Do we think the punishment is a bit disproportionate to the crime?

[43066]

This part is something of a circular argument. We cannot use the fact that some behaviour is contrary to the criminal law and other behaviour is not as being definitive of its moral classification. Parliament could well decide to make underpayment of wages a strict-liability criminal offence and the justification for doing so would be the same as the bylaw offences: that the failure to take all proper care necessary to ensure that the correct monies are paid is a social ill and that enforcement based on intent or recklessness would be disproportionately expensive or fail to achieve the legislative aim of maximising the level of compliance.

As things stand parliament have clearly taken the view that ticketing offences should be criminal matters as opposed to civil. There is an almost infinite number of scenarios people can suggest where someone may be owed money under a contractual dispute, or whatever, but where there’s no criminal liability. None of these are arguments that railway bylaws shouldn’t exist, because they all miss the point that the bylaws aren’t only there to provide redress for money owed, they’re also intended to punish and deter wrongdoing, because the the unique way the railway’s open nature leaves it open to abuse.

Perhaps you’re arguing than underpayment of wages should be made into a strict liability criminal offence for which companies/payroll administrators can be held liable. Well then by all means lobby for that change, but I’m not sure what that has to do with railway bylaws.

And while many bylaw charges are for events which suggest dishonesty (as, in fact, are a reasonable proportion of underpaying wages, in that the explanation or excuse will not always be an honest one), if a bylaw offence is charged then it’s important to remember that this does not allege dishonesty, or even any awareness that the prohibited act is possible, since even recklessness is not required. Which is one reason why my view is that we could do with a non-criminal form or liability, since applying the denunciation of the criminal law to bylaw offences is often not warranted. I’d extend that to feet on seats and, beyond the railway context, minor littering, breaches of park bylaws, etc.

That’s just your own value judgment which, while typical of this forum, isn’t generally replicated elsewhere in my experience.

There is an absolute obsession on here with repealing bylaws under which virtually nobody is prosecuted anyway. In the real world this simply isn’t something many people give a lot of thought to; if anything people regularly complain that the laws governing feet on the seats (and those covering littering, damaging parks etc.) aren’t enforced rigorously enough. That is certainly my view as a tax payer, a fare payer and as someone who regularly witnesses anti social behaviour on the railway.

We still don’t have answers for the following:

1. How much would repealing bylaws (and removing the ability to charge penalty fares) in England and Wales would cost;

2. Examples of people being prosecuted for genuine mistakes, where there are no other aggravating factors, or pattern of behaviour?

 

[railfan99]

;those who defend TOCs (who also, typically, tend to work for them)

I understand your contentions about proportionality and so on, but many passengers worldwide who religiously pay the correct fare for the distance involved, and don't attempt to travel on a concession fare to which they're not enititled, agree with rigorous enforcement against fare evasion, whether or not the operator is government-owned such as GBR if it takes 'flight' or (until recently in the UK) franchised/privatised.

We know (just shoplifting) many make an art form of it, and believe they should never have to pay a fare. I see them daily in my city: most can afford a smartphone, but seemingly not a train, tram or bus fare.

Railways and other mass transit modes are almost always heavily subsidised in any jurisdiction, so it's fair we ought contribute by holding the correct, validated ticket or other justification for the journey.

Like graffiti vandals, some who 'succeed' in fare evasion may graduate to more serious offences.

 

[matt_world2004]

As things stand parliament have clearly taken the view that ticketing offences should be criminal matters as opposed to civil. There is an almost infinite number of scenarios people can suggest where someone may be owed money under a contractual dispute, or whatever, but where there’s no criminal liability. None of these are arguments that railway bylaws shouldn’t exist, because they all miss the point that the bylaws aren’t only there to provide redress for money owed, they’re also intended to punish and deter wrongdoing, because the the unique way the railway’s open nature leaves it open to abuse.

Perhaps you’re arguing than underpayment of wages should be made into a strict liability criminal offence for which companies/payroll administrators can be held liable. Well then by all means lobby for that change, but I’m not sure what that has to do with railway bylaws.



That’s just your own value judgment which, while typical of this forum, isn’t generally replicated elsewhere in my experience.

There is an absolute obsession on here with repealing bylaws under which virtually nobody is prosecuted anyway. In the real world this simply isn’t something many people give a lot of thought to; if anything people regularly complain that the laws governing feet on the seats (and those covering littering, damaging parks etc.) aren’t enforced rigorously enough. That is certainly my view as a tax payer, a fare payer and as someone who regularly witnesses anti social behaviour on the railway.

We still don’t have answers for the following:

1. How much would repealing bylaws (and removing the ability to charge penalty fares) in England and Wales would cost;

2. Examples of people being prosecuted for genuine mistakes, where there are no other aggravating factors, or pattern of behaviour?

Isnt the whole point of this thread to debate wheather the current bylaws are fare , which when compared to other examples of damages . They are not. A person who accidentally uses a Heathrow Express ticket on the elizabeth line . Should not be criminalised.

 

[Egg Centric]

As things stand parliament have clearly taken the view that ticketing offences should be criminal matters as opposed to civil

A parliament that is all dead by now

(I appreciate later ones could have amended it but they have had much higher priorities like joining the EEC, Section 28, joining the ERM, leaving the ERM, invading Iraq, abolishing Section 28, pulling out of Iraq, leaving the EEC, that sort of thing)

 

[43066]

A parliament that is all dead by now

Some might wish we could say that about the present one…