Prosecution for travelling in first class without a first class ticket

[toma94]

<deleted>

 

[island]

1. “I thought it was declassified” is not a defence.
2. You cannot be issued a fine on the spot, as only a court can issue a fine. Some staff may choose to deal with passengers whom they suspect of mistakenly committing a ticket violation by issuing a penalty fare, but doing this rather than reporting for prosecution is at the discretion of the staff member, and it appears the staff member whom you spoke with has chosen not to do so.
3. There is no requirement for any “amounts” to have been “explained to you”.
4. Complaints about the conduct of the staff member in an attempt to “muddy the waters” will be ineffective and will be more likely to harm your case by making you appear uncooperative and argumentative than help it. If you wish to pursue a complaint about the staff member you can do so independently of dealing with the ticket violation. Before you do, however, I would suggest you reflect on whether the staff member was genuinely acting inappropriately or was just telling you things you did not want to hear.
5. He was not entitled to hand you a fine and did not do so (see 2). Staff members acting in this context are required to produce ID to you if you ask for it, but you do not say you asked.
6. A report for prosecution does not require that paperwork be issued to the passenger.

Other notes

7. there are no “Miranda rights” in the UK, that is entirely an American concept.
8. Can you share what train you travelled on so we can check if it may have been declassified?

 

[toma94]

1. “I thought it was declassified” is not a defence.
2. You cannot be issued a fine on the spot, as only a court can issue a fine. Some staff may choose to deal with passengers whom they suspect of mistakenly committing a ticket violation by issuing a penalty fare, but doing this rather than reporting for prosecution is at the discretion of the staff member, and it appears the staff member whom you spoke with has chosen not to do so.
3. There is no requirement for any “amounts” to have been “explained to you”.
4. Complaints about the conduct of the staff member in an attempt to “muddy the waters” will be ineffective and will be more likely to harm your case by making you appear uncooperative and argumentative than help it. If you wish to pursue a complaint about the staff member you can do so independently of dealing with the ticket violation. Before you do, however, I would suggest you reflect on whether the staff member was genuinely acting inappropriately or was just telling you things you did not want to hear.
5. He was not entitled to hand you a fine and did not do so (see 2). Staff members acting in this context are required to produce ID to you if you ask for it, but you do not say you asked.
6. A report for prosecution does not require that paperwork be issued to the passenger.

Other notes

7. there are no “Miranda rights” in the UK, that is entirely an American concept.
8. Can you share what train you travelled on so we can check if it may have been declassified?

Thanks for the response.

Re: 1, I figured as much - thanks for clarifying.

Re: 2, 3 and 5, fair enough.

Re: 4, I do feel he was acting in an inappropriate manner. For example, when he asked where I was born, I assumed he meant country so said England, and he angrily responded "Obviously you were born in England - where in England".

Re: 6, so do I now just wait for the letter to arrive? I hadn't noted the distinction between a penalty fare and a report for prosecution - what consequences can I expect from this?

Re: 7, apologies! Whatever it's called, he told me I had the right to remain silent and anything I did say might affect me etc. etc.

Re: 8, it was the 07:57 from Surbiton to Waterloo. I had my headphones in so wouldn't have heard if they had declassified it unfortunately.

 

[island]

Sadly the 07:57 from Surbiton is listed as conveying first class accommodation in the National Rail timetable, so unless there was an announcement or something else permitting you to do so, you committed a criminal offence by remaining in 1st class.

 

[toma94]

Sadly the 07:57 from Surbiton is listed as conveying first class accommodation in the National Rail timetable, so unless there was an announcement or something else permitting you to do so, you committed a criminal offence by remaining in 1st class.

What are the consequences of this being a criminal offence? Will it result in a criminal record, or will I be able to avoid this by paying a fine as soon as they provide notice?

 

[swt_passenger]

Have you done this before? Could they know?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Who was this man who followed you...was he an employee of the train company...did you ask to see ID?

I can't possibly imagine this would go to court if this is a first-time incident...

 

[toma94]

Who was this man who followed you...was he an employee of the train company...did you ask to see ID?

I can't possibly imagine this would go to court if this is a first-time incident...

I'm assuming he was an employee as he had an SWR pin badge, but I didn't think to ask for ID. He sat near me in first class, so I'm guessing he followed me from the gate at Surbiton and when he saw I was boarding first class, he saw his opportunity?

 

[rdwarr]

Is it possible that you have been doing this every day and may have attracted the attention of staff for that reason? He may well have followed you were this the case.
The difference in price between a Std season and a First is around £1340 per year so you may have issues if you have been spotted in First in the past. Hopefully this is not the case and it will be treated as a one-off incident.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Who was this man who followed you...was he an employee of the train company...did you ask to see ID?

I can't possibly imagine this would go to court if this is a first-time incident...

There is every likelihood that such a case will result in a Summons to a Magistrates Court hearing.

The ‘read me my rights’ reference is correctly termed by saying that he cautioned you in accordance with the codes of practice defined by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984).

I would not try to pre-empt any action, but to wait for the letter to arrive from the prosecutions office.

You will then know whether you are dealing with an allegation of the strict liability Byelaw 19 (2005) offence in relation to travelling without a valid ticket in First Class accommodation, or the more serious offence of intent to avoid the correct fare as defined by Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889), which results in a criminal record if convicted.

From what you have said in your later post it is very likely that you were targeted by a Revenue Protection Inspector because you had been observed or, if you were doing it regularly, he had been tipped-off to look out for a person fitting your description

 

[toma94]

There is every likelihood that such a case will result in a Summons to a Magistrates Court hearing.

The ‘read me my rights’ reference is correctly termed by saying that he cautioned you in accordance with the codes of practice defined by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984).

I would not try to pre-empt any action, but to wait for the letter to arrive from the prosecutions office.

You will then know whether you are dealing with an allegation of the strict liability Byelaw 19 (2005) offence in relation to travelling without a valid ticket in First Class accommodation, or the more serious offence of intent to avoid the correct fare as defined by Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889), which results in a criminal record if convicted.

From what you have said in your later post it is very likely that you were targeted by a Revenue Protection Inspector because you had been observed or, if you were doing it regularly, he had been tipped-off to look out for a person fitting your description

Ok, now I'm concerned. Does the fact that I've done it before (always under the - admittedly incorrect - belief that first class didn't operate in peak hours) make it more likely to end in a criminal conviction?

 

[221129]

Ok, now I'm concerned. Does the fact that I've done it before (always under the - admittedly incorrect - belief that first class didn't operate in peak hours) make it more likely to end in a criminal conviction?

Yes if they have evidence of it.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Yes, as I said earlier this suggests that you may well have been targeted, ie; deliberately followed by an RPI.

It would certainly explain why, as you say, he sat near you on the train, followed you off and then asked you to show your First Class ticket.

If this is the case they may well have a record of observations of your actions on previous journeys. His comment regarding CCTV May be telling if you have been the subject of a targeted action, but please do wait until you know what you are dealing with from their letter before taking any action.

 

[Haywain]

Ok, now I'm concerned. Does the fact that I've done it before (always under the - admittedly incorrect - belief that first class didn't operate in peak hours) make it more likely to end in a criminal conviction?

Revenue Protection teams are not in the habit of following people on the off chance that they are committing an offence, this is much more likely to be targeted. This would mean that they believe they have fairly good evidence already.

 

[RPI]

The only thing I'd say about previous is that the inspector would more than likely have questioned you about previous journeys if it was the case that they wanted to prosecute you for regular first class abuse... that's not to say that they won't but personally when I've done similar follows on repeat offenders I've always then put All of the other occasions to them under caution.