South Wales Court Fines

Antman · 9 Feb 2017

najaB said:
Because the RPI's report is assumed to be that of a disinterested observer. Being performance managed on the number cases raised casts some doubt on that assumption.

Irrelevant.

Either the facts support the prosecution or they don't.

Unless of course the accusation is the RPI is faking the evidence, and I wouldn't have thought anyone was stupid enough to want a charge of perverting the course of justice hanging over them.

RailUK Forums

najaB · 9 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
Irrelevant.

Either the facts support the prosecution or they don't.

They have to support the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. An RPI being on a performance plan because (s)he hasn't met their target for prosecutions could well introduce doubt.

Antman · 9 Feb 2017

najaB said:
They have to support the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. .

That is stating the obvious.

najaB said:
An RPI being on a performance plan because (s)he hasn't met their target for prosecutions could well introduce doubt.

The only doubt that could be introduced is the evidence given by the RPI isn't truthful.

Are you suggesting an RPI would perjure themselves in court to meet a target.

najaB · 9 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
Are you suggesting an RPI would perjure themselves in court to meet a target.

I am not, but a defence solicitor might.

Antman · 9 Feb 2017

najaB said:
I am not, but a defence solicitor might.

It seems a somewhat doubtful situation that a defence lawyer would suggest there is a link between a train company monitoring the performance of their staff and the staff member perjuring themselves.

It is an even bigger reach to contemplate the magistrates would accept such a ludicrous suggestion with nothing other than the existence of the performance monitoring to support such an accusation of perjury.

Agent_c · 9 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
It seems a somewhat doubtful situation that a defence lawyer would suggest there is a link between a train company monitoring the performance of their staff and the staff member perjuring themselves.

It is an even bigger reach to contemplate the magistrates would accept such a ludicrous suggestion with nothing other than the existence of the performance monitoring to support such an accusation of perjury.

Perhaps in the most extreme situations - sitting on a final warning for not getting enough fines out there perhaps.... Otherwise I'd be inclined to agree.

najaB · 9 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
It seems a somewhat doubtful situation that a defence lawyer would suggest there is a link between a train company monitoring the performance of their staff and the staff member perjuring themselves.

It doesn't have to be out and out perjury. The mere fact that the RPI stood to gain personally by making a report for potential prosecution makes his impartiality suspect.

We've seen cases of people being reported for prosecution while on their way to the excess fares window, having had no prior opportunity to pay. I'm willing to bet that those RPIs were targeted on number of cases raised.

Antman · 9 Feb 2017

And how does a target result in the falsification of evidence in a case such as that?

WelshBluebird · 9 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
And how does a target result in the falsification of evidence in a case such as that?

Isn't it fairly obvious? If you have a target to hit, and your job depends on it, and that particular day / week / month has been low on numbers. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen. It is why targets like that (where the staff member doesn't really have control of the situations he/she comes into) are just pointless and are more damaging than helpful.

Of course, I am not saying every RPI will falsify cases, but what I am saying is that:
1 - There will likely be a small small minority who will.
2 - In cases where normally the RPI may take a more lenient (and potentially fair) approach, if they need to hit a target they may go for the prosecution / penalty fare a lot sooner than they normally would.

And what najaB is saying, is because the RPI essentially stands to gain from a prosecution / penalty fare (by means of helping them hit their targets), the question of them being a totally reliable witness comes into question (surely you can't be a totally 100% reliable impartial witness if you have something to personally gain from the prosecution?).

najaB · 9 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
And how does a target result in the falsification of evidence in a case such as that?

It doesn't require falsification - being under pressure to hit a target can result in biased interpretation of passenger's actions.

Antman · 10 Feb 2017

najaB said:
It doesn't require falsification - being under pressure to hit a target can result in biased interpretation of passenger's actions.

That only makes it more likely a person will be referred to the train company prosecution team recommending the person is taken to court.

Whether the prosecution is taken forward will depend on the evidence examined by that independent team.

So unless they falsify that evidence, something which could see them prosecuted for perjury the case will get nowhere near court as it will be kicked back with another black mark on the RPI's record for lack of judgement.

najaB · 10 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
So unless they falsify that evidence...

Again, it doesn't require deliberate falsification. Was the passenger attempting to leave without paying, or were they lost and looking for the excess fares window? How many times have we seen cases here of people being reported for prosecution while they claim that they were attempting to pay?

Antman · 10 Feb 2017

najaB said:
Again, it doesn't require deliberate falsification. Was the passenger attempting to leave without paying, or were they lost and looking for the excess fares window? How many times have we seen cases here of people being reported for prosecution while they claim that they were attempting to pay?

Doesn't matter.

The facts are the facts and the only difference it would make would be if the RPI falsified their report and did not accurately reflect what the customer said as they were stopped.

So back to the situation of unless the RPI is prepared to perjure themselves for the sake of a target, the target makes no difference.

extendedpaul · 10 Feb 2017

Gareth Marston said:
Newport,Cathays,Central, Queen St, Bridgend, Caerphilly & Pontypridd are all barriered now. The chances of a regular commuter getting away without paying on the odd day are pretty low unless they did smaller station to smaller station and even then they'd be fairly obvious to staff who would see them everyday.

Its the irregular leisure trade that predominantly boards without buying. On normal weekdays when were here we get 95% of passengers buy in the ticket office or look like there on return legs. Come Saturdays and School Holidays the % who board without buying shoots up and can be 40% plus on some trains.

TVM's and the Buy before you board campaign have not trumped the fact that everyone knows you can buy onboard. If the new holder of the Wales and Border franchsie want to change this - they will have to put a lot more creative effort, time and £ into it.

No barriers at Caerphilly as of yesterday

Fare-Cop · 10 Feb 2017

dragonblyth said:
Doesn't matter.

The facts are the facts and the only difference it would make would be if the RPI falsified their report and did not accurately reflect what the customer said as they were stopped.

So back to the situation of unless the RPI is prepared to perjure themselves for the sake of a target, the target makes no difference.

That's exactly correct.

What all the hypothesis about whether or not an RPI might, in extreme circumstance be daft enough to submit a falsified report omits to recognise is that, before the TOC prosecutor issues a Summons there will have been a letter to the alleged offender seeking their version of events and an investigation of the response.

The likelihood of a case proceeding to prosecution in such circumstances is incredibly small and in my experience, non existent.

island · 11 Feb 2017

What if the alleged offender performs the not uncommon act of burying the head in the sand and hoping it'll go away?

PHILIPE · 11 Feb 2017

extendedpaul said:
No barriers at Caerphilly as of yesterday

Correct

Fare-Cop · 11 Feb 2017

island said:
What if the alleged offender performs the not uncommon act of burying the head in the sand and hoping it'll go away?

In my experience the report is investigated thoroughly before any Summons is issued, whether or not the alleged offender responds to their letter.

This is always necessary to protect a TOC from the adverse publicity that might arise from any reports that really shouldn't be pursued.

The reality is that despite the oft repeated comments on various forums about "incorrect" or "bad" prosecutions being brought by TOCs, there is virtually no evidence that this is the case.

Yes, very occasionally an alleged offender summonsed to Court may be acquitted, but that's the case in every sphere of criminal prosecutions.

Just ask yourself how many cases go through the Courts every week and are successful and then ask again, how many convictions result in an appeal and how many of those appeals succeed, then break that figure down again to determine how many are considered malicious prosecutions.

The fact is that it is so rare that the risk of such a case is incredibly small.

If an alleged offender "buries their head in the sand, hoping it will go away" as you put it, it is likely that they will be convicted in absence if indeed a summons is issued.

If a 'questionable' case were summonsed and if that case got to Court and a conviction was recorded in absence, it has to be recognised that in these circumstances, the conviction would be as a result of the defendant's contributory negligence in ignoring things.

If 'truly questionable evidence' were challenged at an early stage, I'm sure the case would never proceed to Summons

tony_mac · 11 Feb 2017

Fare-Cop said:
The reality is that despite the oft repeated comments on various forums about "incorrect" or "bad" prosecutions being brought by TOCs, there is virtually no evidence that this is the case.

If these cases did exist, then I'm sure that the TOCs concerned would prefer they were not widely known about.
It's also possible that standards have fallen since you were involved...

aleph_0 · 11 Feb 2017

On the subject of burying head in sand, someone I used to be at school with was one of the people prosecuted here.

Their narrative was that they got on at an unmanned station without cash facilities, had the cash on them, but yet details taken at destination. Both times ATW wrote to them (firstly offering to settle for a low amount, then higher), they spoke on the phone, and both times thought the 'misunderstanding' was sorted. They then got the court summons, and didn't seem to defend or try to settle before.

The thing that struck me (whether you believe their narrative, or not) was the lack of urgency they approached it with. I expect it was because they didn't realise the seriousness until it was too late - because otherwise they would either have paid, or responded by mail/followed up when no confirmation of settlement came.

Fare-Cop · 12 Feb 2017

tony_mac said:
If these cases did exist, then I'm sure that the TOCs concerned would prefer they were not widely known about.

Exactly, they would not be known about because they would not exist.

We're talking about malicious prosecution here. If the TOC prosecutor becomes aware that a staff member has submitted a statement that is not 'true to the best of (my) belief and (I) make it knowing that (I) may be prosecuted if (I) have wilfully stated in it anything that (I) know to be false or do not believe to be true', but nonetheless signed by the inspector, no Summons will be issued

tony_mac said:
It's also possible that standards have fallen since you were involved...

I am sure that you are right, standards do vary across the industry, but perhaps you'll let me know when I was last involved in such activity.
.

tony_mac · 12 Feb 2017

Fare-Cop said:
We're talking about malicious prosecution here.

I was talking more about incompetent than malicious.

Fare-Cop said:
perhaps you'll let me know when I was last involved in such activity.

Don't you remember?

But seriously, I had thought that you were no longer actively involved in these matters. I may well have misremembered your postings, or confused you with someone else, so if it's wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Fare-Cop · 12 Feb 2017

tony_mac said:
I was talking more about incompetent than malicious.

See below:

dragonblyth said:
The only doubt that could be introduced is the evidence given by the RPI isn't truthful.

Are you suggesting an RPI would perjure themselves in court to meet a target.

The discussion on thread that I was responding to was about being untruthful. Telling lies to support an inaccurate allegation is not incompetent, that's being malicious.

tony_mac said:
Don't you remember?

But seriously, I had thought that you were no longer actively involved in these matters. I may well have misremembered your postings, or confused you with someone else, so if it's wrong, please feel free to correct me.

OK, seriously, I think the latter as I remember what I was doing yesterday perfectly well

tony_mac · 12 Feb 2017

Fare-Cop said:
The discussion on thread that I was responding to was about being untruthful. Telling lies to support an inaccurate allegation is not incompetent, that's being malicious.

Statements like 'the ticket was not valid for the journey made' or 'the ticket had previously been used' or 'I thought the passenger had a gun' can all be untruthful and not necessarily malicious. (Ok, maybe not the last one...)

Fare-Cop said:
OK, seriously, I think the latter as I remember what I was doing yesterday perfectly well

Are you sure?
(Sorry, my mistake - it looks like your memory is better than mine!)

Haywain · 12 Feb 2017

tony_mac said:
Statements like 'the ticket was not valid for the journey made' or 'the ticket had previously been used' or 'I thought the passenger had a gun' can all be untruthful and not necessarily malicious. (Ok, maybe not the last one...)

You're making the popular assumption that if someone says something that is wrong, it is a lie. It doesn't automatically follow, it may just be that they are (unintentionally) wrong or mistaken. These are not the same as a lie.

tony_mac · 12 Feb 2017

Haywain said:
You're making the popular assumption that if someone says something that is wrong, it is a lie. It doesn't automatically follow, it may just be that they are (unintentionally) wrong or mistaken. These are not the same as a lie.

No, I'm not! It was Fare-Cop who (most recently) equated being untruthful with telling lies. I was actually pointing out that being untruthful can be done without malice. (and untruthful, of course, just means 'not true')

Fare-Cop · 12 Feb 2017

Deleted because of duplication in error

Fare-Cop · 12 Feb 2017

Fare-Cop said:
See below: Telling lies to support an inaccurate allegation is not incompetent, that's being malicious.

I qualified the comment by giving the clear reason for telling a lie in such a case.

There's a world of difference between saying something that just isn't generally true and telling a lie with intent to achieve a specific purpose.

dragonblyth did exactly the same thing in this quote by saying that it was in order to achieve something specific

dragonblyth said:
Are you suggesting an RPI would perjure themselves in court to meet a target.

sheff1 · 13 Feb 2017

Regarding targets, this appeared a couple of hours ago on a different thread:

... but whilst being interviewed, a woman (with authority) came and suggested a 20£ on the spot fine, but interviewer shouted her down because he'd 'already started,' his form..

The incident happened at Cardiff and probably had nothing to do with 'targets', but it is easy to see why reporting of such exchanges results in people raising questions.

bristolboi · 13 Feb 2017

sheff1 said:
Regarding targets, this appeared a couple of hours ago on a different thread:

The incident happened at Cardiff and probably had nothing to do with 'targets', but it is easy to see why reporting of such exchanges results in people raising questions.

he also told me the implications would be no more severe, which is quite patently untrue.

South Wales Court Fines

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member