Quick prosecutions - Cornwall, media article.

[richw]

Just reading my local paper, The West Briton, the number of people within the court sections for fare evasion stood out to me, but What caught my eye was how quick from offence to court.
Offences that happened on 15th April were in court on 23rd April. This surprised me how quickly it went through the courts as I believed it to be a longer process to get a hearing date submit paper work etc. this article gives an idea of fines being imposed for what I deem to be tiny fares.

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/COURT-L...trates-April/story-26379733-detail/story.html


It doesn't surprise me to see lots of Cornwall prosecutions. i use the train 10-12 days a month for return journeys to work on days I don't need my car, plus some leisure journeys and I seem to be encountering revenue protection nearly every day over the last couple of months, having never recalled seeing revenue in the last 3 years. In fact rarely having my ticket checked in that time.

 

[DaleCooper]

As I read it they were convicted on the 15th, no date given for the offence.

 

[tony6499]

Seems £400 per offence is the penalty there

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'd hazard a guess that those who have been fined £400 have either ignored the paperwork from the Court or given a false name and/or address, as that's the assumed "relevant weekly income" where a statement of means has not been submitted.

Similarly, the one with the £110 fine is likely to be in receipt of benefits, as that's the minimum income level for calculation purposes.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Seems £400 per offence is the penalty there

That is the average fine imposed in Courts nationally for proving a case of deliberate fare evasion in the absence of the defendant and conforms to the national Magistrates sentencing guidelines at level B on assessed weekly income

If false details are given, a further level B fine may be imposed for a separate offence if summonsed correctly

In addition there will have almost certainly been an order to pay costs & compensation to the rail company plus further Court charges.

An average nationally for conviction in such cases will total around £600 and looks set to rise.

 

[Puffing Devil]

That is the average fine imposed in Courts nationally for proving a case of deliberate fare evasion in the absence of the defendant and conforms to the national Magistrates sentencing guidelines at level B on assessed weekly income

If false details are given, a further level B fine may be imposed for a separate offence if summonsed correctly

In addition there will have almost certainly been an order to pay costs & compensation to the rail company plus further Court charges.

An average nationally for conviction in such cases will total around £600 and looks set to rise.

Plus we now have the Courts Charge of at least £150 for all offences in the Magistrates Court. Go to trial and lose, your looking at £720. This is in addition to any fines/costs/compensation imposed by the court.

 

[Llanigraham]

I wonder if Mr Mugford has learnt his lesson yet!!

 

[Clip]

The Evening Standard should do stuff like this. However they are very anti rail at times so I doubt it.

 

[richw]

I wonder if Mr Mugford has learnt his lesson yet!!

The £2.75 dodged fare puzzles me, as I can't find a fare at Redruth that is that price.
His £1.80 is the single off peak Redruth to Camborne,

 

[cjp]

Plus we now have the Courts Charge of at least £150 for all offences in the Magistrates Court. Go to trial and lose, your looking at £720. This is in addition to any fines/costs/compensation imposed by the court.

That's just criminal

Mind you I did think if one was found not guilty there was no Court Charge to be paid

 

[Via Bank]

That's just criminal

Mind you I did think if one was found not guilty there was no Court Charge to be paid

True, but then you have to be reasonably confident that you will win, which, if you are poor, unable to afford a solicitor, and intimidated by the prospect of a hostile cross-examination in court, you might not be. So you can see why someone who is poor might plead guilty, even if they know they are innocent, so they pay a smaller Courts Charge than if they go to trial and lose.

It's scandalous and another example of the last Government's mean-hearted wrecking of our justice system, but that's a story for another thread. And I'm sure DaveNewcastle will be delighted to share some views on it…