same morally as the cowboy car clamping firms using fear to fleece old ladies.

Abolishing RoRA, though? I'm not sure I agree. The laws there are more fit for purpose, and deal with ticketing offences rather than strict liability. There should be criminal repercussions for people who steal from TOCs, just as there is for any other commercial organisation. The theft and fraud offences might cover some of these, but certainly not all of them.

 

[CNash]

I agree with previous posters that the criminal offences should remain as they are an invaluable deterrent - just look at all the posters in the 'prosecutions' thread for whom it will destroy their job prospects. Otherwise for many people the fine would be nothing more than a trade-off for the money they have saved by not buying tickets on X amount of journeys.

Then vastly increase the penalties to compensate. Instead of "£25 or twice the standard fare, whichever is the greater", make that "£100 or ten times the standard fare". For example, potential fare evaders going from London to Reading might think twice if the price is a £200 civil debt rather than just £40!