Quick prosecutions - Cornwall, media article.

Discussion in 'Disputes & Prosecutions' started by richw, 29 Apr 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. richw

    richw Established Member

    Messages:
    7,168
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2010
    Location:
    Liskeard
    Just reading my local paper, The West Briton, the number of people within the court sections for fare evasion stood out to me, but What caught my eye was how quick from offence to court.
    Offences that happened on 15th April were in court on 23rd April. This surprised me how quickly it went through the courts as I believed it to be a longer process to get a hearing date submit paper work etc. this article gives an idea of fines being imposed for what I deem to be tiny fares.

    http://www.westbriton.co.uk/COURT-L...trates-April/story-26379733-detail/story.html


    It doesn't surprise me to see lots of Cornwall prosecutions. i use the train 10-12 days a month for return journeys to work on days I don't need my car, plus some leisure journeys and I seem to be encountering revenue protection nearly every day over the last couple of months, having never recalled seeing revenue in the last 3 years. In fact rarely having my ticket checked in that time.
     
  2. DaleCooper

    DaleCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    2,776
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2015
    Location:
    No.664 - Next door to the Beast
    As I read it they were convicted on the 15th, no date given for the offence.
     
  3. tony6499

    tony6499 Member

    Messages:
    804
    Joined:
    27 Sep 2012
    Seems £400 per offence is the penalty there
     
  4. CyrusWuff

    CyrusWuff Established Member

    Messages:
    1,848
    Joined:
    20 May 2013
    I'd hazard a guess that those who have been fined £400 have either ignored the paperwork from the Court or given a false name and/or address, as that's the assumed "relevant weekly income" where a statement of means has not been submitted.

    Similarly, the one with the £110 fine is likely to be in receipt of benefits, as that's the minimum income level for calculation purposes.
     
  5. Fare-Cop

    Fare-Cop Member

    Messages:
    753
    Joined:
    5 Aug 2010
    Location:
    England
    That is the average fine imposed in Courts nationally for proving a case of deliberate fare evasion in the absence of the defendant and conforms to the national Magistrates sentencing guidelines at level B on assessed weekly income

    If false details are given, a further level B fine may be imposed for a separate offence if summonsed correctly

    In addition there will have almost certainly been an order to pay costs & compensation to the rail company plus further Court charges.

    An average nationally for conviction in such cases will total around £600 and looks set to rise.
     
    Last edited: 29 Apr 2015
  6. Puffing Devil

    Puffing Devil Member

    Messages:
    705
    Joined:
    11 Apr 2013
    Plus we now have the Courts Charge of at least £150 for all offences in the Magistrates Court. Go to trial and lose, your looking at £720. This is in addition to any fines/costs/compensation imposed by the court.
     
  7. Llanigraham

    Llanigraham Established Member

    Messages:
    2,843
    Joined:
    23 Mar 2013
    Location:
    Powys
    I wonder if Mr Mugford has learnt his lesson yet!!
     
  8. Clip

    Clip Established Member

    Messages:
    8,544
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2010
    The Evening Standard should do stuff like this. However they are very anti rail at times so I doubt it.
     
  9. richw

    richw Established Member

    Messages:
    7,168
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2010
    Location:
    Liskeard
    The £2.75 dodged fare puzzles me, as I can't find a fare at Redruth that is that price.
    His £1.80 is the single off peak Redruth to Camborne,
     
  10. cjp

    cjp Member

    Messages:
    841
    Joined:
    28 Jan 2012
    Location:
    In front of a computer
    That's just criminal :)

    Mind you I did think if one was found not guilty there was no Court Charge to be paid
     
  11. Via Bank

    Via Bank Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    28 Mar 2010
    Location:
    London
    True, but then you have to be reasonably confident that you will win, which, if you are poor, unable to afford a solicitor, and intimidated by the prospect of a hostile cross-examination in court, you might not be. So you can see why someone who is poor might plead guilty, even if they know they are innocent, so they pay a smaller Courts Charge than if they go to trial and lose.

    It's scandalous and another example of the last Government's mean-hearted wrecking of our justice system, but that's a story for another thread. And I'm sure DaveNewcastle will be delighted to share some views on it… <D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page