Man arrested at Liverpool Central over ticket row won't face prosecution

[Speed Whiskers]

This news story was published by the Liverpool Echo a few days ago.

Man held at Liverpool Central in ticket row won't be prosecuted

Alex Lennon said the whole situation was 'ridiculous' after being arrested in January

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Man arrested at Liverpool Central over ticket row won't face prosecution

Alex Lennon said the whole situation was 'ridiculous' after being arrested in January

A man arrested at Liverpool Central station for failing to provide a valid ticket for travel despite shelling out more than £100 for a return trip to London will not face prosecution.

Alex Lennon expressed his shock after being detained earlier this year when told his ticket bought from Waterloo Merseyrail station for a trip to London was not valid. Despite purchasing the ticket via the Trainline app, this was not accepted owing to his lack of a physical ticket when arriving at Liverpool Central.

Such were his protestations, officers from British Transport Police (BTP) detained Mr Lennon. In a letter issued to him last month, the force confirmed pursuing a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

In January, officers told Mr Lennon his confirmation for the journey from his home to the capital was not enough to enable passage through the barriers and in using the Trainline app he had accepted the terms and conditions which require a physical ticket to be available for travel.

Mr Lennon took to social media to document the exchange with Merseyrail staff and police officers. Both explained to him that a ticket was required for travel from Waterloo to Liverpool Central before boarding the train.

Videos seen by the ECHO, posted by Mr Lennon, show him being stopped by Merseyrail staff at Liverpool Central, where he is told he did not have a valid ticket for travel and his Trainline confirmation was not suitable. A later video shows Mr Lennon being told he is being arrested for the offence of not having a valid ticket for travel and that his reference number for the booking from Waterloo to Reading was not acceptable.

A letter to Mr Lennon from the BTP, seen by the LDRS said: “The circumstances of this case have been considered and on the information currently available it has been decided not to prosecute at this time as prosecution is not in the public interest. The case may be subject to review and the decision not to prosecute may be overturned.

“The fact that no further action is being taken at this time does not prevent an aggrieved party pursuing criminal proceedings or civil remedy.”

After refusing to comply with station staff, Mr Lennon was cautioned and interviewed at the station before being de-arrested and allowed to print his ticket and carry on the journey.

Speaking to the ECHO, Mr Lennon said he was angry the issue had even got to this point. He said: “What a huge waste of everybody’s time, energy and money. I’m more angry about the nonsense of it than anything.

“I have enough problems to be dealing with on a day to day basis so I’m glad this isn’t hanging over me any longer.” He added how since the incident earlier this year, he had travelled through Liverpool Central again and it had been “all fine.”

Steve Rotheram, Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region and Labour candidate for May’s Mayoral elections, told the ECHO an announcement is due on the progress towards smart ticketing at Merseyrail stations.

Reading this, it appears that only the immediate threat of prosecution has been removed - Merseytravel's actions presumably fall under "an aggrieved party pursuing criminal proceedings or civil remedy" and BTP are leaving open the option to prosecute in the future.

 

[mdann52]

From what I can read, BTP won't take action, but MR still can commence prosecution within the normal timescales - I don't see how one body with prosecution powers declining to take action prevents another from starting action still

 

[AlterEgo]

From what I can read, BTP won't take action, but MR still can commence prosecution within the normal timescales - I don't see how one body with prosecution powers declining to take action prevents another from starting action still

Merseyrail would be a bit daft to commence prosecution for the same offence the police said it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute. They'd be entitled to, but it'll just generate more bad PR.

 

[yorkie]

Good to hear.

Merseyrail are stuck in the dark ages of ticketing and are holding the entire industry back.

Does anyone know if their new ticket gates will have e-ticket readers?

 

[skyhigh]

Good to hear.

Merseyrail are stuck in the dark ages of ticketing and are holding the entire industry back.

Does anyone know if their new ticket gates will have e-ticket readers?

This isn't necessarily entirely Merseyrail's fault. Depending where the 'London' origin was that might be another block to e-ticket fulfillment.

 

[yorkie]

This isn't necessarily entirely Merseyrail's fault. Depending where the 'London' origin was that might be another block to e-ticket fulfillment.

True; they might be dually guilty, along with TfL, in this case.

But "we're not the only ones who are guilty" wouldn't be a valid defence; in any case, whatever the rights and wrongs of TfL's actions, the fact that London Underground is separate to National Rail (notwithstanding any interavailability and other agreements/arrangements) at least gives TfL some sort of excuse which Merseyrail don't have.

Merseyrail have refused to adopt the standards that other NR TOCs have been adhering to for several years now.

Merseyrail are a very rotten company and I welcome this outcome.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Merseyrail have refused to adopt the standards that other NR TOCs have been adhering to for several years now.

Merseyrail are a very rotten company and I welcome this outcome.

Quite, all kinds of ridiculous bylaws and rules that you wouldn't find on other TOCs, and really quite desperate enforcement of said bylaws and rules too. Articles in local news about Merseyrail's customers getting swatted with all kinds of ridiculous penalties and charges seem to be an almost weekly occurrence these days.

 

[island]

This isn't necessarily entirely Merseyrail's fault. Depending where the 'London' origin was that might be another block to e-ticket fulfillment.

The ticket was from Waterloo (Merseyside) to Reading. So it would have depended on whether they'd booked via London or via Banbury.

As for the passenger, it seems to me he failed the attitude test spectacularly.

 

[yorkie]

As for the passenger, it seems to me he failed the attitude test spectacularly.

Too bad for Merseyrail that this, by itself, isn't actually an offence

(As a company, they fail the attitude test daily)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(As a company, they fail the attitude test daily)

Certainly agree with that. Merseyrail once (in the 90s and earlier) had a very friendly feel to it. Nowadays it comes across as downright officious and grossly overstaffed with lots of people who like barking orders at you. Not quite Manchester Piccadilly platform 14 but Liverpool Central is getting that way.

 

[skyhigh]

While I think the gentleman in question should have just been allowed to collect his ticket and carry on his way, it seems from his Twitter account that the sequence of events was:

• He was running late and deliberately chose not to collect his ticket.
• He was stopped and asked to provide details.
• He declined to provide details on the basis they had no legal right to do so.
• Police were called and he declined to provide details to them either so was arrested.
• He then provided details to BTP so was de-arrested.
• He was sent a letter by the BTP saying that they were investigating the ticketing offence and he may be prosecuted for the offence of common assault.

So to me it sounds as if we only have one side of the story, and he had several occasions to avoid arrest.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Good to hear.

Merseyrail are stuck in the dark ages of ticketing and are holding the entire industry back.

Does anyone know if their new ticket gates will have e-ticket readers?

As far as I know barcode readers were optional, my money is on Merseyrail being the last bastion of CCST

 

[Watershed]

While I think the gentleman in question should have just been allowed to collect his ticket and carry on his way, it seems from his Twitter account that the sequence of events was:

• He was running late and deliberately chose not to collect his ticket.
• He was stopped and asked to provide details.
• He declined to provide details on the basis they had no legal right to do so.
• Police were called and he declined to provide details to them either so was arrested.
• He then provided details to BTP so was de-arrested.
• He was sent a letter by the BTP saying that they were investigating the ticketing offence and he may be prosecuted for the offence of common assault.

So to me it sounds as if we only have one side of the story, and he had several occasions to avoid arrest.

If he had provided his details he would no doubt have been prosecuted or issued with a Penalty Fare by Merseyrail, or possibly offered a "penalty fake"-sized settlement in lieu of prosecution.

It seems that, although he now has an arrest on his record (which may bar him from visa-free entry to some countries), he actually secured a better - or at least cheaper - outcome by refusing to cooperate. That's only because the BTP apply a public interest test, whereas Merseyrail will prosecute anyone with a pulse for setting a foot over the line in their overzealous approach to enforcing their Byelaws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If he had provided his details he would no doubt have been prosecuted or issued with a Penalty Fare by Merseyrail, or possibly offered a "penalty fake"-sized settlement in lieu of prosecution.

It seems that, although he now has an arrest on his record (which may bar him from visa-free entry to some countries), he actually secured a better - or at least cheaper - outcome by refusing to cooperate. That's only because the BTP apply a public interest test, whereas Merseyrail will prosecute anyone with a pulse for setting a foot over the line in their overzealous approach to enforcing their Byelaws.

That assumes Merseyrail don't now send him the traditional letter. It was made clear that the de-arrest does not remove their right to do that, unlike a successful Penalty Fare appeal.

 

[furlong]

That assumes Merseyrail don't now send him the traditional letter.

In practice it would need some new circumstances to arise to justify doing so - people working for Merseyrail are not in a position to allocate Merseyrail resources to pursue a matter against the public interest!

 

[Mojo]

That assumes Merseyrail don't now send him the traditional letter.

Would Merseyrail even have his details to do so? BTP would not typically provide details of someone unless they have provided consent.

 

[ikcdab]

In practice it would need some new circumstances to arise to justify doing so - people working for Merseyrail are not in a position to allocate Merseyrail resources to pursue a matter against the public interest!

It's not that is "against the public interest", that isn't the words used. It's that it isn't in the public interest. In the first case it would be damaging to the public interest, in the second it has a neutral effect so isn't worth pursuing.

 

[AdamWW]

It seems that, although he now has an arrest on his record (which may bar him from visa-free entry to some countries), he actually secured a better - or at least cheaper - outcome by refusing to cooperate. That's only because the BTP apply a public interest test, whereas Merseyrail will prosecute anyone with a pulse for setting a foot over the line in their overzealous approach to enforcing their Byelaws.

If someone is arrested then de-arrested, does that lead to a formal record along the lines of a criminal record?

Though in a case like this a web search would clearly provide details, given that it went to the papers.

 

[AlterEgo]

If someone is arrested then de-arrested, does that lead to a formal record along the lines of a criminal record?

It's unclear here. If you just get arrested and de-arrested on the street, and not processed in custody, there is a low likelihood of those details ending up on the PNC. In this case, he doesn't seem to have gone to custody but they have still processed correspondence relating to his arrest.

Because everyone does their head in about "can I visit Disneyland Florida one day", the ESTA form has this exact wording:

1. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

In this case the answer is no anyway, so visa free entry is unlikely to be an issue.

 

[mdann52]

If someone is arrested then de-arrested, does that lead to a formal record along the lines of a criminal record?

No. The only formal record would be in the copper's pocket notebook (and possibly a line on the Incident Report). Arrests are not centrally recorded anywhere, indeed there is no legal requirement for these to be recorded until booked into custody.

Would Merseyrail even have his details to do so? BTP would not typically provide details of someone unless they have provided consent.

BTP can pass these on as it's a criminal offence, so no consent is needed in this instance. Whether they did is another question.

The question here is what offence was BTP investigating - the ticketing offence, or the refusal to provide details? If the latter, I don't see how that rules out a prosecution from MR for the former. That last line in the letter though very much leaves open the possibility of MR starting separate proceedings though, and you cannot get a criminal case dismissed on a "public interest" test.

 

[AdamWW]

No. The only formal record would be in the copper's pocket notebook (and possibly a line on the Incident Report). Arrests are not centrally recorded anywhere, indeed there is no legal requirement for these to be recorded until booked into custody.

That's what I thought.

and you cannot get a criminal case dismissed on a "public interest" test.

But in principle (and I realise this is extremely unlikely to actually happen) if the CPS believed a prosecution wasn't in the public interest couldn't they choose to take over the case then drop it?

 

[tiptoptaff]

But in principle (and I realise this is extremely unlikely to actually happen) if the CPS believed a prosecution wasn't in the public interest couldn't they choose to take over the case then drop it?

Yes - and apologies for going a bit off topic but I'll explain.

All PUBLIC prosecutions (and that bit is important and I'll explain why shortly) must pass two tests. Firstly, the evidence test. The charging authority (sometimes the police, often the CPS, depending on the nature of the offence) must have enough evidence that there is a high chance of a successful prosecution. It is usually the CPS who decide this. They look at the evidence provided by the police, for both prosecution and in defense, and decide whether or not they are likely to gain a conviction in court. The evidence test is more stringent that it used to be - it used to simply be 51/49 more likely than not, and they'd prosecute. Now they apply a similar "beyond doubt" test that the courts do. It means they charge less often but the percentage of successful prosecutions after charging is much, much higher.

So the 2nd test - they have sufficient evidence, they now judge whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. This is a fairly simple test, as in 99% of cases, it is well within the public interest to do so. They will always deem it to be of public interest for the most serious/violent charges (GBH, Murder, Manslaughter, anything s*xual etc) It is only cases such as this, or if the accused has been dead many years and its not violent (eg a bank heist worth £3million, but the bank robber died 10years ago) they won't prosecute.

PRIVATE prosecutions, by their nature, do not have to apply these tests. If MR wanted to, despite the police deciding it wasn't in the public interest, they could. As it within their interest, and they are perusing privately.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Can you prosecute someone who is dead?

 

[Towers]

Not sure why Merseyrail are getting so much heat here; it sounds pretty clear that our intending passenger bought himself a ToD (Ticket on Demand), which requires the physical ticket to be printed prior to travel, and as such had absolutely no right to pass through a gateline and board a train unless said ticket had been collected. The reasons for this are very simple, if the ticket is not collected a dishonest person can claim it wasn’t used and then refund it later, which is a major issue that the industry feels costs it an awful lot of money in fraudulent refunds. Unless no facility was provided to collect said ticket, there is no outrage to be directed at the TOC here. “I didn’t have time to collect the ticket” is very much a problem for the passenger, not the train operator. Flexibility and customer service have to have sensible limits!

 

[Haywain]

Can you prosecute someone who is dead?

Well, the accused wouldn't be able to defend themselves so it wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Well, the accused wouldn't be able to defend themselves so it wouldn't be appropriate.

Hence fails the public interest test

 

[fandroid]

Not sure why Merseyrail are getting so much heat here; it sounds pretty clear that our intending passenger bought himself a ToD (Ticket on Demand), which requires the physical ticket to be printed prior to travel, and as such had absolutely no right to pass through a gateline and board a train unless said ticket had been collected. The reasons for this are very simple, if the ticket is not collected a dishonest person can claim it wasn’t used and then refund it later, which is a major issue that the industry feels costs it an awful lot of money in fraudulent refunds. Unless no facility was provided to collect said ticket, there is no outrage to be directed at the TOC here. “I didn’t have time to collect the ticket” is very much a problem for the passenger, not the train operator. Flexibility and customer service have to have sensible limits!

Merseyrail providing TVMs that will print tickets, as in the vast majority of other stations in GB, would give your argument a bit more credence.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Not sure why Merseyrail are getting so much heat here; it sounds pretty clear that our intending passenger bought himself a ToD (Ticket on Demand), which requires the physical ticket to be printed prior to travel, and as such had absolutely no right to pass through a gateline and board a train unless said ticket had been collected. The reasons for this are very simple, if the ticket is not collected a dishonest person can claim it wasn’t used and then refund it later, which is a major issue that the industry feels costs it an awful lot of money in fraudulent refunds. Unless no facility was provided to collect said ticket, there is no outrage to be directed at the TOC here. “I didn’t have time to collect the ticket” is very much a problem for the passenger, not the train operator. Flexibility and customer service have to have sensible limits!

Merseyrail don't provide TVMs that print bookings.
Merseyrail don't offer e-tickets.
Merseyrail then try to prosecute those that think Merseyside is in the 21st century with everyone else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure why Merseyrail are getting so much heat here; it sounds pretty clear that our intending passenger bought himself a ToD (Ticket on Demand), which requires the physical ticket to be printed prior to travel, and as such had absolutely no right to pass through a gateline and board a train unless said ticket had been collected. The reasons for this are very simple, if the ticket is not collected a dishonest person can claim it wasn’t used and then refund it later, which is a major issue that the industry feels costs it an awful lot of money in fraudulent refunds. Unless no facility was provided to collect said ticket, there is no outrage to be directed at the TOC here. “I didn’t have time to collect the ticket” is very much a problem for the passenger, not the train operator. Flexibility and customer service have to have sensible limits!

Minor point of order, it's Ticket on Departure, not on Demand.

The reason Merseyrail are getting slated quite rightly is that the reason it was a ToD ticket was their continued insistence on not accepting e-tickets, which they really need to get sorted out. At least they do now provide for collection of ToDs (they didn't for a long time) but really e-tickets need to be accepted. (There is a possibility it was a cross London ticket that couldn't be e-ticketed, but it seems unlikely - most people are going *to* London and outboundary Travelcards aren't a thing for longer journeys).

It's often theorised that the reason for them dragging their feet on this (it really would be very easy for them to do it - just decide to and deploy the validation app on gateline staff's phones, and get a plan in place to retrofit gateline scanners) is that they don't want to lose the ticket commission on long distance tickets to Trainline, but now they offer ToD that is happening anyway, and most people won't buy local tickets on Trainline because they are more expensive - it can't issue the day tickets which are basically the off peak provision - and if they do Merseyrail gets more money anyway (Anytime Day Returns being considerably more expensive than off peak zonal day tickets and Saveaways*) so win win!

* It is possible to get an Off Peak Day Return to Liverpool from a Merseyrail station by buying it to Edge Hill instead, but like using Haymarket and Manors to avoid the LNER fare increase trial most people just won't think to do this or will think it's not allowed, so it's of limited significance outside of enthusiast circles. It's only really Railcard holders that benefit from this.

 

[island]

Because everyone does their head in about "can I visit Disneyland Florida one day"

*Disney World

Can you prosecute someone who is dead?

No. Even if it were somehow in the public interest to do so. And a prosecution commenced against someone who dies whilst the charge is pending will be dropped.