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.
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.
