• 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!

Dishonest regarding Station of origin after losing a ticket.

Status
Not open for further replies.

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Again we come back to different standard of 'proof'. Even producing a ticket doesn't 100% prove you've paid your fare, after all it could be you've simply picked it up when it was lying about on the train or the station. At the end of the day, the only proof absolute that you've paid your fare would be to wear a bodycam that continuously records from the point you buy your ticket, during your journey, until you exit the station. But quite clearly that is a ludicrous idea, and so we must deal with such things on the basis of the level of evidence/proof that can reasonably be expected. I would have thought that a competent solicitor would have little trouble in making a convincing argument for the fare having been paid on the basis of the evidence the OP has, and can obtain.

There has to be some leeway. Otherwise any of us could be pickpocketed on the train without knowing and get prosecuted for fare evasion. My link to the discussion above appears to suggest that losing your ticket should not lead to a conviction.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
There has to be some leeway. Otherwise any of us could be pickpocketed on the train without knowing and get prosecuted for fare evasion. My link to the discussion above appears to suggest that losing your ticket should not lead to a conviction.
I agree, I was just pointing out why the generic term "proof" is rather unhelpful in circumstances such as these!
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
They are entitled to ask it, however that alludes back to S5(3). The reason I did not address S5(1) is because, as has been pointed out, the mere giving of the name and address means it is out of the question for prosecution.
Not sure that giving one's name and address when questioned under caution is an option envisaged by 5(1), but it could always be tested in court I suppose - or you, or the legal advisor the OP consults, may know otherwise.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Not sure that giving one's name and address when questioned under caution is an option envisaged by 5(1), but it could always be tested in court I suppose - or you, or the legal advisor the OP consults, may know otherwise.
Which part of 'or' is so complex? It's not known as the three fails for nothing!
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
Which part of 'or' is so complex? It's not known as the three fails for nothing!
There's an obvious difference between providing a get-out-of-jail card (please note, this is NOT a literal description!) to avoid committing an offence and being questioned under caution having on the face of it committed said offence.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
There's an obvious difference between providing a get-out-of-jail card (please note, this is NOT a literal description!) to avoid committing an offence and being questioned under caution having on the face of it committed said offence.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Giving your name and address is a 'get out of jail free' card in respect of Section 5(1) of RoRA, and that's entirely intentional. It's designed to make it so that, if for whatever reason you are not paying your fare there and then, you can leave your details to enable correspondence to be sent to you (which in the 'good old days' might just have been a bill). S5(1) is designed to capture those who refuse to cooperate with the process at all.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
Not sure that giving one's name and address when questioned under caution is an option envisaged by 5(1), but it could always be tested in court I suppose - or you, or the legal advisor the OP consults, may know otherwise.

The OP may confirm, but my understanding is that being asked for name and address will happen before a suspect is cautioned, because providing name and address, when asked, is a requirement [byelaw 23]. They are not questions which a suspect can legitimately decline to answer. Telling them they are not obliged to say anything and then asking for name/address would be to neuter the effect of the byelaw.

It really is nonsense to say that S5(1) doesn't envisage that a person may give name and address, rather than show a ticket or pay a fare, when the clause specifically states it's one of the three things they may do.


S5(1) is designed to capture those who refuse to cooperate with the process at all.

Exactly that.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,866
Location
Airedale
The OP may confirm, but my understanding is that being asked for name and address will happen before a suspect is cautioned, because providing name and address, when asked, is a requirement [byelaw 23].
It really is nonsense to say that S5(1) doesn't envisage that a person may give name and address, rather than show a ticket or pay a fare, when the clause specifically states it's one of the three things they may do.

On #1. That changes the sequence, but there is still IMO a difference between volunteering one's name and address so that one can be sent a bill, and being required to give those details under a byelaw. However, I don't think pursuing the point helps the OP much.
On #2. I entirely agree.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
From what you have described, since you actually paid your fare and have evidence of this, you are not guilty of the more serious offence of travelling without previously having paid your fare, with intent to avoid payment thereof (S5(3)(a) RoRA).
There is evidence that a fare has been paid.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
If we want to be pedantic, the burden of proof is on the prosecuting TOC to show that the OP hadn't previously paid his fare.

How strong is any evidence of that likely to be?
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
A bank statement as stated above would, in my mind, categorically make the OP found not guilty for a RoRA S5(3)(a) prosecution.
Bank statements can be easily changed.
Give me 30 mins with a PDF version or slightly longer with a scanner and I can make it say anything I want.

Unless the OP's bank would send a statement direct to TfW, but they ain't gonna do that, even if the OP insisted.

Ergo, a bank statement doesn't show innocence.

The OP needs to consider why they said a different origin station.
Even in a panicked state (why were they panicked?), I don't see how that would make someone say a different point of origin.
If the OP was panicked because they knew they had a problem, having no ticket, then either explain and pay again, or offer to pay again. There should be no panic about the truth.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Bank statements can be easily changed.
Give me 30 mins with a PDF version or slightly longer with a scanner and I can make it say anything I want.

Unless the OP's bank would send a statement direct to TfW, but they ain't gonna do that, even if the OP insisted.

Ergo, a bank statement doesn't show innocence.

The OP needs to consider why they said a different origin station.
Even in a panicked state (why were they panicked?), I don't see how that would make someone say a different point of origin.
If the OP was panicked because they knew they had a problem, having no ticket, then either explain and pay again, or offer to pay again. There should be no panic about the truth.
Yes, a bank statement can be faked. So can a witness statement by an RPI, or for that matter any evidence out there. In fact recently even "video evidence" of the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allegedly saying something was faked by dubbing it over. Nothing is 100% watertight, and that's why Courts deal in likelihoods of the truth - i.e. civil cases are (mostly) "on the balance of probabilities" (is the claim 51+% likely to be true), whilst criminal cases are "beyond all reasonable doubt" (is the accusation ~90+% likely to be true).

A bank statement is strong, even if not 100%, evidence that a certain amount was paid to a ticket office/TVM. Those places usually do little other than sell tickets, i.e. accept fares, and thus it isn't a massive leap of imagination to say that the OP paid a fare there. The fare to where, you might say? Well, it just so happens the OP was later 'accosted' at Cardiff, at a time that will just so happen to match up with the timings of buying a ticket at Neath, and then taking the train from Neath to Cardiff. And it just so happens that the amount they paid is the amount of the fare to Cardiff.

Yes, none of this is outright proof that the OP paid their fare to Cardiff, but even in the slightly unusual circumstances of the OP's giving of an incorrect origin station it is still is a good indication of that they have paid their fare, and certainly by my mind more than sufficient to give reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty of the S5(3)(a) offence. If the Court found so too, the OP would be acquitted of the offence.

We've been over this several times and I really don't see what discussing it again adds for the OP.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Yes, none of this is outright proof that the OP paid their fare to Cardiff, but even in the slightly unusual circumstances of the OP's giving of an incorrect origin station it is still is a good indication of that they have paid their fare, and certainly by my mind more than sufficient to give reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty of the S5(3)(a) offence.
See: confirmation bias.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
This is now clearly going down the route of the ridiculous and hyperbole so thread is locked as the OP is in contact with a legal professional. You can even show him some of the discussion if you want views from a legally qualified person.

Best of luck with your effort in securing an offer. If you have any other question you would like help on, please get in touch with the staff team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top