Fare Evasion: Intent vs absent mindness

[Starmill]

Mod Note: Split from this thread.

When you have te opportunity to explain your actions, you could indeed state that you confused the names of the two stations, but if you do, I strongly urge you to consider these facts:

Asking for a 'short fare' has been practiced by hundreds of passengers every day for as long as the railways have been running. The reveue checks are not entirely random, but evidence-based, so will be detecting travel from stations where head counts significantly exceed ticket sales.

For a claim of 'absent mindedness' to be persuasive, the investigating officer reading your letter will be considering that seven coincidences will have to have arisen -

- The passenger is a regular traveller between the 2 stations (and so should be familiar with the station names);
- This is a unique occasion on which the passenger 'forgot' to buy a ticket or was 'running late'.
- This is a unique occasion on which there is a revenue check at a different, intermediate station (which is closer to the destination).
- This is a unique occasion on which there is also a revenue check at the destination station (and the passenger is consequently unable to produce a valid ticket for inspection and is asked about their journey).
- This is an exceptional occasion where the passenger fails to recollect where they boarded the train.
- On questionning, the ticketless passenger does remember a station name but is the name of that intermediate station they'd just passed through, where the revenue check is taking place (the intermediate station closer to the destination). (or perhaps deliberately states the name of the other station).
- The fare from the named station is lower than the fare from the station at the actual start of their journey.

All seven of these occuring simultaneously might be seen as a question of probabilities, and for a prosecution to suceed, it would have to reach the standard of evidence which is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
One of the cases often taken as an authority in prosecuting 'short fareing' is Bremme v Dubery [1964].

Do you fancy your luck at pleading innocence and that you were 'absent minded'?

I've never really been able to understand why so many people describe intent in a legal sense as just an extrapolation of events in a single moment. That is clearly not what it means, and doesn't seem a good basis for what could potentially be a criminal conviction. I'm no legal expert of course, but people should only be being prosecuted in this manner if it's clear they really tried to steal something. How quickly did you correct the mistake? In the same sentence? The next one? 5 minutes later?

Everyone can be absent minded occasionally, or even sometimes more than occasionally.

 

[455driver]

Everyone can be absent minded occasionally, or even sometimes more than occasionally.

For which in many many cases there will be a financial (or other) penalty.

Intent in this case is proved by actions and not thoughts and the OP giving the wrong (closer) station will prove that intent to the benefit of the Courts (if this goes to court).

The railways (and courts) do not work on a 'there there never mind we all make mistakes' basis, they deal in facts, and the fact is the OP gave the name of a station closer than the one they boarded, what was going on in their mind for this to happen is of no real interest to the railways or courts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've never really been able to understand why so many people describe intent in a legal sense as just an extrapolation of events in a single moment. That is clearly not what it means, and doesn't seem a good basis for what could potentially be a criminal conviction.

DaveNewcastle has explained it very nicely, I think.

Naturally we cannot see into a person's brain, so we take their "intention" based on what they did and what a (theoretical) "reasonable person" is likely to have done in the same situation.

In these sorts of cases, the intention is whether the defendant knew, or should have known, the consequences of his actions. The consequence of asking for a ticket from Bridgend is that you would be issued a ticket from Bridgend, and the further consequence is that the defendant would not have paid from Pyle to Bridgend.

"I didn't mean to do it" isn't usually a helpful defence because, unless there's mitigation (e.g. intellectual disability, mental health difficulties, distress), a "reasonable person" in the same situation either wouldn't have done it or would have understood the consequences of their actions and chose to do it anyway. We're therefore being asked to consider that "absent mindedness" means the passenger didn't foresee the consequences of their actions, and that any other "reasonable person" would have been equally oblivious. As DaveNewcastle says, there are plenty of questions one would ask when deciding if the passenger acted willingly and did foresee the consequences of their actions.

Speaking in a wider sense, mens rea ("guilty mind"*) does not have to be direct intention, it can also be indirect intention, recklessness or negligence.

*yes I know it doesn't strictly mean that in Latin, but that's what the law textbooks say

 

[najaB]

I've never really been able to understand why so many people describe intent in a legal sense as just an extrapolation of events in a single moment.

Because it is impossible to look into a person's mind and know what they are thinking at the present moment, never mind what they were thinking at an arbitrary moment in the past. Hence the only way we can determine what a person 'intended' to do is by looking at what they actually did.

This is no different to making the determination that the person who carried a knife and stuck it into someone intended to do them harm, and hence is guilty of attempted (or actual) murder. Or, that a person who exceeded the speed limit intended to do so since otherwise the implication would be that they weren't in full control of their vehicle.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Intention can be seen from a course of conduct which brings about the end result, and a course of conduct which any reasonable person would expect to lead to that result.

We can harbour thoughts of awful actions, but these thoughts alone don't imply intent.

 

[34D]

We can harbour thoughts of awful actions,

Was that supposed to read awful or lawful?

 

[najaB]

Was that supposed to read awful or lawful?

It works either way, really.

 

[Starmill]

If this curious methodology interprets intent in the opposite way to what is actually intended, what makes anyone think it's actually a sensible delving into what is an incredibly serious claim?

Consider the inverse situation; where someone long-fares using an unstaffed statio n to avoid a Penalty Fare upon encountering RPIs.clearly they've ill intent, but the railway is highly unlikely to interpret this action thusly.

The apparent predominant legal concept of 'intent' appears to be somewhat arbitrary.

 

[455driver]

If this curious methodology interprets intent in the opposite way to what is actually intended, what makes anyone think it's actually a sensible delving into what is an incredibly serious claim?

Consider the inverse situation; where someone long-fares using an unstaffed statio n to avoid a Penalty Fare upon encountering RPIs.clearly they've ill intent, but the railway is highly unlikely to interpret this action thusly.

The apparent predominant legal concept of 'intent' appears to be somewhat arbitrary.

And if there was a block on at the long-fare station they would be in as much manure as anyone caught short-faring!

 

[Mag_seven]

Everyone can be absent minded occasionally, or even sometimes more than occasionally.

Problem is if the TOC/courts let short farers off on the basis of that argument it opens the sluice gates to short farers simply stating that they "forgot" or "got confused" about the station that they joined at.

 

[sheff1]

Everyone can be absent minded occasionally, or even sometimes more than occasionally.

This is true, but needs to be looked at in the wider context.

A couple of years ago I had been flying back and forth in a short space of time to various destinations in Europe - probably 5 different cities in 2/3 weeks. After the last flight, as I showed my passport to the Border Officer he asked me where I had come from. I honestly could not remember and had to fish my boarding pass out of my pocket. He made no comment, but the point is that I was not expecting to be asked (as this is not usual in my experience) so my origin was not something I was thinking about.

If, however, I had been travelling by train without having an opportunity to purchase a ticket I would be expecting to pay at my destination station and so would be making sure I remembered and stated my correct origin.

 

[najaB]

If, however, I had been travelling by train without having an opportunity to purchase a ticket I would be expecting to pay at my destination station and so would be making sure I remembered and stated my correct origin.

That is, of course, the important point - the passenger hasn't yet bought a ticket and intends to do so, and as such their origin and destination should be forefront in their mind.

 

[34D]

Surely it would be easier (and maybe advisable) to say 'I don't know' if asked where one had come from?

 

[ainsworth74]

Pretty sure that could well constitute intent to avoid payment mostly because unless you've got some sort of medical condition I doubt there is any court in the land that would believe you let alone an RPI or TOC prosecutions department!

 

[LexyBoy]

Has nobody else here done this?

I have. Travelled from Aldermaston to Reading. Queued at the excess fares booth for a ticket, woman in front asks for a ticket from Theale (closer to Reading and with ticketing facilities), which for whatever reason goes into my head - neither station being familiar to me - and I ask for the same. In my case I realised my mistake before the ticket was issued - however had suspicions been raised I doubt this would help my case.

 

[najaB]

Has nobody else here done this?

I haven't, but I fully understand that it is possible. The issue is that, on balance, if someone asks for a fare from a closer, cheaper station it is more likely to be deliberate than not. And if someone is prone to forgetting where they boarded there are simple actions they can take to avoid such confusion such as writing it down.

 

[crehld]

Has nobody else here done this?

I have. Travelled from Aldermaston to Reading. Queued at the excess fares booth for a ticket, woman in front asks for a ticket from Theale (closer to Reading and with ticketing facilities), which for whatever reason goes into my head - neither station being familiar to me - and I ask for the same. In my case I realised my mistake before the ticket was issued - however had suspicions been raised I doubt this would help my case.

It's never happened to me at an excess fares window, but it does regularly happen when boarding at unstaffed stations. Guard comes round and I might ask for a return to Lancaster but forget to state I started at Hellifield so I end up being issued a ticket from Long Preston or Giggleswick as that is the last station the train called at. Simply hand over a twenty or your card and you only notice the error when you get back more change than usual or when you study the ticket. The situation is always quickly resolved with an overdistance excess. Sometimes you just take the ticket and receipt and pop in your wallet without looking and only notice it until on return journey (again quickly solved with an explanation and an overdistance excess).

So by way of a hypothetical situation let's say I hadn't spotted the error. By not remembering to state explicitly where I started from in such situations and assuming the guard would know, have I demonstrated intent to avoid payment?

 

[cuccir]

It would take someone with very little experience of the human race to claim that people are never forgetful, illogical or lacking in reason. I'm sure everyone has carried out behaviour that a legally imagined 'reasonable person' would not do out of some mixture of confusion, panic, tiredness, stupidity, forgetfulness, stress, etc...

It is difficult, though, to imagine a legal system which would operate under any different approach.

So by way of a hypothetical situation let's say I hadn't spotted the error. By not remembering to state explicitly where I started from in such situations and assuming the guard would know, have I demonstrated intent to avoid payment?

You'd have certainly committed a Bylaw offence - the passenger is obliged to check their tickets and spot obvious errors such as station of origin. Intention would be more difficult to establish - I guess they'd have to show that you knew that this was a common occurrence on the line (say from a post on an internet message board, for example ) and that it would therefore be reasonable to know to state the station at which you boarded. This could then be evidence that you're deliberately not stating in the knowledge that you'll often get undercharged. I imagine that in practice a TOC would see the case as too complex to bother with a RoRA prosecution that would rely on intent, and instead go for a Bylaw prosecution or, let's face it, an £80 penalty in this instance!

 

[island]

It would take someone with very little experience of the human race to claim that people are never forgetful, illogical or lacking in reason. I'm sure everyone has carried out behaviour that a legally imagined 'reasonable person' would not do out of some mixture of confusion, panic, tiredness, stupidity, forgetfulness, stress, etc...

It is difficult, though, to imagine a legal system which would operate under any different approach.



You'd have certainly committed a Bylaw offence - the passenger is obliged to check their tickets and spot obvious errors such as station of origin. Intention would be more difficult to establish - I guess they'd have to show that you knew that this was a common occurrence on the line (say from a post on an internet message board, for example ) and that it would therefore be reasonable to know to state the station at which you boarded. This could then be evidence that you're deliberately not stating in the knowledge that you'll often get undercharged. I imagine that in practice a TOC would see the case as too complex to bother with a RoRA prosecution that would rely on intent, and instead go for a Bylaw prosecution or, let's face it, an £80 penalty in this instance!

You certainly would not have committed any bylaw offence. No offence is committed under bylaw 18 when no ticketing facilities were available at the starting station.

 

[cuccir]

A bylaw offence based on not having a valid ticket, rather than based on not having a ticket! The offence is committed once an invalid ticket is purchased (even if unintentionally).

 

[FenMan]

Absentmindedness works both ways.

Travelling from Blackwater to Reading a few years ago, I bought a ticket on the train as the Blackwater TVM had been vandalised.

The ticket didn't work the the barriers at Reading, so I approached the gateline for assistance. It turned out the guard inadvertently had sold a Dorking Deepdene to Ash ticket - strangely at the correct price for a Blackwater - Reading return. Fortunately, I only received a mild bollocking for not checking the ticket was correct and was able to exchange it. Probably the time of purchase stamped on the ticket was the clincher that I wasn't trying it on.

 

[island]

A bylaw offence based on not having a valid ticket, rather than based on not having a ticket! The offence is committed once an invalid ticket is purchased (even if unintentionally).

I would invite you to reread the byelaws. You are not describing any offence therein.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would invite you to reread the byelaws. You are not describing any offence therein.

That depends on the situation.

The hypothetical example was buying a Giggleswick-Lancaster return rather than a Hellifield-Lancaster return.

You've not committed any Byelaws offence on your way to Lancaster, as there were no ticketing facilities at Hellifield where you started your journey. You may have committed a RoRA offence in not having a valid ticket from Hellifield to Giggleswick, but the only person who'd know is the guy who's just accidentally sold you the wrong ticket.

On the return, clearly no offence takes place between Lancaster and Giggleswick. However if you stay on the train you do commit a Byelaws offence; your journey started at a staffed station (Lancaster) and you should have bought the excess fare before getting on the train.

In reality, of course, the guard will either sell an excess on board or will sell you a single Giggleswick-Hellifield on the basis you couldn't buy a ticket at Giggleswick either.

 

[island]

I will again invite you to reread the byelaws and ask you to specify under which section an offence has been committed on the return journey.

 

[najaB]

I will again invite you to reread the byelaws and ask you to specify under which section an offence has been committed on the return journey.

I can see a RoRA offence if you don't buy the excess before reaching Giggleswick.

 

[island]

I can see a RoRA offence if you don't buy the excess before reaching Giggleswick.

Agreed. The sequence of posts refers to an assertion that a byelaw offence had been committed, which does not seem to me to be correct.