Help! Sat in First Class - or was it?

[jon0844]

I am usually very cynical on here but can see how you could miss the first class markings on some stock.

To be fair, I've seen many people get on a 317 and sit in first class and then realise some time later, panic and quickly move. This was without them being caught and so I do genuinely see no reason to believe that they really knew it was first class.

Part of the problem might be that many services now have very good and noticeably different first class accommodation so if you thought it looked like any other part of the train, you wouldn't be looking for stickers and once sat down might get engrossed in reading the paper or playing with your phone etc.

I'd hope RPIs would be able to spot looks of genuine surprise when 'caught' and also take into consideration whether someone has only just come in. In fact, if observed, that would also give other clues as to whether someone had knowingly opted to think 'sod it' and sit in there. But, at the same time, it's an easy hit!

The guy who jumped up to try and escape - he was the obvious one to go for. Most of the time people do try and get up to leave.

 

[Mark_H]

Im struggling how you noticed her get up,whilst reading a document and then look up to realise you were in first. Unless you sat down with your eyes looking down the you wouldve noticed right away you were in first class the same as when you looked up. Doesnt make any sense whatsoever apart from someone sitting down trying not to get noticed in first. I see it all the time.

Peripheral vision is good at noticing movement (i.e. someone standing up from a seat) but bad at recognising unfamiliar static items, and terrible at reading (i.e. antimacassars saying 1st Class), so it makes perfect sense.
Have you never "lost" your keys only to realise they were in plain view, missed an obvious sign because something distracted you at the critical moment, or suddenly realised someone you know has been sitting a few feet away without you noticing? Those are all examples of how vision and recognition are very imperfect. In many ways, vision is as subject to interference from unfamiliar or distracting "noise" as hearing is.
An analysis of someones story based on the asumption that they have perfect vision, total recall, and full knowledge of railways is flawed.

 

[Clip]

Peripheral vision is good at noticing movement (i.e. someone standing up from a seat) but bad at recognising unfamiliar static items, and terrible at reading (i.e. antimacassars saying 1st Class), so it makes perfect sense.
Have you never "lost" your keys only to realise they were in plain view, missed an obvious sign because something distracted you at the critical moment, or suddenly realised someone you know has been sitting a few feet away without you noticing? Those are all examples of how vision and recognition are very imperfect. In many ways, vision is as subject to interference from unfamiliar or distracting "noise" as hearing is.
An analysis of someones story based on the asumption that they have perfect vision, total recall, and full knowledge of railways is flawed.

Oh, brilliant, now I'm getting told all about peripheral vision too! This is the thread that just keeps on giving. Proper teachers one and all. Thanks very much.

It appears I am not allowed my own take on this story, remember its one I've heard many times over the years, without being jumped on by a previous poster and now being talked down to like a child by another.

Doesn't matter what you say, I do not believe the story and I am allowed my opinion on that and for the reasons I outlined. Don't like it? Tough.

 

[Mark_H]

Oh, brilliant, now I'm getting told all about peripheral vision too! This is the thread that just keeps on giving. Proper teachers one and all. Thanks very much.

Well, I could have just suggested that the OP should ignore you, but apparently I ought to add some substance to the thread, hence my attempt to explain why I find the explanation of not immediately spotting some antimacassars slapped on otherwise ordinary seats perfectly credible.

It appears I am not allowed my own take on this story, remember its one I've heard many times over the years, without being jumped on by a previous poster and now being talked down to like a child by another.

I'm sorry that this came over as talking down to you like a child, as that wasn't my intention, which was simply to demonstrate that you were wrong.

Doesn't matter what you say, I do not believe the story and I am allowed my opinion on that and for the reasons I outlined. Don't like it? Tough.

However, if you wish to accuse someone of lying on this forum because you are "allowed my opinion on that" then you'll have to put up with someone pointing out that your opinion is simply a set of baseless assertions about what someone else ought to have seen. Your retort of "Don't like it? Tough." cuts both ways.

 

[Clip]

You don't know that I am wrong though do you? do you normally take something a random stranger tells you on the internet at face value? For someone who tries to be all intelligent and trying to slap people down with links to wikipedia(not even dictionary.com lol) you can't be to bright if you believe what someone who has been caught in first class without a proper ticket tells you.

Like I said, I've heard the same excuses over many TOCs including GA,SE,SR and even on GNER, that people didn't notice. And on SE your lucky to even get an antimacassar on the seats at times and they don't have a door either, though different coloured seats.

And if you claim my opinion is baseless then what is yours if not based on what the OP has written? As I also said there is no way that you would walk into that section and not see all the antimacassars on all the seats in there BEFORE you even sat down, it makes the seats 2 tone rather than one colour. In fact I've said it all before and made my own conclusion and I stick by that.

Now go be condescending to someone else.

 

[455driver]

I'm sorry that this came over as talking down to you like a child, as that wasn't my intention, which was simply to demonstrate that you were wrong.

That is your opinion!
I actually agree with clip, why would the OP get up just because another passenger (who happened to be an RPI) started walking down the carriage towards them, the OP would not know whether the RPI was just walking through or actaully going to them until the RPI said something, by what the OP wrote that wasnt the case?
The OP must spend the whole journey standing up and sitting down (if they do it everytime somebody else moves), they must be exhausted by the end of the journey.

there are several other bits that dont read right either, you have your opinion and we have ours, neither is more relevant than the other despite your line-

you were wrong

You were not on the train so cannot say for certain that Clip is wrong!

 

[jon0844]

Clip is probably right in 95% of cases but I've witnessed plenty of people who have noticed after a fairly long time and left first class of their own accord, so I do also believe that it is possible not to notice straight away for a whole range of scientific or very simple reasons.

In this case, the RPI will make a statement of what happened and will of course say if the OP got up to go when seeing them approach.

 

[Mark_H]

You don't know that I am wrong though do you? do you normally take something a random stranger tells you on the internet at face value? For someone who tries to be all intelligent and trying to slap people down with links to wikipedia(not even dictionary.com lol) you can't be to bright if you believe what someone who has been caught in first class without a proper ticket tells you.

Like I said, I've heard the same excuses over many TOCs including GA,SE,SR and even on GNER, that people didn't notice. And on SE your lucky to even get an antimacassar on the seats at times and they don't have a door either, though different coloured seats.

And if you claim my opinion is baseless then what is yours if not based on what the OP has written? As I also said there is no way that you would walk into that section and not see all the antimacassars on all the seats in there BEFORE you even sat down, it makes the seats 2 tone rather than one colour. In fact I've said it all before and made my own conclusion and I stick by that.

Now go be condescending to someone else.

Oh dear, I really didn't mean for you to take it like this. I'm very sorry if using some links to back up what I was saying has upset you. I genuinely didn't mean you to be offended, I meant you to be informed.

Incidentally, I'm sure you realise that some of the more personal comments in your reply are entirely unwarranted, and I hope you can refrain from that in future.

Maybe I should explain that in my work, and indeed my interests, I deal with people who place value on evidence, and being able to back up assertions with facts and references. I tend to assume that people will demand I back up my assertions, and indeed you could have dismissed my statements out of hand if I hadn't provided some evidence. Of course, a product of that evidence is to demonstrate that your claim (that it is impossible for someone to not see and read a sign in their peripheral vision) was entirely wrong, but that was the price of setting the record straight.

As you appear to be reading more into my post than was strictly in there, I will just clarify something for you: I am not claiming that I know for sure that the OPs story is true, I am saying that it is internally consistent and plausible, and the inconsistencies you claim to have detected are not inconsistencies at all. Claiming he's lying without any credible evidence to back it up is of no use whatsoever in a public forum - you might as well not help anyone on here on the basis that they might be making it all up. Of course, if you catch someone out in some important factual error, then by all means call them out on it and refuse to help them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...why would the OP get up just because another passenger (who happened to be an RPI) started walking down the carriage towards them, the OP would not know whether the RPI was just walking through or actaully going to them until the RPI said something, by what the OP wrote that wasnt the case?
The OP must spend the whole journey standing up and sitting down (if they do it everytime somebody else moves), they must be exhausted by the end of the journey...

A careful re-reading of what the OP actually said will give you their explanation of why they got up when they did.

 

[455driver]

Maybe I should have written-

So your defence for the OP is that they didnt see the signs.

That is what I wanted it to read like.

Edit-
Post edited in response to Mark H reply below, I didnt mean to edit it only quote it!

 

[Mark_H]

I have read it carefully thank you, I dont need you to tell me otherwise!

Oh right. It was just that your recanting of "his" story was different to what he actually said, and the points you got wrong happen to demonstrate the point you wanted to make. I guess I just gave you the benefit of the doubt that you'd misread rather than mis-stated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So the defence is that the OP didnt see the signs.

Not bothering to look isnt much of a defence though is it!

No, sorry, the OP isn't using that as a defence at all. Again, that's very clear from his posts.

 

[Baazzaa]

It's been a long day. I'll respond to some of the above shortly.... Hopefully tomorrow

 

[Greenback]

It is not up to this forum, or its members, to determine whether the Op is telling the truth or not. However, we are all entitled to our own opinion on the matter.

It is the TOC that will decide on how to proceed, and, if necessary a court will make its decision based on the evidence presented taking into account the balance of probablitiels.

I see little point in discussing/arguing over soemthing we cannot know and ar eunable to prove anyway. We should confine ourselves to providing help or advice that will assist the OP.

 

[Baazzaa]

Thank you all for your input since my first post. I have deliberately not responded to the latest posts as the discussion was becoming rather heated. People are, of course, entitled to their opinions. However, I joined this forum in the hope that I may be offered some help/guidance and not be accused of being a liar, especially as I have nothing to lie about.

I do not deny having sat on a first class seat and, as I have stated early on, I made a stupid mistake and one for which I could kick myself. The cynics can take that how they wish - and that is not an invitation for anyone to attack me, yet again.

However, I welcome any suggestions and advice in terms of dealing with this matter.

I have now received a letter from GA, the link is as follows:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gbqlmyp7w53o96e/letter from GA.jpg?m

A few things that spring to mind regarding the letter are:

1. it says that I was questioned by a member of rail staff…

Are the RPIs directly employed by GA or by a private company? I am not sure if this is relevant, but the RPI who questioned me did not identify herself at all (it didn’t occur to me at the time)

2. there is no mention of any offence other than my having being questioned about the payment of a rail fare.

Is it reasonable for them to invite me to supply them with details of ‘mitigating factors’ if they do not state what the offence is that they are accusing me of? It appears that the letter is intentionally vague. Surely, any response could, perhaps, give them an advantage in their prosecution case dependant upon what I say? And, the letter alludes to whatever mitigating factors I may mention ‘may influence any decision that may be made…’

My gut feeling is that the less I say would be better at this stage. Why dig a deeper hole and help their case if I do not know what their case is or what I am being accused of and under what law/bylaw I am accused of breaching etc?

3. I am happy to complete some of the below form. However, there are a number of questions which I find irrelevant – NI Number, Telephone Number, Occupation.

When I did some research, it appeared to me that both Tottenham Hale and Liverpool street are penalty fare stations. I also picked up a GA Penalty Fares Information leaflet from Liverpool Station which states in the section Upgrading Your Ticket ‘if you fail to do so, you may have to pay a Penalty Fare’

The link to the leaflet is here:

https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/GA_Penalty_Fares_Leaflet.pdf

Please do let me have your thoughts, but my personal view is that I have a couple of options.

a. write back completing some of the form questions and asking for details of the offence which I am being accused of and under what law/bylaw I am accused of breaching

b. from what I have read on this forum it appears favourable to make an offer. Therefore, I was thinking about perhaps sending a ‘without prejudice’ letter stating that a regrettable error was made on my part and one for which I sincerely apologise. Explain that I was not given the option to pay a penalty fare and offer to pay it now

I hope the above wasn’t too long-winded and, once again, ask for any suggestions/advice etc.

With many thanks in advance!!!

 

[Swirlz]

I'd fill the letter in confirming that you are indeed the person involved.

I'd give them everything except NI Number. For occupation, just put N/A.

It may be in your interest to provide a telephone number, after all, it can be quicker than letter writing, should they need to contact or respond to you.

I wouldn't make any comments just yet, other than to ask them for further information about the incident.

Note:
Greater Anglia haven't actually sent you the letter. IRCAS, (or rather their parent company "ITAL"), appear to be managing the prosecution process on behalf of Greater Anglia.

 

[W230]

1. it says that I was questioned by a member of rail staff…

Are the RPIs directly employed by GA or by a private company? I am not sure if this is relevant, but the RPI who questioned me did not identify herself at all (it didn’t occur to me at the time)

A member of rail staff.

2. there is no mention of any offence other than my having being questioned about the payment of a rail fare.

Is it reasonable for them to invite me to supply them with details of ‘mitigating factors’ if they do not state what the offence is that they are accusing me of? It appears that the letter is intentionally vague. Surely, any response could, perhaps, give them an advantage in their prosecution case dependant upon what I say? And, the letter alludes to whatever mitigating factors I may mention ‘may influence any decision that may be made…’

My gut feeling is that the less I say would be better at this stage. Why dig a deeper hole and help their case if I do not know what their case is or what I am being accused of and under what law/bylaw I am accused of breaching etc?

I'm equally confused by this but wonder if this could be your only opportunity to account for what happened. I would think that they may already have enough evidence for a prosecution - whther they take it forward is another question though.

3. I am happy to complete some of the below form. However, there are a number of questions which I find irrelevant – NI Number, Telephone Number, Occupation.

When I did some research, it appeared to me that both Tottenham Hale and Liverpool street are penalty fare stations. I also picked up a GA Penalty Fares Information leaflet from Liverpool Station which states in the section Upgrading Your Ticket ‘if you fail to do so, you may have to pay a Penalty Fare’

Legally, you only need to provide your name and address. A telephone number may well be useful though.

I have highlighted the key word in bold. You may also be prosecuted, or maybe they do nothing. GA do not have to offer a Penalty Fare.

I wouldn't make any comments just yet, other than to ask them for further information about the incident.

I am by no means up on railway prosecutions but i'm a little confused here -would GA supply these details if requested? Sounds like both sides are on a fishing expedition. I would expect GA to provide what offence they may be looking at but i'm not sure that they have to or what else they would provide. I'm assuming that this letter from GA is them giving Baazzaa the opportunity to account for what took place, the mitigating circumstances outlined in their OP and is surely the best opportunity for the Baazzaa to get GA to take no further action due to the misunderstanding?

IE - "I was accidentally sat in 1st Class because..."

Confused. :?

 

[Tibbs]

sorry to sound negative but you can clearly see on the head rest "FIRST CLASS" so for you to say "it is not clear" is a bit of a under statement

have you heard anything back from them yet??

How clear is it when the seat is occupied?

 

[Haywain]

How clear is it when the seat is occupied?

About as clear as the mud on the seat. There's a lot of focus on that mud, and it would not have been visible had the seat been occupied. But it wasn't, so the concept of the antimacassar not being visible is a load of old tosh.

 

[Baazzaa]

I'd fill the letter in confirming that you are indeed the person involved.

I'd give them everything except NI Number. For occupation, just put N/A.

It may be in your interest to provide a telephone number, after all, it can be quicker than letter writing, should they need to contact or respond to you.

I wouldn't make any comments just yet, other than to ask them for further information about the incident.

Note:
Greater Anglia haven't actually sent you the letter. IRCAS, (or rather their parent company "ITAL"), appear to be managing the prosecution process on behalf of Greater Anglia.

Thank you Swirlz, appreciate your input.

Your suggestions are exactly what I have done.

FYI the Freepost envelope enclosed with the letter is addresses to IRCAS

I'll post the response in dues course.

Cheers
Baazzaa

 

[Baazzaa]

Back in March I wrote on this forum for help regarding a journey I took from Tottenham Hale to London Liverpool Street (Thread title - Help! Sat in First Class - or was it?). All the details are explained there, albeit the thread is now closed.

Briefly, for my journey from Tottenham Hale to Liverpool Street on Greater Anglia, I tapped in using my Oyster and inadvertently sat on a seat in a first class (middle) section of a carriage.

I was questioned by a RPI, cautioned and subsequently received a letter asking for any mitigating circumstances prior to them deciding if/what action would be taken.

Having read so much very useful information on this forum, I decided to phone them in order to attempt an offer to settle prior to any action. I was told by the young lady in the prosecutions department that “there is no option to settle. You should reply with your mitigating circumstances and the prosecutor will decide either to give you a warning or prosecute.”

I have absolutely no doubt that offers of settlement do work, so I was quite surprised.

I then wrote to them explaining that I had mistakenly sat in first class and apologised for my mistake numerous times.

This was to no avail as I received a summons last week to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 2 September. The link to the summons is here --->

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3zt93y4yhsj0uit/summons_Page_1.jpg

Please can any of you kindly advise on if/what action you would suggest I take?

I also have the following questions that spring to mind, if you guys would be so kind as to advise:-

1. Am I right in thinking that the fact that this summons is based on a contravention of Byelaw 19 under Section 219 and Section 20 of the Transport Act 2000, that I have not been accused of ‘intentionally’ taking the seat or avoiding the fare and that this is classed as a Strict Liability law whereby if I am found guilty, it will not be recorded as a criminal record?

2. If so, does this mean that I do not have to declare a conviction if/when asked (assuming found guilty)?

3. Would searches such as CRB show up a conviction?

4. It appears to me (from a little research) that a conviction for this offence would carry a level 3 fine with a maximum of £1000. I have read that a ‘Strict Liability’ conviction would reduce the fine somewhat. Therefore, does anyone know what I would expect to be facing in terms of a fine?

5. Would there be any point in these circumstances for me to phone them again to offer a settlement?

6. If yes, are there any suggestions as to the amount I should offer that could be acceptable?

7. While the statement of the RPI is correct in the respect that I occupied (sat) in a seat in the first class section (albeit for a short number of seconds), there are a number of inaccuracies and omissions that attempt to strengthen their case. I was therefore wondering how I could best counter these other than just to write the facts in my own statement, albeit it comes down to my word against hers.

Any other suggestions or advice would be gratefully accepted.

With thanks in advance
Baazzaa

 

[bb21]

Merged into the original thread to make things easier for continuity.

 

[Baazzaa]

Merged into the original thread to make things easier for continuity.

thank you very much bb21

 

[DaveNewcastle]

1. Am I right in thinking that the fact that this summons is based on a contravention of Byelaw 19 under Section 219 and Section 20 of the Transport Act 2000, that I have not been accused of ‘intentionally’ taking the seat or avoiding the fare and that this is classed as a Strict Liability law whereby if I am found guilty, it will not be recorded as a criminal record?

Yes. (In short, it's simply referred to as a Railway Byelaw offence.)
You are not being accused of "intentionally" taking the seat or avoiding the fare. It is a 'strict liability offence' which should not normally appear on a DBS search for criminal prosecutions.

2. If so, does this mean that I do not have to declare a conviction if/when asked (assuming found guilty)?

That question should normally include a qualifier such as the word "relevant". It would be hard to think of a situation in which you were asked to declare a "relevant" conviction to which this Offence was relevant. Specifically, it is not a crime of dishonesty.

3. Would searches such as CRB show up a conviction?

No. A conviction under this Byelaw should not be recorded against you. The service is now called DBS.

4. It appears to me (from a little research) that a conviction for this offence would carry a level 3 fine with a maximum of £1000. I have read that a ‘Strict Liability’ conviction would reduce the fine somewhat. Therefore, does anyone know what I would expect to be facing in terms of a fine?

Probably around £70 to £150 plus costs of perhaps £200 (or more if you contest it in Court) plus victim surcharge.

5. Would there be any point in these circumstances for me to phone them again to offer a settlement?

Always worth a try, (though perhaps not if you want to argue it in Court - see below).

6. If yes, are there any suggestions as to the amount I should offer that could be acceptable?

the Company will now have paid a fee into Court and spent some time on preparing the Evidence, so they're already out-of-pocket, but if you offer their costs plus the fine (which the Company wouldn't receive following a conviction), then it might be an attractive win for the Company.

7. While the statement of the RPI is correct in the respect that I occupied (sat) in a seat in the first class section (albeit for a short number of seconds), there are a number of inaccuracies and omissions that attempt to strengthen their case. I was therefore wondering how I could best counter these other than just to write the facts in my own statement, albeit it comes down to my word against hers.

There is little point in arguing over the details at this point. Either you plea Not Guilty and argue it in Court (or instruct a Solicitor to do so on your behalf) or just let it pass.

Any other suggestions or advice would be gratefully accepted.

There is one strategy you should consider, and it involves the details which you went over in your earlier posts on here. Frankly, I couldn't make proper sense of the argument about when you noticed that the seat was First Class and when you stood up, which is one reason for not contributing to the thread; and I certainly don't want to start that debate all over again - in fact, I don't need to know - but . . . . .

Forget your earlier statement that "There's no denying that I offended and will have to take the punishment" which you made in reply to jonmorris0844, that would only apply if you were being prosecuted with the more serious Regulation of Railways Act Offence which is a recordable Criminal Offence. You're not.
You should reflect on this one simple question of fact : have you committed this Offence and exactly this Offence:

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class, except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

Note the wording: no person shall remain.

Now from one reading of your description of events you did not 'remain'. The Byelaw doesn't tell us what moment in time beyond which a passenger is said to 'remain' in a seat, although Magistrates have in the past been asked to interpret that word (though I'm not aware of any higher court giving a Decision on that precise question which would help us now). In attempting to answer the question, we must reasonably assume that whatever moment of time it is, it must be after some fact, or, at the very least, after one of a number of facts. Now three such facts might be the Inspector first speaking to you, or the Inspector observing you, or even your own apprehension of the Class of seat. Did you 'remain' in the seat after such a fact?
From one reading of the long argument about the incident on here, it is clear that there was no such fact after which you remained in the seat.

If that is correct, then you are Not Guilty.

But whether your statement and the Inspector's statement provides evidence to support that position I don't know, and I cannot encourage you to claim Not Guilty without robust evidence. That would be a waste of time money and, I will guess, stress and leading ultimately to disapointment.
But if the evidence is supportive, e.g. the Inspector's Statement confirms that she only spoke with you after you had risen from your seat, then I do suggest that you contest the Claim. If you are unfamiliar with Court procedure and public speaking yourself, then you should ask a local law firm which does Criminal Defence work to request a copy of the Evidence and then with the benefit of their assessment of that Evidence, and in the light of this argument about the facts before 'remain', they might have adequate confidence in representing you in Court to contest the Claim by demonstrating that you materially did not 'remain' in any seat. The interpretation of 'remain' that I would put forward is that it must be a period of time after being questioned by an officer of the Railway (such as the Inspector whom you met), however short.

Note that if your 'story' about getting out of the seat and the statements made at the time do not clearly show that there is no fact after which you 'remained' in the seat, then just plead Guilty and pay.

 

[Be3G]

I was mulling over the issue of the use of the ‘remain’ word earlier too. The conclusion I ultimately came to – but, unlike DaveNewcastle's, this has no particular legal knowledge backing it – is that it is used to differentiate between people passing through first class and people, well, remaining in first class. Consider, if the offence stated:

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall be in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class, except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

In that case, it would be an offence to merely walk through the middle-of-the-carriage first class section to get to the standard class accommodation on the other side. That would clearly be nonsensical, but if a standard class passenger were to be walking through, see a seat and remain in that section, well, we know what'll happen. Hence, I presume, the offence is not worded in the way I demonstrated above.

I therefore think that ‘remain in any […] part of a train […] that is reserved for […] holders of tickets of a specific class’ really means ‘choose to, upon entering a class for which your ticket is not valid, not immediately exit that class’. Of course, the legal system may have an entirely different view to me!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In statutory interpretation, we should hesitate before attempting to read into the minds of the legislators or before we test theories and reject those which provide absurd outcomes. The primary source of interpretation must be the words of the law, including judgements that clarify any uncertainty or ambiguity, and the facts of the matter.

It was in 1979 that a difficult Decision (Davis v Johnson) led Lords Scarman and Denning to dissent over the propriety of reading Hansard in order to cast some light onto the intention of the words used in an Act. Until then, it was forbidden to consider what might have been intended. Since 1993, reference to the legislator's debate has been expressly permitted, and it can be a great help to learn what was considered by Parliament when an Act was being drafted, but this should never be our first approach to solving ambiguities in interpretation. Where possible, we should continue our interpetation from the words and from the facts.

The word 'remain' is used eight times throught the Railway Byelaws, and it would be reasonable to apply a consistent interpretation throughout. The example interpretation given by B3Ge, or even the rationalle behind it, would be hard to apply to the word's other uses in the Byelaws. It is best practice in statutory interpretation to take a meaning from other instances of the same phrase in the same or similar legislation, and so in the Railway Byelaws, we should apply an interpretation of 'remain' that could be applied in each of those 8 occasions. In the reading of Byelaw 19 then, the word 'remain' does not require a consideration of what was intended, it has an everyday meaning which Baazzaa, the Railway Prosecutor and the Magistrates will be able to interpret, and which could be used in all 8 occurrences. It is unfortunate that we don't have (as far as I can find) any prior Decisions which provide an interpretation which would simplify the test of the facts against the Byelaw, but the Court will not err if it relies on that everyday meaning.

I will just add that it is notable that the Company chose not to prosecute for the more serious offence under the Regulation of Railways Act which is commonly used where a passenger travels in First with a standard class ticket (or Oyster card).

 

[VauxhallandI]

I was mulling over the issue of the use of the ‘remain’ word earlier too. The conclusion I ultimately came to – but, unlike DaveNewcastle's, this has no particular legal knowledge backing it – is that it is used to differentiate between people passing through first class and people, well, remaining in first class. Consider, if the offence stated:



In that case, it would be an offence to merely walk through the middle-of-the-carriage first class section to get to the standard class accommodation on the other side. That would clearly be nonsensical, but if a standard class passenger were to be walking through, see a seat and remain in that section, well, we know what'll happen. Hence, I presume, the offence is not worded in the way I demonstrated above.

I therefore think that ‘remain in any […] part of a train […] that is reserved for […] holders of tickets of a specific class’ really means ‘choose to, upon entering a class for which your ticket is not valid, not immediately exit that class’. Of course, the legal system may have an entirely different view to me!

Well, slightly off topic I know but some of the "customer services" personnel at Liverpool Street like to stand in the first door of trains to stop you getting on and walking through First Class.