The effect of split ticketing on detecting short faring

[Bletchleyite]

Mod note: split off from thread "Was not given a receipt for penalty fare?"

Also, to pick up on @Haywain’s response, if tickets for shorter journeys are not scanned at stations where there are gatelines, that would also raise a red flag.

Though it isn't quite that simple because of splits. There's a split I use quite often that would on the face of it be really suspicious, but cease to be so on discovering the other ticket bought shortly afterwards and the corresponding lack of scan in/out on each. So it's not that easy to "fish" for it just using quick database queries.

 

[Haywain]

Though it isn't quite that simple because of splits.

If there are splits, there will be other tickets for the same dates. After all, it would be really stretching credibility to suggest that only one part of a split was being purchased online.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there are splits, there will be other tickets for the same dates. After all, it would be really stretching credibility to suggest that only one part of a split was being purchased online.

There will, but it does mean you have to do some decent digging for each one to check it's legit or not, rather than just being able to do a quick query against the database of "find me all the tickets from Harrow and Wealdstone to Euston* that weren't scanned in" and then send a fishing letter to each.

* That isn't the split by the way, I'm reluctant to post it in case it's fixed as it clearly seems to be a pricing error that it exists. I was going to say South Hampstead but I don't think that's gated.

 

[John R]

If there are splits, there will be other tickets for the same dates. After all, it would be really stretching credibility to suggest that only one part of a split was being purchased online.

And certainly splits are unlikely from the sort of stations we’re likely to be talking about here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And certainly splits are unlikely from the sort of stations we’re likely to be talking about here.

The one I'm thinking of is a bit doughnutty, it involves buying a short distance ticket then a longer distance one. On the face of it the short distance ticket not being scanned out is suspicious, until you find the long distance one that wasn't scanned in. Obviously it is legit, but if you just did a simple database query you'd be wasting time sending threatening letters to people with perfectly valid tickets.

 

[Haywain]

The one I'm thinking of is a bit doughnutty, it involves buying a short distance ticket then a longer distance one.

The one you are thinking of is unlikely to be relevant to the advice we are trying to give the OP (on the thread this was split from).

 

[sheff1]

If there are splits, there will be other tickets for the same dates. After all, it would be really stretching credibility to suggest that only one part of a split was being purchased online.

Stretching credibility ???
I often buy only one part of a split online because the other part of the split cannot be bought online. There is no gateline at the split point, but if one was introduced I would never scan in or out at it.

Less frequently, but a few times a year, I will buy the first part of a split from the TVM and the second part online whilst en route. In these cases there may be a gateline at the split point but I will not use it.

 

[Skymonster]

If there are splits, there will be other tickets for the same dates. After all, it would be really stretching credibility to suggest that only one part of a split was being purchased online.

Huh? I quite frequently buy parts of a split trip online where cheap Advances are available and I’m happy to use them. But if the other part(s) of the split is a regular Anytime or Offpeak I’ll then always leave buying those until I get to the TVMs / ticket office at my departure station. There is no point giving the railway money sooner than necessary, and if my plans change I don’t need to go to the hassle and expense of refunding the regular tickets.

 

[Haywain]

Stretching credibility ???

In the case that I was referring to, yes.

 

[Skymonster]

In fact, come to think of it, I recently held a ticket to Ryde via Hovertravel, which is valid via Portsmouth and Southsea. As I had time to spare in Portsmouth, I decided while travelling to continue on the train to Portsmouth Harbour. I therefore bought (online) a single from Portsmouth and Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour to cover the short stretch where my original ticket wasn’t valid (I’ve had the discussion with staff and ticket offices and the consensus is “via Hovertravel “tickets aren’t technically valid at Harbour even though in most cases the discrepancy will be overlooked). Anyway, on alighting at Harbour my ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was rejected by the barrier. The staff member asked me where I’d come from, immediately citing the short distance ticket I held as often used by fare cheats to get through the barrier at Harbour after travelling ticketless from further afield. That he mentioned fare evasion in his first few words was like red rag to a bull as far as I was concerned, knowing I was totally innocent - had he been more conciliatory in bios opening remark things would have been very different on my part. So I said I’d just arrived on the train from Waterloo. He then asked to see my ticket from Waterloo, and given his previous comment I said no I wouldn’t show it do him. He then said again that I may be trying to avoid the fare. I told him that if he believed this it was for him to prove me doing wrong, not me to prove I’m in the right - and that he needed to prove I was on the train before Portsmouth and Southsea before insisting on seeing a ticket for that part of the journey. I reminded him that the ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was perfectly valid at Portsmouth Harbour and I had no obligation to retain the ticket for any other part of my journey once it had been completed. He then gave up and let me through the barrier. Had he insisted I was trying to evade the fare I’d have told him to call BTP and then embarrassed him by showing the other ticket. I can see how the ticket I held might have suggested doughnutting but its up to the railway to prove a customer’s malfeasance, not to make unfounded accusation and then expect the customer to prove their innocence.

 

[Haywain]

In fact, come to think of it, I recently held a ticket to Ryde via Hovertravel, which is valid via Portsmouth and Southsea. As I had time to spare in Portsmouth, I decided while travelling to continue on the train to Portsmouth Harbour. I therefore bought (online) a single from Portsmouth and Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour to cover the short stretch where my original ticket wasn’t valid (I’ve had the discussion with staff and ticket offices and the consensus is “via Hovertravel “tickets aren’t technically valid at Harbour even though in most cases the discrepancy will be overlooked). Anyway, on alighting at Harbour my ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was rejected by the barrier. The staff member asked me where I’d come from, immediately citing the short distance ticket I held as often used by fare cheats to get through the barrier at Harbour after travelling ticketless from further afield. That he mentioned fare evasion in his first few words was like red rag to a bull as far as I was concerned, knowing I was totally innocent - had he been more conciliatory in bios opening remark things would have been very different on my part. So I said I’d just arrived on the train from Waterloo. He then asked to see my ticket from Waterloo, and given his previous comment I said no I wouldn’t show it do him. He then said again that I may be trying to avoid the fare. I told him that if he believed this it was for him to prove me doing wrong, not me to prove I’m in the right - and that he needed to prove I was on the train before Portsmouth and Southsea before insisting on seeing a ticket for that part of the journey. I reminded him that the ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was perfectly valid at Portsmouth Harbour and I had no obligation to retain the ticket for any other part of my journey once it had been completed. He then gave up and let me through the barrier. Had he insisted I was trying to evade the fare I’d have told him to call BTP and then embarrassed him by showing the other ticket. I can see how the ticket I held might have suggested doughnutting but its up to the railway to prove a customer’s malfeasance, not to make unfounded accusation and then expect the customer to prove their innocence.

It would have been so much easier just to show him the ticket.

 

[SuspectUsual]

In fact, come to think of it, I recently held a ticket to Ryde via Hovertravel, which is valid via Portsmouth and Southsea. As I had time to spare in Portsmouth, I decided while travelling to continue on the train to Portsmouth Harbour. I therefore bought (online) a single from Portsmouth and Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour to cover the short stretch where my original ticket wasn’t valid (I’ve had the discussion with staff and ticket offices and the consensus is “via Hovertravel “tickets aren’t technically valid at Harbour even though in most cases the discrepancy will be overlooked). Anyway, on alighting at Harbour my ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was rejected by the barrier. The staff member asked me where I’d come from, immediately citing the short distance ticket I held as often used by fare cheats to get through the barrier at Harbour after travelling ticketless from further afield. That he mentioned fare evasion in his first few words was like red rag to a bull as far as I was concerned, knowing I was totally innocent - had he been more conciliatory in bios opening remark things would have been very different on my part. So I said I’d just arrived on the train from Waterloo. He then asked to see my ticket from Waterloo, and given his previous comment I said no I wouldn’t show it do him. He then said again that I may be trying to avoid the fare. I told him that if he believed this it was for him to prove me doing wrong, not me to prove I’m in the right - and that he needed to prove I was on the train before Portsmouth and Southsea before insisting on seeing a ticket for that part of the journey. I reminded him that the ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was perfectly valid at Portsmouth Harbour and I had no obligation to retain the ticket for any other part of my journey once it had been completed. He then gave up and let me through the barrier. Had he insisted I was trying to evade the fare I’d have told him to call BTP and then embarrassed him by showing the other ticket. I can see how the ticket I held might have suggested doughnutting but its up to the railway to prove a customer’s malfeasance, not to make unfounded accusation and then expect the customer to prove their innocence.

Goodness me. Talk about making the situation worse. Why not just smile and show the ticket? Five seconds and everyone can go about their day

 

[HurdyGurdy]

So it's not that easy to "fish" for it just using quick database queries.

I find it quite troubling that TOCs are increasingly resorting to searching databases and extracting records which purport to show fares evasion and, with nothing else, are presenting it as evidence of criminal acts.

Firstly, those bringing private prosecutions have a duty to conduct investigations impartially and follow all reasonable lines of inquiry including looking for evidence which tends to disprove the criminal acts took place or that the suspect was responsible. They are also required to record their investigations and retain all the evidence they've found before considering prosecution and what charge would be appropriate. The communications which some TOCs are sending out strongly suggest they've done nothing more than search for data which matches a pattern which they consider suspicious and without further investigation used that as a basis for demanding a settlement.

Secondly, digital data stored on IT systems is hearsay. It's also liable to errors which may not be at all obvious. As evidence of fact it shouldn't simply be assumed to have the same status as a first hand witness statement made by a ticket inspector or revenue officer.

I can see why TOCs look at the data they hold and consider it an easy win for the recovery of revenue losses. But unless they conduct the proper investigations, look for all the evidence and check their systems for errors, their approach will lead to miscarriages of justice.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Firstly, those bringing private prosecutions have a duty to conduct investigations impartially and follow all reasonable lines of inquiry including looking for evidence which tends to disprove the criminal acts took place or that the suspect was responsible.

Source please.

Secondly, digital data stored on IT systems is hearsay.

Source please.

It may well be that TOCs are cutting corners and leading to injustice. And there's a widely held view in this forum that the railway shouldn't be allowed to prosecute privately. But if anyone is to complain about the current situation, my feeling is that the complaint should be based on facts rather than assertion; as things stand it's not clear whether you are stating facts or your view of how things should be.

 

[Pushpit]

Source please (regarding impartial decision making) .

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

section 2.5.
2.5 It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible. Casework decisions taken fairly, impartially and with integrity help to secure justice for victims, witnesses, suspects, defendants and the public. Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied, that relevant evidence is put before the court and that obligations of disclosure are complied with.

The Post Office Horizon inquiry is ongoing at the moment, and the last few days the Head of Criminal Law has been through a 2 day gruesome testimony on Youtube where his responsibilities for impartial conduct is being tested very publicly. The Post Office, like the TOCs, retain prosecution teams from their previous role as government bodies, but the prosecuting lawyers are still bound by the Code above, a code which doesn't always sit well with some of the cases in this sub forum. However if the prosecutors get it wrong, they risk public humiliation.

 

[Ken H]

Goodness me. Talk about making the situation worse. Why not just smile and show the ticket? Five seconds and everyone can go about their day

Because in English law its the authorities job to find evidence to accuse someone. Not to expect someone against have have no evidence of wrong doing to prove their innocence. I think if an offence had been committed, then any criminal court case could run into difficulty because PACE (Police and criminal Evidence Ace) procedures had not been followed.
Police are not allowed to go 'fishing' with someone interviewed under caution.

 

[miklcct]

It would have been so much easier just to show him the ticket.

Although it would been easier just to show the ticket I will give an inspector some colours if he try to accuse me of fare dodging without a valid reason.

Using such a ticket to travel from Portsmouth & Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour is something a normal person does, and although the ticket is used by fare evaders, unless there is a clear evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the travel isn't legit, it should be treated as legit by default.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

section 2.5.
2.5 It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible. Casework decisions taken fairly, impartially and with integrity help to secure justice for victims, witnesses, suspects, defendants and the public. Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied, that relevant evidence is put before the court and that obligations of disclosure are complied with.

The Post Office Horizon inquiry is ongoing at the moment, and the last few days the Head of Criminal Law has been through a 2 day gruesome testimony on Youtube where his responsibilities for impartial conduct is being tested very publicly. The Post Office, like the TOCs, retain prosecution teams from their previous role as government bodies, but the prosecuting lawyers are still bound by the Code above, a code which doesn't always sit well with some of the cases in this sub forum. However if the prosecutors get it wrong, they risk public humiliation.

Thanks.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Source please (hearsay).

Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, which is a statement made by someone other than the person giving oral testimony in proceedings, is generally not admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of any fact or opinion contained in the statement.

Knowledge-base, court proceedings, computer evidence

Computer evidence as hearsay can sometimes be admissible. There's a lawyer's view in The Barrister magazine which discusses this, and the associated problems, in more depth.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Knowledge-base, court proceedings, computer evidence

Computer evidence as hearsay can sometimes be admissible. There's a lawyer's view in The Barrister magazine which discusses this, and the associated problems, in more depth.

Thanks, but I clearly didn't make my point clearly enough:

digital data stored on IT systems is hearsay.

In what sense is 'digital data stored on IT systems ' 'hearsay'? To amplify, is data in some other format (for the sake of argument, a bank transaction reported on a paper bank statement) also hearsay? If not, then what are the differences between a transaction on a bank statement and ticket details in a database that makes one hearsay and the other not?

 

[pedr]

The presentation of data extracted from a computer system is conclusive proof that, at the time the data was extracted, the computer system contained that data. It is not conclusive proof that the facts that can be inferred from that data are true, but the common law presumption that 'mechanical instruments' are working correctly means that in most cases it will be accepted as such: a computer system is designed to record and store specific data based on particular inputs and events and, when working correctly, will only contain that data if the events and inputs took place. Since we presume the computer system is working correctly, this is then evidence of those events or inputs, even though this is, actually, merely an inference. I'm not entirely sure 'hearsay' is the right term for that, though I'll defer to the learned barrister who wrote that very interesting article. One thing that marks a traditional bank statement from a digital record is that - before computers - the data held by a bank would be write-only, with amendments and corrections to a written record being obvious (or very skilfully executed!) Most computer systems aren't designed with anti-tampering and error-checking systems that are at all as robust as a chronological written ledger.

Having said all that, railway prosecutions based solely on data from computer systems would be difficult to pursue for a range of reasons (and arguments based on the absence of scan records would be very weak), and assertions of computer system errors are less fatal to bylaw prosecutions since even if a computer system did (for instance) produce a railcard-discounted ticket without the user selecting the discount or issue a ticket to a different station than the one intended, the law would still consider it a crime to travel on those tickets. And using inadmissible evidence to generate reasonable grounds to suspect offending and launch an investigation is fine. In many cases, the digital evidence will lead to other corroborating evidence or (as seems relatively common from TfL) surveillance which leads to direct observation of railway ticket offences.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

is data in some other format (for the sake of argument, a bank transaction reported on a paper bank statement) also hearsay?

Business documents, generally, are hearsay, but can be admissible in evidence if:

• Oral evidence would be admissible as evidence of the matter;
• The document was created or received by a person in the course of their occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office;
• The person who supplied the information contained in the statement had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with; and
• If the information is multiple hearsay then each person passing it on also received it in the course of their occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office: Section 117(2).

Additional requirements are imposed in the case of any documents which were prepared in contemplation of criminal proceedings (other than some exceptions for overseas evidence set out at section 117(4)(b)). The additional requirements, which are set out at section 117(5), are:

• That the witness is unavailable (meeting the requirements under section 116 above: dead etc.); or
• That the witness could not be expected to remember the matters referred to.

Documents where these additional requirements must be met will include statements of fraud investigators and police officer's notes. However, it may be that the information upon which the fraud investigator bases their statement will be admissible, as much of that information may be contained in business documents admissible under section 117(2).

CPS - Legal Guidance - Hearsay - Business Documents

Section 117 refers to the Criminal Justice Act 2003

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Business documents, generally, are hearsay, but can be admissible in evidence if:

CPS - Legal Guidance - Hearsay - Business Documents

Section 117 refers to the Criminal Justice Act 2003

So essentially having records on computer changes nothing from them being on paper?

So why mention it as something which might change matters?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would have been so much easier just to show him the ticket.

Well quite. This sort of thing does explain how staff get jaded and a poor attitude when people who aren't even fare dodging get pointlessly awkward with them for no good reason whatsoever.

I see no reason why, having made a journey, one shouldn't be asked at its end to show tickets for all of it.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Because in English law its the authorities job to find evidence to accuse someone. Not to expect someone against have have no evidence of wrong doing to prove their innocence. I think if an offence had been committed, then any criminal court case could run into difficulty because PACE (Police and criminal Evidence Ace) procedures had not been followed.
Police are not allowed to go 'fishing' with someone interviewed under caution.

So if a policeman sees you leaving Tesco with a bottle of gin under your arm and asks if you’ve stolen it, you’d choose not to show him your receipt and challenge him to prove you’ve stolen it?

Surely cooperating and dealing with the situation quickly and calmly is better for everyone?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

So essentially having records on computer changes nothing from them being on paper?

If the records in a database were created by a person or persons, I suspect the law would treat those records in the same way it treats a document. Admissible if oral evidence would be admissible as evidence of the matter, etc. The effect of the requirements is that an audit trail exists.

The difference arises where the records are created not by a person, but by the workings of one or more computer systems and other electronic devices. If working correctly, those systems/devices should record the time at which a ticket was scanned, but errors of configuration or communication or back office processing may mean that's not the case. That's a problem if the time at which a ticket was being used is relevant to a prosecution and the only evidence is the scanned data record.

 

[John R]

Agree with those that say that a co-operative approach is preferable, and less stressful for both parties. If the police had been called and you had been able to prove that you held a ticket, what purpose would it serve other than to waste everybody’s time just so you could prove a point that frankly isn’t worth proving.

 

[Ken H]

So essentially having records on computer changes nothing from them being on paper?

So why mention it as something which might change matters?

Well it should. Its far far too easy to change production data on computers. Its also far too easy to put naff code live 'because it isnt safety critical'. One weighs up the benefits of the new code against the possibility of error causing regulatory issues, or reputational loss. I attended a meeting on Friday that attempted to do just that for an implementation in a weeks time. The cost savings were considered to have more importance than some known issues with the changed software.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because in English law its the authorities job to find evidence to accuse someone. Not to expect someone against have have no evidence of wrong doing to prove their innocence. I think if an offence had been committed, then any criminal court case could run into difficulty because PACE (Police and criminal Evidence Ace) procedures had not been followed.
Police are not allowed to go 'fishing' with someone interviewed under caution.

Yes, but also, just show the ticket and get on with life.

 

[John R]

Using such a ticket to travel from Portsmouth & Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour is something a normal person does,

Is it actually that popular a journey, given the distance is just over half a mile, and through ticketing for those on the IoW ferries exists? (And for Gosport passengers, the bus add on is 40p, so much cheaper than a single from P&S to the Harbour.)