-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Heathrow Express freedom pass judicial review – fined for fare evasion
- Thread starter JaJaWa
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
I would be genuinely curious what the judicial review would have stated if it had happened after the 20th may when both the origin and destination station will be in the freedom pass area but the trains would not be.
But it didn't' so what is your point?
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
What's 'silly' about it? They said he wanted a judicial review. They didn't say he got one. They didn't say he was fined at a judicial review.
You appear to have completely misunderstood the tweet...
No understood it fine.It's daft tweet there is no need to mentiona judicial reveiw it's not relevent. What colour socks did he have on!
All that matters is he was given a fine that's it no need to mention anything else at all. Silly BTP being sensationalist.
Yes its an inaccurate tweet. Its just a regular court case. A judicial review is something very different and typically costs thousands of pounds. There is a thread in the main section where someone want to take Chris Grayling to court for a JR. They need to raise 25,000 IIRC.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
Not at all.
They're trying to get across the point that no matter what blether you produce, you'll still go through the courts and get fined.
They're trying to get across the point that no matter 'special' you think your case is, you'll still go through the courts and get fined.
They're trying to get across the point that you need to buy a ticket, or you'll still go through the courts and get fined.
. In which case it's wrong. Courts don't automatically find in favour of the TOC unless the latter can prove their case. It's very much a personal decision which one should only take after seeking legal advice. But if they're saying, "even if your case is sound, we are going to win anyway" they're dead wrong.
Exactly but I don't see how the tweet is inaccurate?
The customer claimed that a Judicial Review should take place because Freedom Passes are not accepted on Heathrow Express. That was their excuse for not buying a ticket. Obviously, it is nonsense.
Except that it's not wrong? Travelling without a valid ticket and then refusing to pay the fare, and using 'there should be a Judicial Review' as your defense is very, very unlikely to help you isn't it? That's the whole point?
The customer clearly doesn't even understand what a Judicial Review is.
I think people are missing the point. It`s not about ruling in favour automatically with the TOC`s, it`s about travelling without the correct documentation and a daft individual bringing a pointless case to court. It`s up to the individual concerned to check about validity of travel so basically the person got what they deserved for trying to be clever and no doubt getting his (or her) 15 minutes of fame. That of course happened but with a £550 lighter wallet. Good if it works but lousy if it doesn`t.
Indeed. However it's not difficult for a case to be made when a the passenger doesn't have a ticket at all.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Not sure why this is controversial. They're just mocking an idiot.
centraltrains
Member
It seems a bit bullying of BTP to post this as a Tweet...
It states fact, nothing more. Don't see how's that's bullying.
centraltrains
Member
By publicizing it to such an easy-to-access public means. Even though they don't state names, it just doesn't seem to add up to me. Is fare evading using freedom passes really that much of a problem that examples need to be made of??
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
I agree - it's not really appropriate IMO.
As you said, they don't name any names so I don't see how it's bullying.
centraltrains
Member
Reminding the person about what they have done [if they see it]. I can hardly imagine if I were the prosecuted, I would feel happy or neutral reading it.
I'm sure if you make a mistake you don't appreciate someone reminding you about it every 10 seconds...
The term 'judicial review' has a specific legal meaning, so lawyers and many senior staff in public organisations will interpret it in a particular way. It's a court procedure for challenging allegedly illegal or improper acts by public authorities.
But my guess is that the BTP weren't thinking of the legal meaning of 'judicial review' and, instead, using it to mean 'getting a judge [magistrate] to review the allegation of 'fare evasion' by pleading not guilty'. This is a way of getting a review, by a judge (or bench of magistrates) into both the facts and the interpretation of the law by the prosecuting company - and it is entirely possible that the defendant can appeal, if the defence is 'the allegation by the train company that I did not have a valid ticket and/or that I had not paid my fare is erroneous as the ticket I held was, in fact, valid'. This could be heard at the High Court, effectively as an actual judicial review. Whether or not the defendant would be advised to do so depends on how strong that argument about the specific ticket he held is. It seems from knowledgeable people on this thread that it's a very weak argument!
But my guess is that the BTP weren't thinking of the legal meaning of 'judicial review' and, instead, using it to mean 'getting a judge [magistrate] to review the allegation of 'fare evasion' by pleading not guilty'. This is a way of getting a review, by a judge (or bench of magistrates) into both the facts and the interpretation of the law by the prosecuting company - and it is entirely possible that the defendant can appeal, if the defence is 'the allegation by the train company that I did not have a valid ticket and/or that I had not paid my fare is erroneous as the ticket I held was, in fact, valid'. This could be heard at the High Court, effectively as an actual judicial review. Whether or not the defendant would be advised to do so depends on how strong that argument about the specific ticket he held is. It seems from knowledgeable people on this thread that it's a very weak argument!
That's how I read it too.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
How can it be 'bullying' is no names are mentioned? There's no public humiliation. Just a reminder to all that no-one's above the law and no amount of blether will save you from prosecution if you have broken the law.
Fairly certain they aren't tweeting it every 10 seconds either. It's not bullying, it should be seen as a deterrent.
People do bad things and get covered in all forms of media for several days afterwards, most of the time named and shamed as well, do you mount your high horse for all of those?
- Status