This largely relates to the closed thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127475
but raises general issues of importance when giving advice. I hoped to return to that thread before it was closed, but was sidetracked by family issues.
Neither byelaw 18 nor byelaw 25 defines the word "journey"; however, it is my firm view, supported by the NRCoC (in particular Condition 16(i) and Condition 25(d)), the Penalty Fares Regulations and Rules, the Delay Repay rules, the general consensus in the 'Fares Advice & Policy' section of the forum, my dictionary, and common sense, that a passenger who travels from station A to station D, changing at stations B and C without breaking their journey, has made a *single journey* from A to D within the meaning of railway byelaws.
I have made successful Delay Repay claims based on short delays on a initial journey leg causing missed connections and subsequent delayed arrival at my destination station(s) of over 30 minutes. The TOCs in questions accepted that I had made a *single journey* by rail, rather than two separate journeys from origin station to intermediate station and then from intermediate station to destination station (neither of which would be entitled to Delay Repay in their own right, had they been separate journeys).
Although analogies with other forms of transport are typically of limited use, it is also my opinion that a passenger driving from (say) Ladybank to Stevenage, briefly stopping at service stations in Edinburgh and Peterborough en route, has also made a single journey rather than three separate journeys.
Furthermore, there is case law to the effect that any ambiguity in a criminal statute must be construed in the manner most favourable to the defendant.
In my opinion, it therefore follows that, if station A did not have ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel, a passenger remains entitled to rely on the 18(3)(i) defence to a byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) prosecution regardless of the number of trains he or she subsequently joins during the same journey, or indeed the number of times he or she is subsequently asked for a ticket on subsequent legs of the journey. Even if a passenger buys a ticket to cover only part of the journey, this does not change the definition of their journey, nor break the journey up into multiple parts (as NRCoC Condition 19 makes clear).
In general, I would agree that a passenger commits a byelaw 18(1) offence each time he or she boards a train without a valid ticket, but that this is not the case where:
a) a passenger is not starting a new journey, but rather continuing on a single journey started at a previous station, and;
b) still has a valid 18(3)(i) defence relating to the station at which he or she commenced his or her journey.
Of course, this assumes the passenger is telling the truth that they boarded at a station with no purchase facilities, and is not, for example, inventing travel on a non-existent train from a minor station lacking purchase facilities in order to excuse an unlawful failure to purchase at the claimed intermediate station, which in fact is his or her true origin station.
If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the word "journey", I hope that he or she will provide reasons and explanation for their alternative definition.
A passenger who:
a) boards a train at an intermediate station without a ticket, having failed to take advantage of one or more opportunities to purchase on the previous train, or at the intermediate station, or;
b) buys a ticket to cover part of their journey and then wilfully proceeds by rail beyond that station, without buying valid tickets to cover the remainder of their journey prior to departure from that intermediate station;
likely commits other offences, notably fare evasion contrary to s 5(3)(a) RRA 1889. However, my question is concerned solely with the byelaw 18 offence (although similar considerations would apply to any byelaw 17 charge).
Edit- this issue may also be relevant when giving advice on this live thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127759
but raises general issues of importance when giving advice. I hoped to return to that thread before it was closed, but was sidetracked by family issues.
Neither byelaw 18 nor byelaw 25 defines the word "journey"; however, it is my firm view, supported by the NRCoC (in particular Condition 16(i) and Condition 25(d)), the Penalty Fares Regulations and Rules, the Delay Repay rules, the general consensus in the 'Fares Advice & Policy' section of the forum, my dictionary, and common sense, that a passenger who travels from station A to station D, changing at stations B and C without breaking their journey, has made a *single journey* from A to D within the meaning of railway byelaws.
I have made successful Delay Repay claims based on short delays on a initial journey leg causing missed connections and subsequent delayed arrival at my destination station(s) of over 30 minutes. The TOCs in questions accepted that I had made a *single journey* by rail, rather than two separate journeys from origin station to intermediate station and then from intermediate station to destination station (neither of which would be entitled to Delay Repay in their own right, had they been separate journeys).
Although analogies with other forms of transport are typically of limited use, it is also my opinion that a passenger driving from (say) Ladybank to Stevenage, briefly stopping at service stations in Edinburgh and Peterborough en route, has also made a single journey rather than three separate journeys.
Furthermore, there is case law to the effect that any ambiguity in a criminal statute must be construed in the manner most favourable to the defendant.
In my opinion, it therefore follows that, if station A did not have ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel, a passenger remains entitled to rely on the 18(3)(i) defence to a byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) prosecution regardless of the number of trains he or she subsequently joins during the same journey, or indeed the number of times he or she is subsequently asked for a ticket on subsequent legs of the journey. Even if a passenger buys a ticket to cover only part of the journey, this does not change the definition of their journey, nor break the journey up into multiple parts (as NRCoC Condition 19 makes clear).
In general, I would agree that a passenger commits a byelaw 18(1) offence each time he or she boards a train without a valid ticket, but that this is not the case where:
a) a passenger is not starting a new journey, but rather continuing on a single journey started at a previous station, and;
b) still has a valid 18(3)(i) defence relating to the station at which he or she commenced his or her journey.
Of course, this assumes the passenger is telling the truth that they boarded at a station with no purchase facilities, and is not, for example, inventing travel on a non-existent train from a minor station lacking purchase facilities in order to excuse an unlawful failure to purchase at the claimed intermediate station, which in fact is his or her true origin station.
If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the word "journey", I hope that he or she will provide reasons and explanation for their alternative definition.
A passenger who:
a) boards a train at an intermediate station without a ticket, having failed to take advantage of one or more opportunities to purchase on the previous train, or at the intermediate station, or;
b) buys a ticket to cover part of their journey and then wilfully proceeds by rail beyond that station, without buying valid tickets to cover the remainder of their journey prior to departure from that intermediate station;
likely commits other offences, notably fare evasion contrary to s 5(3)(a) RRA 1889. However, my question is concerned solely with the byelaw 18 offence (although similar considerations would apply to any byelaw 17 charge).
Edit- this issue may also be relevant when giving advice on this live thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127759
Last edited: