No ticket to ride?!

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm sorry but Judicial Precedent will come into play here. There have been umpteen successful prosecutions for intent to avoid the fare where people have walked past a ticket office at their destination. I'd imagine it will be a simple formality if it reaches Court.

Precedent may and will be used in the higher Courts, but in the Magistrates Court it is common to concentrate on statute and testimony. It is less common for Claimants in the Mags Court to cite 'authorities', and even if they do, the Mags can generally be persuaded to deviate from precedent, justifying that deviation if a Precedent is cited, by reference to some detail specific to the alledged incident.

This is a matter in which the expertise of a lawyer, barrister or other advocate may greatly assist the Defendant's prospects of avoiding prosecution - it will depend on the details of the incident as they are presented and argued in the Court.

However, if the aggreived Claimant were unsuccessful and took the matter to Appeal (which is unlikely in the case of a single rail journey), then we should expect the higher court to have reference both to Precedent and to the detail which had been argued in the Mags Court. They would then arrive at a decision which, in some cases, may even result in a new Precedent, referring to the specifics of the incident.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Surely if it is binding precedent then it has to be followed by all courts lower than the one in which it was made??

 

[Mojo]

Looks like he has to make one more post?

1-5 New member
6+ Member

No, at 5 posts they become a ''Member'' and can send PMs and non-Moderators can also PM people.

 

[MikeWh]

Fair enough. There must be a time delay then, because at the time I posted the above he was showing as a new member with 5 posts and I didn't have the option to PM him. Now he is showing as a member with 5 posts and I can PM him. :?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Surely if it is binding precedent then it has to be followed by all courts lower than the one in which it was made??

(I fear we're getting a bit off topic - issues like this are discussed in more thoroughly on law fora and between 4pm and 7pm in the bars near major Courts (or so I'm told)).
But, no. Authorities are not normally introduced to Mags hearings. Statute and evidence are predominant, though a good case may, exceptionally, be presented to Mags by Counsel who 'perform' after summing up with a display of citations and counter-citations - all too rarely in my opinion.

 

[robwilford78]

Well thanks for everyones posts and replies to this. I am very grateful for everyones help as it has been a very stressful and worrying time. In my opinion I can only stress to anyone in a similar situation that I was, if you are being honest and care if you have criminal record or not, it's always better to pre-empt the situation first, send them a letter... offer to pay again.

I know the statistics of successful prosecutions in favor of Northern Rail, but doing something has got to be better than not... on this occasion it worked for me but i got a Formal Warning! For one thing it has taught me to be a lot more aware and i will never be in a situation like that again!

 

[Stigy]

Well thanks for everyones posts and replies to this. I am very grateful for everyones help as it has been a very stressful and worrying time. In my opinion I can only stress to anyone in a similar situation that I was, if you are being honest and care if you have criminal record or not, it's always better to pre-empt the situation first, send them a letter... offer to pay again.

I know the statistics of successful prosecutions in favor of Northern Rail, but doing something has got to be better than not... on this occasion it worked for me but i got a Formal Warning! For one thing it has taught me to be a lot more aware and i will never be in a situation like that again!

Sounds like a good result then, thanks for the update!

 

[junglejames]

Having only just come across this thread, and reading all the way through, may I say what i think of the guard who stopped him? Ah better not, its not repeatable.
So what if he originally forgot to stop and get a ticket. So what if it was the barriers that reminded him. 1- He never left the premises. 2- He never refused to pay.

If he gets to the point of being stopped by a guard, and has means to pay, they should send him back to get a ticket, and perhaps warned not to walk past the office in the future. It shouldnt go down the prosecution avenue unless he has left the premises, and been cuaght after leaving, or if he has no means to pay.
Even if there were no barriers, and he had managed to get down the road before realising, and then came back to the station to buy a ticket, then that is fine, so long as he wasnt stopped outside before he turned back. RPIs should be there to ensure people buy tickets. They should not be there as a way of getting people to court.
They are there to remind people that they have to get a ticket, if they have forgotten.

America used to be number one for taking people to court for no reason. Britains railways seem to want to take over this mantle.

Fare dodgers are those that should be prosecuted. They are people who jump barriers, leg it past RPIs, or have no means to pay. People that run into RPIs before they buy a ticket, and have means to pay for a ticket, are not fare dodgers, as long as they then go back to buy a ticket.

If i was in charge, any TOC who had been responsible for taking such a case to court (luckily it never got that far), and had successfully prosecuted, would have had the franchise taken off of them, no questions asked. Obviously this would have been written into the contracts.

The aim of the railway should be to make travel easier for the decent people of the country who need to use them. The aim should not be to find any excuse to send someone to court. This particular case is just using any old excuse to prosecute. Im hankful it never did get that far.
I just hope the OP never paid anymore than the original fare. I wouldnt pay any admin costs, because its Northerns fault they incurred such costs.

OK, Rant over!


This case (assuming the OP is telling the truth) highlights how bad the railways are at times.