Is there a legal requirement to provide your real name/address if you do have a valid ticket?
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.
That is incorrect, I'm afraid, Michael. Byelaw 23(1) is quite clear on this:
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.
So if you are unreasonably suspected you don't have to?(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person
So if you are unreasonably suspected you don't have to?
Does it say that?The reasonableness is subjective, to be decided by the person asking for the information.
Does it say that?
reasonably suspected by an authorised person
that doesn't say that they have the final word on whether their suspicion is reasonable.Yes, it does:
No, a court would if it ever got that far. The jury would have to judge whether or not the authorised person genuinely believed that he reasonable suspected the person to have breached a bylaw. If he did genuinely believe it (however ridiculous that belief may seem in the cold light of day) then you could be convicted of failing to provide a name and address if you refused.
No, a court would if it ever got that far. The jury would have to judge whether or not the authorised person genuinely believed that he reasonable suspected the person to have breached a bylaw. If he did genuinely believe it (however ridiculous that belief may seem in the cold light of day) then you could be convicted of failing to provide a name and address if you refused.
What jury?
Jury or magistrates.
They're hardly the same thing! Given that the type of fare irregularity as described in your post and by the OP in tends to be prosecuted in a Magistrate's Court, jurys have no relevance whatsoever as they're not found in Magistrates Courts.
A few years ago I reluctantly boarded a FCC train at a station without any functioning way to purchase tickets at the instruction of a RPI waiting by the door who told me to sit down and that he would sell me a ticket after the train had departed. Immediately after departure he attempted to issue me a PF which I refused, then asked me for my name & address which I again refused so I got off at the next station before he could do anything about it.
A few years ago I reluctantly boarded a FCC train at a station without any functioning way to purchase tickets at the instruction of a RPI waiting by the door who told me to sit down and that he would sell me a ticket after the train had departed. Immediately after departure he attempted to issue me a PF which I refused, then asked me for my name & address which I again refused so I got off at the next station before he could do anything about it.
Despite the fact this RPI clearly lied to me about selling me a ticket to get me on a train just so he could PF me I was afraid of reporting him because I believed I had broken the bylaws by refusing to give him my name and address and could be prosecuted.
From reading some of the above posts though it does seem that it's only illegal to refuse to provide details if the person asking for them reasonably believes the passenger has broken bylaws, and in my specific circumstances nobody could think that the RPI reasonably believed I had.
Is this correct?