I prefer one that is only valid on parliamentary services with no list of the parliamentary services to make it ambiguous and open to mistakes.So, a 'Parliamentary' railcard?
I prefer one that is only valid on parliamentary services with no list of the parliamentary services to make it ambiguous and open to mistakes.So, a 'Parliamentary' railcard?
Nevertheless, it is a fact that cases brought by private prosecutors (for example the Post Office, TOCs and local government) are too often conducted without full compliance with the rules as to disclosure of documents and other materials that may assist the defence. CPS lawyers are at least trained to comply with these, and to exercise an independent professional judgment on whether the prosecution should proceed. The answer to staff shortages is to recruit, offering an attractive career. You can't get justice on the cheap.If the railway is anything like the Civil Service the people who prepare the paperwork for the Court case are not legally trained, they just follow specific instructions on how and what to do, the correct wording and how the paperwork has to be completed. It would then be checked and authorised by a senior officer to confirm that everything was correct, who also wasn't legally trained.
In the cases I took, I would often have been the person who interviewed the miscreant, the person who completed the paperwork, the person who served the Summons, and the person who presented the case in Court. All done as laid down in the specific Rules and Codes, and "signed-off" by the HEO in charge of the Dept in our office. The only Lawyers that would have been involved would have been when the original Rules and Codes were written. I know from friends in 2 Departments that the system is still the same, as it is where local authorities prosecute.
As far expecting the CPS to take over every single prosecution going through the Court system, you have to be joking. They don't have enough personel at the moment to cope with their current workload which is one of the reasons Court cases are taking so long to get to Court, plus the Courts themselves haven't got enough minutes in the day to hear many more cases.
That is, however, Government policy. Particularly over the last fourteen years. Whilst they like to talk tough on crime this Government have eviscerated the criminal justice system at every level. Be that the courts themselves, the police, the CPS, the legal aid system, forensics labs, probation services, the prisons, or any other component. The funding and capacity of these elements have all be slashed. Some have latterly started to be rebuilt, the police for instance have increased the number of officers again, but the damage has been deep and will be extremely long lasting. We are at the point, for instance, that there are a shortage of barristers to prosecute serious sexual offences because there are too few who are willing to take on the responsibility and trauma of doing so.You can't get justice on the cheap.
Where's the "Like" button!!That is, however, Government policy. Particularly over the last fourteen years. Whilst they like to talk tough on crime this Government have eviscerated the criminal justice system at every level. Be that the courts themselves, the police, the CPS, the legal aid system, forensics labs, probation services, the prisons, or any other component. The funding and capacity of these elements have all be slashed. Some have latterly started to be rebuilt, the police for instance have increased the number of officers again, but the damage has been deep and will be extremely long lasting. We are at the point, for instance, that there are a shortage of barristers to prosecute serious sexual offences because there are too few who are willing to take on the responsibility and trauma of doing so.
I see no indication that that policy is likely to change. Though they will, of course, continue to talk about cracking down and being tough on crime.
That is, however, Government policy. Particularly over the last fourteen years. Whilst they like to talk tough on crime this Government have eviscerated the criminal justice system at every level. Be that the courts themselves, the police, the CPS, the legal aid system, forensics labs, probation services, the prisons, or any other component. The funding and capacity of these elements have all be slashed. Some have latterly started to be rebuilt, the police for instance have increased the number of officers again, but the damage has been deep and will be extremely long lasting. We are at the point, for instance, that there are a shortage of barristers to prosecute serious sexual offences because there are too few who are willing to take on the responsibility and trauma of doing so.
I see no indication that that policy is likely to change. Though they will, of course, continue to talk about cracking down and being tough on crime.
The courts are there to decide whether the criteria for bringing a case to court have been met, and in doing so they either convict or acquit the defendant. Asking the courts to decide in advance would be asking for the trial to be held before the defendant has been told about it, and that would not be in the interests of justice.Maybe its time for the courts to set out what they see as 'reasonable' before a prosectution is begun, and set some criteria at a national level.
My thoughts:
Did the passenger have a valid ticket for the journey in question, but didn't use it on the right train, If YES then:
Was there disruption affecting the route on the day in question
Is the passenger in any way vunerable, and did this contribute to the error.
Are there any other mitigations
Any cases that meet these criteria should not then be brought to court, and if they are then the TOC should be penalised in some way. If the TOC wish to persue it as a civil matter that is their right.
This would differentiate between fare evaders and those who get caught up in disruption, get confused, or receive conflicting advice from platform staff.
This is absolutely not the function of the courts. It is for Parliament to decide.Maybe its time for the courts to set out what they see as 'reasonable' before a prosectution is begun, and set some criteria at a national level.
To be honest I am very uneasy about the whole concept of private prosecutions, recent news stories in other areas (i.e. post office scandal) back that feeling up. It seems to be open to abuse. Maybe a totally different process is needed.As part of their role in the administration of justice and influence over the criminal procedure rules, the judiciary of England and Wales could alter some aspects of the current approach to private prosecutions, though that would involve at least the agreement of the UK government and probably Parliament (in ratifying changes to the Procedure Rules).
From a rail point of view making a mistake, getting confused, or getting conflicting or wrong advice during disruption should be a civil matter, it should only become a criminal matter if its clear that the intent was to evade the fare
Isn't it? Surely someone doing this is presenting themselves as having everything they need to travel when they haven't.the act of getting on a train without a ticket is not fraud in itself.
Not if you just board without a ticket having passed the ticket office. That’s not a fraud at all, which requires you to make some sort of representation.Isn't it? Surely someone doing this is presenting themselves as having everything they need to travel when they haven't.
To me if your actions are seen to be deliberately avoiding paying the fare then that is fraud, i.e. you have no intention of paying/buying a ticket if you can get away with it. If you get hung up in the complexity that is the current ticketing system then the intent is not to avoid paying the fare, just that you pay the wrong fare/have the wrong ticket, those are two very different scenarios, and need to be dealt with in very different ways.fare evasion to be a criminal matter, unless there's actual fraud involved
To me if your actions are seen to be deliberately avoiding paying the fare then that is fraud, i.e. you have no intention of paying/buying a ticket if you can get away with it. If you get hung up in the complexity that is the current ticketing system then the intent is not to avoid paying the fare, just that you pay the wrong fare/have the wrong ticket, those are two very different scenarios, and need to be dealt with in very different ways.
To me if your actions are seen to be deliberately avoiding paying the fare then that is fraud, i.e. you have no intention of paying/buying a ticket if you can get away with it. If you get hung up in the complexity that is the current ticketing system then the intent is not to avoid paying the fare, just that you pay the wrong fare/have the wrong ticket, those are two very different scenarios, and need to be dealt with in very different ways.
In fairness, “to me” is just your opinion. It’s not a fact. Deliberately avoiding paying for something is not necessarily a fraud depending on the manner in which it is done.To me if your actions are seen to be deliberately avoiding paying the fare then that is fraud, i.e. you have no intention of paying/buying a ticket if you can get away with it. If you get hung up in the complexity that is the current ticketing system then the intent is not to avoid paying the fare, just that you pay the wrong fare/have the wrong ticket, those are two very different scenarios, and need to be dealt with in very different ways.
Define "most egregious offences", and when you do, explain how you will work out that someone is committing one of them as opposed to a "less egregious offence".along with criminal prosecutions for the most egregious offences
Most egregious offences - systematic and long term (~1yr) fare evasion worth, say, >£1k, forgery of railcards (as opposed to just using an expired one or a screenshot of one) or tickets, resale of priv tickets/equivalent, fraudulent refunds/delay repay claimsDefine "most egregious offences", and when you do, explain how you will work out that someone is committing one of them as opposed to a "less egregious offence".
Most egregious offences - systematic and long term (~1yr) fare evasion worth, say, >£1k, forgery of railcards (as opposed to just using an expired one or a screenshot of one) or tickets, resale of priv tickets/equivalent, fraudulent refunds/delay repay claims
(e.g. it’s impossible to catch a long term fare evader without stopping them somewhere and catching one invalid ticket).
Yes, I think you have made my upcoming point for meThe trouble, of course, is that most of the egregious offences can only be detected at the frontline level via something that looks like a not most egregious offence (e.g. it’s impossible to catch a long term fare evader without stopping them somewhere and catching one invalid ticket). And if TOCs conduct extensive investigations into every suspicious case, costs notwithstanding, that will undoubtedly lead to a lot of complaints of being stopped and told that it’s only a civil matter then getting a letter from the fraud team.
This would remove the need for any awkward/sweeping changes to legislation. It makes the TOCs less money though, so is also unlikely to happen without external pressure.It is [TOC]’s policy to prosecute all serious and intentional fare evasion under [Fraud Act/etc]. However, we recognise that honest mistakes can be made, and upon reviewing the circumstances of your case would therefore like to make a standard offer.
If the total amount of fares evaded (i.e. The total ticket cost you should have paid for the journeys you made, minus the total ticket cost that you have actually paid) is less than £1000, you are offered the opportunity to pay in full the amount of fares evaded within 21 days. You should send a full list of all journeys you believe you have made without paying the correct fare to […] and [payment method etc]. If you do not pay back this amount, we reserve the right to pursue the sum through civil claims, in addition to an extra sum representing the administrative costs resulting from your fare evasion, as well as the interest resulting from the amount owed (calculated at standard BoE rates).
If the total amount of fares evaded is more than £1000, [TOC] policy is to prosecute the offence under [RoRA, Fraud Act, etc]. However, we are prepared to make a final out of court settlement offer, consisting of the sum of Anytime [single/return] tickets for every journey made fraudulently, without regard for the fares already paid. This amount must also be paid within 21 days [etc.] If this amount is not paid, [TOC] reserves the right to proceed to a criminal prosecution.
Please note any fraudulent reply or misrepresentation to this letter is a serious criminal offence and lead to further escalation.
Something like “you MAY be investigated for fraud” would already be enough, I suspect, to scare a lot of people into paying whatever they ask for.
Some people would still find the letter anxiety inducing, but I suspect most fare evaders have a very good idea of whether the amount they evaded is greater or less than £1k (and if you make an honest mistake that costs that much, that’s just impressive, really).
Please see my previous posts on orientalism. I don’t know why you consider conformism a good thing.You said before you came from a non UK country, was it somewhere like Singapore where people are smart and conformist?
Please see my previous posts on orientalism. I don’t know why you consider conformism a good thing.
Yeah great, "pay this large amount of money now, or get off in the middle of nowhere stranded".I would argue that there is absolutely no reason for fare evasion to be a criminal matter, unless there's actual fraud involved. For instance, jumping the barriers or tailgating is an obvious fraud, but the act of getting on a train without a ticket is not fraud in itself.
I saw a situation on a Koleje Dolnośląskie train last week that made me think about the UK situation. The passenger didn't have his student ID card with him, so he was given a simple choice: either pay the fare (with the substantial additional fare on top for not having approached the conductor first), or leave at the next stop. The traveller wasn't threatened with a huge fine, nor prosecuted, he was simply given a choice that undoubtedly caused him a lot of inconvenience.
To me the point is that persistent transgressors of the same fares rules should be considered for criminal conviction. This avoids the one off mistakes. It is immoral to attempt to give someone a criminal conviction for a first transgression as it makes no distinction between people making a mistake and deliberate act. Obviously if it can be established that the person under suspicion has made concerted efforts to to evade a fare (for example by forging a railcard) then go for a conviction.I had a ten second look at your profile to see if I could see a link to orientalist posts; afraid you'll have to link to them
As it happens I don't consider conformism a good thing at all. What I'm trying to do is apply a mental model to your mental model, if that makes sense? It seems to me unlikely in the extreme that any significant number of fare evaders will be put off in a UK context by dire warnings about fraud prosecution so given what I've picked up about you (which may be incorrect and if so I apologise - but aiui you're a clearly far more switched on than average poster oxonian who moved from somewhere further afield relatively recently) the most plausible reason for our different perspective was the said move. Many assumptions underlying so castles made of sand n all that...
That said I think it's a very common error to overestimate the efficacy of deterrence.