Cross-Border Journey Prosecutions

[route:oxford]

The Court Summaries in local newspapers always make interesting reading, the one detailed below captured my interest as it's a prosecution in Oxford for a journey that commenced in Scotland.

From "The Oxford Mail":-

OXFORD MAGISTRATES’

JOSHUA SHORT, 22, of RAF Brize Norton was convicted of travelling on the railway between Dundee and Oxford without paying the fare on July 12. Fined £440, must pay compensation of £184, £44 victim surcharge and £145 costs.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17406496.the-latest-results-from-oxfordshires-courts/

I'm curious why the case was brought in England (where he may have been caught) rather than in Scotland where the courts believe the crime commenced.

The legal in Scotland is, of course, different to England.

 

[Haywain]

Probably because he was 'caught' in England and therefore not subject to Scottish legislation and court procedures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably because he was 'caught' in England and therefore not subject to Scottish legislation and court procedures.

And because private prosecutions in Scotland are near-impossible to conduct.

 

[route:oxford]

Probably because he was 'caught' in England and therefore not subject to Scottish legislation and court procedures.

At the same time, didn't he enter a contract with the rail company when he boarded a service at Dundee, so it should be dealt with under Scot's law?

On the other hand if the case is under English Law, shouldn't the case in England only take into consideration the journey from Berwick or Carlisle (whichever route he took)?

 

[najaB]

And because private prosecutions in Scotland are near-impossible to conduct.

Along with the fact that the TOC will have been an English one.

 

[island]

At the same time, didn't he enter a contract with the rail company when he boarded a service at Dundee, so it should be dealt with under Scot's law?

On the other hand if the case is under English Law, shouldn't the case in England only take into consideration the journey from Berwick or Carlisle (whichever route he took)?

The NRCoT, if I recall correctly, say that the law of England and Wales applies to the contract of travel except for tickets bought in Scotland for travel entirely within Scotland.

 

[jopsuk]

Yup, Part B, paragraph 3, on page 4

These Conditions apply to travel within Great Britain only and are governed by the law of England and Wales, except where a Ticket is bought in Scotland for travel wholly within Scotland, in which case these Conditions will be governed by Scots law.

 

[mallard]

As a hypothetical, would a ticket that was actually used entirely in Scotland, but which has validity on routes that pass through part of England count as being "for travel wholly within Scotland" or not?

Also, if you hold a ticket for a journey entirely within Scotland, but are overcarried into England, which law applies?

 

[najaB]

Also, if you hold a ticket for a journey entirely within Scotland, but are overcarried into England, which law applies?

Scottish law, since there are no stations exactly on the border the crime of over-traveling would have started in Scotland.

 

[Fare-Cop]

From the imposed and penalty shown by the press report, it would appear to me that this Scotland v England debate is an irrelevance, the dispute is not a matter of contract law, rather it appears to be a criminal conviction for fare evasion.

Both National Railway Byelaws (2005) and The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) apply both sides of the Anglo Scottish border and in Wales too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From the imposed and penalty shown by the press report, it would appear to me that this Scotland v England debate is an irrelevance, the dispute is not a matter of contract law, rather it appears to be a criminal conviction for fare evasion.

Both National Railway Byelaws (2005) and The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) apply both sides of the Anglo Scottish border and in Wales too.

Convictions for fare evasion are generally brought by the railway as private prosecutions as the CPS does not generally prosecute them (does it ever?). This being the case, while they do technically apply in Scotland there are almost never any actual cases because it is extremely difficult to conduct a private prosecution in Scotland.

 

[Chris999999]

Convictions for fare evasion are generally brought by the railway as private prosecutions as the CPS does not generally prosecute them (does it ever?). This being the case, while they do technically apply in Scotland there are almost never any actual cases because it is extremely difficult to conduct a private prosecution in Scotland.

So why does anyone ever buy a ticket for travelling in Scotland if they can't be prosecuted?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So why does anyone ever buy a ticket for travelling in Scotland if they can't be prosecuted?

They can still be detained, and barriers still exist.

 

[najaB]

So why does anyone ever buy a ticket for travelling in Scotland if they can't be prosecuted?

Won't be by a TOC, but can be by the procurator fiscal.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

From the imposed and penalty shown by the press report, it would appear to me that this Scotland v England debate is an irrelevance, the dispute is not a matter of contract law, rather it appears to be a criminal conviction for fare evasion.

Both National Railway Byelaws (2005) and The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) apply both sides of the Anglo Scottish border and in Wales too.

Yes, there is no doubt as to the applicability of the law, but there is a good question to be raised over whether the English Courts have jurisdiction over an offence that can be said to have been committed in Scotland (e.g. Byelaw 18(1)). On the other hand, if the passenger has no ticket, they could be in breach of Byelaw 18(2), and I would have thought that offence is committed when and as the ticket is checked. If that happens on the English side of the border, I don't think the jurisdiction of the English Courts would be up for contest.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

So why does anyone ever buy a ticket for travelling in Scotland if they can't be prosecuted?

Because most people are honest.

There's more than just being snippy here. Unless you are to have an all-out police state, with a bobby on every street corner who is willing and able to lock everyone up for the smallest infringement, the law is ultimately only there to codify and enforce what the overwhelming majority of people see as the decent and reasonable thing to do. In this case, it would seem that enough people in Scotland accept the proposition that paying for your train travel is reasonable such that there isn't an overwhelming need to allow mass prosecution of dissidents from this position.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Yes, there is no doubt as to the applicability of the law, ….. if the passenger has no ticket, they could be in breach of Byelaw 18(2), and I would have thought that offence is committed when and as the ticket is checked. If that happens on the English side of the border, I don't think the jurisdiction of the English Courts would be up for contest.

Exactly so.

The strict liability nature of Byelaw 18.2 [2005] makes clear that any failure is evident when the traveller is asked to show a ticket, but fails to do so.

It doesn't matter whereabouts in the journey, or at which station that check takes place, but will likely have a bearing on where the prosecutor places any application for listing a Summons by a Court if prosecuted.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Exactly so.

The strict liability nature of Byelaw 18.2 [2005] makes clear that any failure is evident when the traveller is asked to show a ticket, but fails to do so.

It doesn't matter whereabouts in the journey, or at which station that check takes place, but will likely have a bearing on where the prosecutor places any application for listing a Summons by a Court if prosecuted.

Exactly, although There would be scope for serious litigation (of the kind that might put a TOC off even trying) if an incident/inspection that happened within Scotland was attempted to be prosecuted in England.

 

[paddington]

So why does anyone ever buy a ticket for travelling in Scotland if they can't be prosecuted?

If you've ever travelled by train in Scotland you will know that ticket checks happen frequently on most trains, and during peak hours at unbarriered stations there will often be a human barrier of ticket sellers. If you don't have a ticket, you won't be prosecuted, but you will be asked to buy one. If you really don't want to pay you could hide in the toilet, or try to run away, or just refuse and see where that gets you. But most people would rather pay and get on with their life. It does mean that if you're late or whatever you can just get on the train. Also many tickets in Scotland are cheap compared to a similar journey in England.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Exactly, although There would be scope for serious litigation (of the kind that might put a TOC off even trying) if an incident/inspection that happened within Scotland was attempted to be prosecuted in England.

I agree, however, this does not mean that if a cross-border journey started in Scotland and the offence was detected south of the border the matter could not be prosecuted in an English Magistrates Court. This has been tested many times.

A simple example would be boarding without ticket in say Edinburgh, with intent to travel to York and a ticket check identifying the offence after passing Berwick. There are of course more complicated issues in many cases and much will depend on the detail of the allegation.