Being prosecuted for using pay as you go oyster card belonging to someone else

[some bloke]

As you said, "most" - the relevant section is 103:

That point was about "Most or all of the 1845 Act's mentions of "regulations..."".

The provision on overtravelling, and the one on dangerous goods (section 105) don't mention "regulations". I haven't seen any of its provisions on passenger offences that do.

While this wouldn't apply in this particular case it might be relevant to some cases for which that form letter would be sent.

Yes, the Act might be relevant in another case. But GA's language about "Railway Regulations", which passengers may interpret as part of a threat, has no obvious reference to that Act.

We're still left with the question of the appropriateness of sending a form letter which may confuse as to which law(s) the threat is based on.

 

[najaB]

We're still left with the question of the appropriateness of sending a form letter which may confuse as to which law(s) the threat is based on.

I think you're clutching a straws here. In common usage, "regulation", "law" and "legislation" are used interchangably.

 

[some bloke]

One presumes this is to cover the rare cases where the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act is invoked instead.

Or perhaps more likely, "Railway Regulations" is a garbled version of "Regulation of Railways Act".

In common usage, "regulation", "law" and "legislation" are used interchangably.

"Railway Regulations" is in capital letters and next to "Railway Byelaws", so it doesn't seem unreasonable for passengers to think it means an official set with that title.

The point about questioning the appropriateness of what GA sent is about more than terminology. A passenger may be more likely to pay up on a mistaken basis because of the references to

- the irrelevant 1889 law,
- "you",
- "offences...may be recordable" and
- "criminal record".

It's perhaps unclear what excuse there might be for a company charging £150 a time not to at least have a separate form letter for byelaw cases, rather than mentioning consequences that don't apply.

It seems to me that @Skadoosh has a legitimate grievance about the way Greater Anglia has communicated with him as well as the fact that they started the prosecution, and that this kind of problem may be relevant to the grievance.

 

[tspaul26]

I'm not saying it is, but can anyone explain why a threat of prosecution when there had been no loss to the company or TfL, accompanied by a "Settlement Offer" mentioning a law which in fact was not being relied on at all, and the supposed possibility of the recipient being convicted of a "recordable offence" that would create a "criminal record", is not blackmail?

Theft Act Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Theft Act 1968

An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post...

www.legislation.gov.uk

It seems to me that incompetence is a defence under 21(1)(a),
("[belief...] that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand")
because someone who makes a mistake can easily believe that they have good grounds.

But under 21(1)(b) the defendant also needs to have believed that
"the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand".

That seems to me to refer to the use of the menaces as they in fact were - in this case, as written.

If that interpretation is right, then it may seem at least arguable that if the prosecutor sent out a misleading threat, they would have to believe that the actual words were a proper means; and a belief that they had sent something proper when it wasn't (for example a standard form of words that should not be sent to this recipient) is not a defence.

@Skadoosh, it might be interesting if you were to ask GA to confirm whether they think there is anything improper in the correspondence they sent. They might say the part about the irrelevant 1889 law was for information only and was not intended to apply to all recipients. But this was a specific settlement offer to you, and I'm not clear why it's reasonable to expect members of the public to know that this didn't apply to them, or that they need to ask a lawyer to clarify it.

Enough of this.

Greater Anglia cannot have committed blackmail because it is a body corporate and the offence is punishable only by imprisonment.

As to their ‘Settlement Offer’, whilst this may be objectionable for many reasons the reference to a RORA conviction being recordable is not improper as the sheet must be read in conjunction with the Single Justice Procedure Notice.

 

[Taunton]

I honestly feel the rail company has committed a criminal act here, of Demanding Money with Menaces under Section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've seen people making similar claims, but nothing official to back it up.

RPIs generally don't have official targets AIUI, but if an RPI isn't handing out as many PFs as the average then their managers will want to know why. So it ends up being a de facto target.

I do not think this line of argument would get very far at all. It is well settled law that a belief which turns out to be wrong can be reasonable.

Indeed it can, although what is reasonable depends on the competence expected of someone in a professional role.

I don't think it's harsh to say the GA prosecution officer has not shown a high level of professional competence by making a mistake that could have been avoided- and indeed was rectified- with a quick phone call or email to TfL.

 

[Vespa]

Very curt reply from GA. I hate it when you get "....apologise for any inconvenience caused...." Oh the insincerity.

I'd be pushing for something more.

No mention of GA trying to improve their systems/training/customer interaction either.

To them it's just another day in the office and an inconsequental apology reflects that.
You're just a number.

 

[SteveM70]

RPIs generally don't have official targets AIUI, but if an RPI isn't handing out as many PFs as the average then their managers will want to know why. So it ends up being a de facto target.

Which, of course, at face value is a vicious circle. By definition a number of RPIs must be below average, so anything they do to up their “hit rate” will in turn force the average up and potentially make RPIs who were previously above average now be below average, and then it goes again.....

I really hope they don’t use such blunt performance measures

 

[Haywain]

Which, of course, at face value is a vicious circle. By definition a number of RPIs must be below average, so anything they do to up their “hit rate” will in turn force the average up and potentially make RPIs who were previously above average now be below average, and then it goes again.....

This seems unlikely - one would expect that questions would be asked of anyone who is significantly below average and equally of anyone who is significantly above average. Not only that, it would depend on whether the average taken is over a short or long period as one would expect that over a long period on-one should consistently be above or below the average.

 

[some bloke]

the sheet must be read in conjunction with the Single Justice Procedure Notice.

I'd guess people are aware of that. However, @Skadoosh seems only to have understood the position - that the alleged offence isn't recordable - when someone on this forum pointed it out.

Good to know

It isn't the company's responsibility to give passengers a lot of reassuring legal advice. But someone might say "it's his fault for not reading it properly". I'm not sure it is.

1. Can people be reasonably required to know that just because the notice doesn't mention the 1889 Act, the sheet's mention of it, and so the part about a criminal record, are irrelevant?
Put another way:
Is it reasonable to require them to know that the legislative system is structured in such a way that if the charge is under law X, it is definitely in no way also "under" some perhaps overarching law Y?


2. The confused first sentence on the sheet doesn't clearly distinguish between prosecutions under the Act and those under byelaws, which might have made the later part clearer.


3. Let's think about the ways that people who are scared and confused might interpret the later part, which may well be the last part of main text they see:



It doesn't even clearly say that the part about "criminal record" relates specifically to offences under the 1889 Act, rather than being a general warning about the consequences of any prosecution to which the sheet applies.

 

[nickswift99]

I see that the text hasn't been proof read - "I before E except after C" was drummed into me in English lessons.

 

[Mojo]

Alternative viewpoint, much more likely that people will get away with low-level criminality due to the higher hurdles to getting a prosecution started. Not that I know enough to be able to say one way or the other.

The majority of people that are in the wrong already *do* get away with it, because they know that most RPIs will not stop or detain customers who they are accusing of wrongdoing, as most Toc staff are instructed by their employers not to make physical contact with customers, and not to follow customers, where this can be avoided.

 

[robbeech]

The majority of people that are in the wrong already *do* get away with it, because they know that most RPIs will not stop or detain customers who they are accusing of wrongdoing, as most Toc staff are instructed by their employers not to make physical contact with customers, and not to follow customers, where this can be avoided.

I suppose this then makes it more important for staff to be hard on those that do cooperate (even if they’ve done nothing wrong, only a small percentage will fit I to this category) to keep the numbers up to be seen to be doing their job. Jobs where you COULD do nothing at all and still be paid are few and far between.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The majority of people that are in the wrong already *do* get away with it, because they know that most RPIs will not stop or detain customers who they are accusing of wrongdoing

Indeed. I think we've all seen countless examples where the usual suspects show the best way of getting around an RPI is to go aggressive and to go aggressive early. I don't even mean be violent, but even just not stopping at and not engaging with a revenue block is remarkably effective.

RPIs will back down- and understandably so- except in the vanishingly rare cases where police support a revenue block.

The whole system targets low-hanging fruit, which is another reason why I'm so against the railways having prosecution powers. Especially as we are, after a brief hiatus, now again increasingly seeing the use of prosecution threats in lieu of Penalty Fares because the threats are more profitable.

 

[Vespa]

Indeed. I think we've all seen countless examples where the usual suspects show the best way of getting around an RPI is to go aggressive and to go aggressive early. I don't even mean be violent, but even just not stopping at and not engaging with a revenue block is remarkably effective.

RPIs will back down- and understandably so- except in the vanishingly rare cases where police support a revenue block.

The whole system targets low-hanging fruit, which is another reason why I'm so against the railways having prosecution powers. Especially as we are, after a brief hiatus, now again increasingly seeing the use of prosecution threats in lieu of Penalty Fares because the threats are more profitable.

I agree, they effectively become their own judge and jury easily leading to flawed prosecutions.

A very recent example of corporate abuse of prosecuting powers was the Post Office covering up Horizon counters computer system accounting bugs creating phantom losses, Post Office prosecuted innocent Postmasters leading many to be made bankrupt, dismissed, imprisoned and in some cases suicides.

All based on flawed evidence that has not been forensically tested in spite of mounting evidence of flawed computing system, there has a been successful class actioncourt case by former Postmasters exposing misuse of prosecuting power.

This has led to calls for Royal Mail to be stripped of prosecuting powers, railway companies abuse of process is good reason why such power should be stripped from companies and corporations as they have interest in ensuring successful prosecutions creating a conflict of interest.

 

[najaB]

I agree, they effectively become their own judge and jury easily leading to flawed prosecutions.

Except TOCs aren't magistrates so any blame for flawed prosecutions needs to be laid at the foot of the court service.

 

[Vespa]

Except TOCs aren't magistrates so any blame for flawed prosecutions needs to be laid at the foot of the court service.

I never said they were magistrate, the TOC are performing the roles of crown prosecution service in deciding if the case is safe to proceed to court, CPS looks at the evidence decides if it's feasible based on the evidence and public interest.

The TOC puts the evidence together and send it to court but not before trying to get a settlement offer of £xxx which they would rather have, its all about getting the money.

The frontline staff needs to be better trained and less motivated about aiming to extract the maximum money, at the moment its not the case otherwise innocent members on this forum wouldn't be winning cases, for every one knowledable winner is Probably 20-30 innocents are massively fined and got criminal convictions by a flawed money motivated private prosecution system.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Except TOCs aren't magistrates so any blame for flawed prosecutions needs to be laid at the foot of the court service.

You're being a little disingenuous here, you know fine well these flawed (threats of) prosecutions don't go anywhere near a courtroom. The whole process is designed to raise revenue from low hanging fruit.

The ones that make it to Court are where the passenger doesn't engage at all, and where the defendant doesn't engage with the SCJP the Bench just rubber stamp whatever the TOC says happened. Hundreds of cases are pushed through in a morning. If even a tiny fraction of people took their day in court, the whole system would collapse.

The idea that the Bench are providing judicial scrutiny over any part of the TOC's revenue processes is, quite frankly, laughable.

It's the same with Capita (TV Licensing), who also routinely abuse the powers they have been given.

 

[some bloke]

The idea that the Bench are providing judicial scrutiny over any part of the TOC's revenue processes is, quite frankly, laughable.

Among the bizarre features of this case is that at one point, the Single Justice Procedure Notice - which @Skadoosh not unreasonably described as a letter from the court - tells him he's guilty.

the highly inappropriate language,

"You have been charged with an offence *committed* on a Greater Anglia service"

[Are court staff aware of that phrasing, on a notice with the court system's insignia?]

 

[Tetchytyke]

Among the bizarre features of this case is that at one point, the Single Justice Procedure Notice - which @Skadoosh not unreasonably described as a letter from the court - tells him he's guilty

I fail to see the issue with that bit- as it is a prosecution, the recipient has indeed been charged with the offence. It is the correct legal term. The CPS charge people with offences.

The difference is that the CPS don't charge someone and then, in the same breath, say £300 will make them forget all about it.

 

[some bloke]

I fail to see the issue with that bit- as it is a prosecution, the recipient has indeed been charged with the offence. It is the correct legal term. The CPS charge people with offences.

The difference is that the CPS don't charge someone and then, in the same breath, say £300 will make them forget all about it.

The normal idea is to charge someone with an offence (which relates to an allegation that the offence was committed) not with an offence "committed" at a certain place.

 

[tspaul26]

The normal idea is to charge someone with an offence (which relates to an allegation that the offence was committed) not with an offence "committed" at a certain place.

An offence may well have been committed, but not by the accused. There is in my professional judgment nothing particularly objectionable about this template SJPN.

 

[some bloke]

An offence may well have been committed, but not by the accused.

It doesn't say the offence may well have been committed. It describes the offence as committed.

 

[Llanigraham]

Among the bizarre features of this case is that at one point, the Single Justice Procedure Notice - which @Skadoosh not unreasonably described as a letter from the court - tells him he's guilty.


View attachment 80192

No it doesn't. I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "committed".

 

[some bloke]

While the alleged offence might have been committed by someone other than the accused, it was other things being equal less likely if, as I take him to mean, @Skadoosh had confirmed his details:

GA sent me a letter checking if the details I had provided were correct first

 

[Haywain]

It doesn't say the offence may well have been committed. It describes the offence as committed.

Well, if it wasn't committed then it wasn't an offence. But I really think that you are getting overly pedantic about this.

 

[some bloke]

Well, if it wasn't committed then it wasn't an offence. But I really think that you are getting overly pedantic about this.

I'm questioning whether the communications as a whole were appropriate, and this is only one part. It seems to me that language has an effect on people's responses, and that it's understandable if someone is more likely to pay up by mistake if there's an accumulation of confusing and/or tendentious language.

To answer your first point, "the offence" can refer either to an offence committed, or to an offence as defined in law - which exists even if no-one commits it. In any case, I think the meaning is clear.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The normal idea is to charge someone with an offence (which relates to an allegation that the offence was committed) not with an offence "committed" at a certain place.

I think you're being pedantic. It's standard wording and you read the clauses in full:

((You)) ((are charged with)) ((an offence committed on Greater Anglia)).

Nowhere does it imply the recipient is guilty of the said ((offence committed on Greater Anglia)).

 

[philthetube]

It does sasy, or at least imply that an offence was committed, if not by the recipient then who else? (Sorry if that sounds critical but I could not find a better way to word it).

At least that is the way I read it and if |I can so will others, therefore it needs rewording.

 

[SteveM70]

Surely the wording should be “you are charged with the offence of <insert specific charge and the law it breaches> whereby you are accused of <insert details of what/where/when>”