• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Threw my ticket in the bin before i got of the train, officer stopped me

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
There is no criminal record offence in those circumstances. You have to prove nothing.The burden of proof is on the TOC to prove you intended to avoid paying the fare. If you threw the ticket in the bin and have told them that then that is it. It is not a question of if they believe you or not. They have no evidence that you attempted to avoid payment. They can think or believe what they like until the cows come home. Courts want evidence. Just a bye law offence, a fine at worst.

Very poor opinion. This could easily be a nailed-on conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act

RoRA 1889 5(1) said:
Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [...] on the standard scale.

The requirement is for a passenger to have a ticket and produce it on request. Fail to do so and the offence is complete. No question of throwing it away earlier.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
Very poor opinion. This could easily be a nailed-on conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act



The requirement is for a passenger to have a ticket and produce it on request. Fail to do so and the offence is complete. No question of throwing it away earlier.

That much isn't correct. The offence quoted only occurs if the passenger neither produces a valid ticket, nor pays the fare, nor gives his name and address. The OP did the latter.

The offence in this case is failing to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity contrary to section 18 (2) of the Railway Byelaws.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
That much isn't correct. The offence quoted only occurs if the passenger neither produces a valid ticket, nor pays the fare, nor gives his name and address. The OP did the latter.

The offence in this case is failing to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity contrary to section 18 (2) of the Railway Byelaws.

Disagree. The OP claims that they had a ticket and failed to produce it, by claiming that they threw it away.

Should they not have a ticket, they are required to pay the fare.

I have seen plenty of prosecutions under S5(1) where the defendant has provided their name and address.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
That much isn't correct. The offence quoted only occurs if the passenger neither produces a valid ticket, nor pays the fare, nor gives his name and address. The OP did the latter.
I don't think you're reading it right. The offence under 5.1 was complete when the OP failed to produce his ticket when requested since the clauses are joined by "or"s.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
There is no criminal record offence in those circumstances. You have to prove nothing.The burden of proof is on the TOC to prove you intended to avoid paying the fare. If you threw the ticket in the bin and have told them that then that is it. It is not a question of if they believe you or not. They have no evidence that you attempted to avoid payment. They can think or believe what they like until the cows come home. Courts want evidence. Just a bye law offence, a fine at worst.

Um, you need to read the bylaws and especially the RoRA!

The RoRA offence (5.1 I think it is) is failing to hand over when asked a valid ticket.

As the OP couldnt do that (the reasons why are not relevant as it is a strict liability offence) so that is all the railways need to succeed if it goes to Court.

Saying that it is unlikely that it will come to that as long as the OP is honest and remorseful in her reply to the letter Northern will send in a couple of months.

Edit-
Puffing Billy has already covered it.
 
Last edited:

Abpj17

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2014
Messages
1,007
You don't need CCTV to check the logs.

I guess it depends which of the two is easiest to check. But CCTV would at least confirm the time and narrow it down for popular ticket purchases with cash where the log alone would not.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
No it is not.

Absolutely correct, it may only be checked if within 30 days of the incident, the traveller raises this as a line of defence.

If the traveller was interviewed under caution and didn't mention it at the time, it is unlikely that CCTV will be looked at unless there is another compelling reason to do so.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
I don't think you're reading it right. The offence under 5.1 was complete when the OP failed to produce his ticket when requested since the clauses are joined by "or"s.

The only reading that isn't absurd is that an offence occurs when a passenger refuses to present a ticket, refuses to pay his fare, and refuses to provide his name and address. If it were an offence to do any one of the three, then it would be an offence for someone who did have a valid ticket to fail to pay his fare a second time, which would be ludicrous.
 
Last edited:

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
Disagree. The OP claims that they had a ticket and failed to produce it, by claiming that they threw it away.

Should they not have a ticket, they are required to pay the fare.

I have seen plenty of prosecutions under S5(1) where the defendant has provided their name and address.

Those will no doubt have in fact been S5 (3).
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Those will no doubt have in fact been S5 (3).

Not at all - no ticket, address given, fare not paid. Offence complete.

The sentencing guidelines specifically refer to S(1) as "failing to produce ticket".

S(2) provides for persons not providing their address to be detained.

S(3) is out and out non-payment, short faring or providing false details.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If it were an offence to do any one of the three, then it would be an offence for someone who did have a valid ticket to fail to pay his fare a second time, which would be ludicrous.
It's an offence to refuse a request to do any of the three. If someone has a ticket why would they be asked to pay again?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's an offence to refuse a request to do any of the three. If someone has a ticket why would they be asked to pay again?

Er, quoting RoRA 1889:

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(c)Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

What's that got to do with tickets, or have we moved onto Byelaws again?

Edit: Ah, this:

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.

(1)Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale][F2[F3level 2 on the standard scale]].

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [F4or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company F5. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

To me the either...or is absurd if the meaning is not that the passenger only needs to do one of those things to comply. If it meant otherwise the Byelaws would be redundant and never used.

(2) does not give rise to a conviction, it simply allows detention for evidence etc to be gathered.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top