I don't see many getting prosecuted, but realistically there isn't a formal appeals process on out of court settlements. It's the lack of that that is the main problem. People are therefore likely to be paying these to avoid that risk.
Albeit penalty fares are an alternative method of disposal to prosecution, so in that way are a form of out of court settlement.
Sure you can have your day in Court but that can be very risky, particularly if a RoRA charge is hovering over your head.
For things to ever reach that stage you’d likely have engaged in a campaign of deliberate and sustained evasion. It almost certainly wouldn’t be the “prosecuted for a strict liability offence over an innocent mistake” scenario often touted on here, but which basically never happens. I’ve asked for examples several times and none are forthcoming.
It does seem that conduct befitting of the more serious offences is often prosecuted using the lower level strict liability offences. In one respect this is a little lazy, but also leads to better outcomes (in terms of culpability v outcome) for those so charged.
Not an answer to the exact question as posed, but I find it morally objectionable for TOCs to be launching private prosecutions when they themselves are knowingly and willingly breaking laws such as the PRO.
These are two completely unrelated areas. Whether or not TOCs meet their obligations to passengers during disruption has no bearing on the morality of fare dodgers being prosecuted.
In just the same way the fact that a small minority of staff abuse their power, and/or make serious errors of judgement when exercising it, isn’t really an argument against the wider system existing in the first place.
To be honest I see no benefit in anyone being able to prosecute privately, as it makes a mockery of the separation model.
Not sure I can agree with that. Separation of the powers traditionally relates to legislature, executive and judiciary. Who actually brings a prosecution has no bearing on this, indeed we are
all free to bring private prosecutions, if we wish!
TOCs employ separation at a local level in the sense that the teams making charging decisions are separate from those undertaking evidence gathering. TOCs don’t make the law, and the cases they bring will end up before exactly the same judiciary as any other criminal case. Several times I’ve asked for evidence on here that prosecutions brought by TOCs are less likely to succeed, or more likely to be thrown out of court than those brought by the CPS, but none has ever been forthcoming.
In any case, is the argument here really against private prosecutions, or is it against prosecutions for these offences being brought at all? I suspect the latter. I doubt those clamouring for a change in the law would be satisfied by a simple transfer of responsibility the CPS!
Like Scotland, they should effectively be banned in England and Wales. If you want private legal redress, sue for damages proportionate to the thing the person has done against you, e.g. for the sum of an unpaid Penalty Fare plus the costs in pursuing it.
I suppose a counter argument here is that, given the public subsidy the railway receives, the cost to the railway isn’t only a private matter; fare evaders are defrauding the taxpayer as much as they are the TOCs.
No figures, but a personal anecdote from last week, in Scotland;
First train of the day from my local station, where the ticket office was open and the ticket machine was working. 2 guys get on and sit near me. Ticket Examiner (ATE) comes and they buy single tickets to, and alighted at, the next station; 3 stops and a 10 minute journey from origin. As there are no barriers at either station, had the ATE not come they would have had free rides, despite there being ample opportunity and time to buy tickets before boarding. And who knows how many times they have chanced their arm previously?
Logically, where PFs cannot be issued, why on earth would anybody ever buy a ticket in advance? You’d simply pay when challenged on every journey!
This costs the industry a lot of money, and we all know that is in short supply at the moment. Hence my question (still unanswered) upthread, about what affect the proposed change in England and Wales would have on the current cost to the industry!
The criminal law does not seem to be acting as a deterrent here - as I think can be seen by how many new posters are entirely shocked at the idea that ticketing errors and even deliberate ticketing wrongdoing could be considered a crime; you can't be deterred by the criminal law if you don't know that what you're considering doing is criminal. So increasing the frequency of issuing of penalty fares so that most people without a ticket on a train are issued one either immediately or by post seems to me to be much more likely to change behaviour.
Some valid points here. But what’s striking is that the system people on here seem to favour moving to a system where no penalty fares are charged, either.
Southern has penalty fares and the ability to prosecute but that clearly didn't affect their behaviour.
I don't know what they would have done if faced with an RPI. Refused to give details or give fake ones, perhaps?
If TOCs had much less ability to prosecute, and no ability to issue penalty fares, would this type of behaviour become more or less likely in your opinion?
