23 Prosecutions in Bristol.

[ForTheLoveOf]

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we should be criminalising people who fail to pay their fare at the first opportunity (the so-called "pay when challenged" people), or even those who actively attempt to avoid payment of their fare ("fare dodgers").

It isn't theft in any sense of the word, because no physical property is appropriated. It is a service which is not paid for, and one which it costs the TOC no more to provide whether there's an extra passenger or not. It's not like failing to pay a taxi fare, for example, where the journey was specially only made for your benefit.

If the operators fail to take the required measures to ensure that all customers pay the fare they want them to pay, I don't see that they should then be able to come whinging to the Courts when people go ahead and take advantage of their failures. I fundamentally don't see how it's anything more than a civil dispute over payment between two parties.

If fare evasion is morally justified in being an offence then why is wilfully refusing to pay any other debt not an offence? It's a debt like any other, if the TOCs let it arise, and should be enforced in just the same way.

In any case I cannot possibly condone TOCs taking people to Court for as long as they don't clean up their act. There are so many instances of TOCs and their staff engaging in immoral, tortious or illegal conduct. It goes unpunished the vast majority of the time and the playing field simply isn't level when consumers have no easily accessible redress against things the TOC does seriously wrong, and yet the TOCs have the machinery to invoke the ire of the Courts at a moment's notice as soon as someone does the slightest thing out of line.

I think it boils down to the fact that the relationship between TOC and passenger fundamentally isn't one of equals. It's one of the TOC being, by far, the mightier party. To then give them the ability to prosecute people, with no oversight whatsoever to prevent the misuse that inevitably occurs, is simply ludicrous. And in any case it is the state getting involved in something that is a private arrangement or disagreement between two private parties.

 

[Stigy]

Further disclosure alert, I am an ex train guard so I know full well it near impossible to dodge or get away at stations with barriers.

The station I was stopped at was a fully gated station where I approached staff to buy the correct ticket.

No axe to grind, I was guilty, I paid my fine no criminal record though.

The criminal justice system is creaking as it is under the weight of real crime like drug offences, burglary, robbery and the like without private operators bringing cases for rail fares.

However, what I think and come to that anyone on here thinks is meaningless.

You were seemingly fined rather a lot for it not to have been a Regulation if Railways Act charge, and thus with it bringing a criminal record?

 

[Stigy]

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we should be criminalising people who fail to pay their fare at the first opportunity (the so-called "pay when challenged" people), or even those who actively attempt to avoid payment of their fare ("fare dodgers").

It isn't theft in any sense of the word, because no physical property is appropriated. It is a service which is not paid for, and one which it costs the TOC no more to provide whether there's an extra passenger or not. It's not like failing to pay a taxi fare, for example, where the journey was specially only made for your benefit.

If the operators fail to take the required measures to ensure that all customers pay the fare they want them to pay, I don't see that they should then be able to come whinging to the Courts when people go ahead and take advantage of their failures. I fundamentally don't see how it's anything more than a civil dispute over payment between two parties.

So you think that somebody who dishonestly sets out to defraud a company of payment should only be dealt with in a civil manner? Would you be happy for such people to be left in charge of your money or your affairs? Would you consider somebody who over time, avoided payment of several hundreds of pounds not a criminal in the same way as somebody who, in one way or another committed fraud offences within the banking system?

 

[najaB]

The criminal justice system is creaking as it is under the weight of real crime like drug offences, burglary, robbery and the like without private operators bringing cases for rail fares

Very few of which will be dealt with by magistrates anyway...

 

[Hadders]

One problem of keeping things out of court is you can get cowboy operators who ride roughshod over the rules and regulations. There needs to be proper safeguards in place to prevent this from happening.

One advantage of putting these cases through court is to provide a deterrent to reduce the risk of others committing similar offences. If matters are dealt with out of court this deterrent is lost. It is very rare for shoplifting cases to end up in court these days, police publicising that they won't attend if the value is less than £200 in many cases. This just gives free license to shoplifters who can steal items and know that no action will be taken. Levels of theft have risen significantly as have assaults against shop staff who feel that the system doesn't support them....

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So you think that somebody who dishonestly sets out to defraud a company of payment should only be dealt with in a civil manner? Would you be happy for such people to be left in charge of your money or your affairs? Would you consider somebody who over time, avoided payment of several hundreds of pounds not a criminal in the same way as somebody who, in one way or another committed fraud offences within the banking system?

Like I said, it's not an offence in general life to avoid or even evade payment of contractual debts. Plenty of people and companies do this and if you want your money you simply have to use the relevant measures to get your money, if that's at all possible.

I don't see why the railways should have a special status in law compared to any other creditor whose debtors evade payment. You don't get people taken to the Mags' over unpaid water bills. You don't see Mags' cases over people who jump out of taxis and don't pay, which is a significantly more serious matter. If someone skips a leg of their flight booking to save money (because say, they've booked a return journey but only ever intended to make a normally more expensive single journey) you don't see them taken to the Mags' either.

It's an anachronism of law that the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 hasn't been repealed, and it was almost certainly an unintentional consequence that the redrafted Byelaws of 2005 included a prosecuteable offence under Byelaws 17/18 rather than just permitting ejection from the railway.

 

[Llanigraham]

I do think that some members here need to find out how the Magistrates Court system works.

It is quite likely that many of these cases took up little actual Court time. The Clerk will have found out before the Magistrates sat how many of the accused were present at Court, and all those cases where they are not present can be handed to the Magistrates to discuss as they look at the evidence presented, before (or after) Court has sat. If the accused has presented anything then that will be looked at and discussed, but in most cases there is nothing from the accused. This does not only happen with railway cases, but with many others as well.

I can think of several occasions where, as the Presenting Officer, I have been asked by the Magistrates whether the case against A, B and C are basically the same, with the same evidence and facts, and once that has been confirmed and it noted that there has been no responce from A, B or C, then they have all been found guilty en-bloc. Fine levels are then left to the Clerk and their staff to sort out. So that can be 3 cases all dealt with in probably less than 10 minutes.

 

[najaB]

it was almost certainly an unintentional consequence that the redrafted Byelaws of 2005 included a prosecuteable offence under Byelaws 17/18 rather than just permitting ejection from the railway.

Yeah, it somehow managed to make it all the way through the drafting and review process without anyone noticing. Very careless of them.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If we're looking at changing things, there are at least two questions to look at, and while there may be one answer to both of them, I think it is important not to get them confused.

1) A matter of principle - is it right that failing to pay a train fare should be treated as a crime, with everything that implies in terms of punishment?
2) If the answer to (1) is 'yes', then a matter of practice - is it right that the railway should raise private prosecutions, despite the fact that many (most?) other prosecutions are brought by the public prosecutor (the CPS)?

My answer to (1) is 'yes': without knowing the exact legal definitions of theft or fraud, fare dodging feels like an economic crime to me, in that
- the perpetrator has gained something (a train ride) on terms not generally available to a law-abiding person (for free) and
- someone has suffered as a result of this (directly, the train company who are down by the fare in terms of covering their costs and making their profit: indirectly, the other ratepayers and the government (and through them the taxpayer) who have to pay rather more to make up the fare not collected).

I don't think any of us are totally law-abiding (if that's just me, then my apologies for casting aspersions on this company of saints). But most of us keep our offending to a very low level, or are deterred from doing it again if we are caught - because we fear that the next time the punishment will be worse - taking my case of speeding above, I am deterred not just by the uplift in my insurance from having three points on my licence, but knowing that things will be much worse if I go up to six points for speeding again within three years. And this is also a reason why it's important for fare-dodging to be a crime: it means that a second or subsequent occurrence can be punished more severely than the first time round until the offender learns their lesson - or at least decides that offending is not financially worthwhile.

So as I think that (1)='yes', that brings us to question (2). My immediate response is that there is nothing wrong with a private individual or body bringing a prosecution - from time to time you hear of private prosecutions for murder and suchlike, but as far as I can tell these are invariably taken over by the CPS who then close them down, presumably because if there had been a realistic chance of conviction the CPS would already have prosecuted the matter.

But if multiple prosecutions are to be brought as a matter of policy, then I can see the problem that has been pointed out in this thread: the railway companies don't seem to be as rigorous as the CPS. Accepting that fare-dodging prosecutions are generally for quite small amounts, none the less the railway should be able to demonstrate that prosecutions have been considered with an appropriate level of rigour. And given the fear that a threat of prosecution raises in first-time posters on this forum, it does seem that TIL don't sufficiently consider the quality of their evidence before issuing letters threatening ( criminal) court action.

So in practice, carry on as now - but with earlier and specific consideration of whether each case is suitable for prosecution. Ticking all the prosecution boxes isn't good enough - any special circumstances need to be fully considered rather than being discounted en bloc.

 

[Tom Quinne]

You were seemingly fined rather a lot for it not to have been a Regulation if Railways Act charge, and thus with it bringing a criminal record?

They withdraw the criminal charge prior to going into court No1, and went forward with the railway bye law non criminal charge.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Very few of which will be dealt with by magistrates anyway...

Every case initially goes via Mag court, but is obviously passed up to Crown as required.

 

[najaB]

They withdraw the criminal charge prior to going into court No1, and went forward with the railway bye law non criminal charge.

Byelaw offences are criminal offences.

 

[najaB]

Every case initially goes via Mag court, but is obviously passed up to Crown as required.

And there doesn't seem to be a problem getting cases referred to the Crown Court - if anything the delays occur after referral.

 

[richw]

Considering that my ticket was checked on the train by GWR staff in both directions for a day trip from Oxford to Worcester I find it disturbing that people making much longer trips costing three figures managed to get to their destination without any intermediate checks.

I’ve been travelling the mainline between Cornwall and Exeter regularly, and haven’t encountered a ticket check in months!
my ex wife comes to visit our children and take them out every fortnight (I’ve got full custody). She boards from her local station which is unmanned and no ticket machines, she hasn’t had an opportunity to buy a ticket since September before getting off the train! She always buys at the ticket office here for going home 5p difference between single and return. There’s clearly lots of lost revenue in Cornwall.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Byelaw offences are criminal offences.

Either way I didn’t get a criminal record.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Either way I didn’t get a criminal record.

That's true, because Byelaw offences are non-recordable.

 

[FenMan]

Either way I didn’t get a criminal record.

So, was justice done? Or did you have the satisfaction of getting away with it?

 

[Tom Quinne]

I certainly wouldn’t class a £400+ fine as any kind of “getting away with it” would you?

Or would justice be a 5 year prison sentence in HMP Whitemoor as a CAT A prisoner?

 

[Llanigraham]

If you have been fined by a Court then you have been found guilty of a crime, and therefore have a criminal record.

 

[MikeWh]

If you have been fined by a Court then you have been found guilty of a crime, and therefore have a criminal record.

No. If the crime is non-recordable then you don't have a record.

 

[Haywain]

No. If the crime is non-recordable then you don't have a record.

For the sake of being pedantic (someone has to), no criminal record but has committed and been found guilty of a criminal offence.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I certainly wouldn’t class a £400+ fine as any kind of “getting away with it” would you?

Or would justice be a 5 year prison sentence in HMP Whitemoor as a CAT A prisoner?

Even someone who got a 5 year prison sentence for an offence of delibrately obtaining a service without paying (in this case travel on the railway) would not end up doing that time in HMP Whitemoor as a Category A prisoner, unless they were serving another sentence concurrently for a more serious crime.

That aside, I would not class a fine in excess of £400.00 as "getting away with it" personally, even though you were very lucky not to get a criminal record as you prosecuted for a Byelaw offence, and not for breaching the RoRA (Regulation of Railways Act), or worse still the Fraud Act.

 

[MikeWh]

I think this thread has run its course now and is meandering down a side street in a somewhat fantasy manner, so I'm locking it.