RoRA S5: Discussion around 'without having previously paid his fare'

[falcon]

Such a 'defence' would indeed require 'evidence'. The appropriate 'evidence' for 'having paid his fare' would be a ticket, presented on request. That evidence is strikingly absent, therefore the 'defence' is unsubstantiated.

Your missing out the fact that where no ticket is presented he can give his name and address as an alternative. See here.This is the law RORA 1889 sec 5.





So it is not an offence. I would have thought you of all people would have known he could give his name and address.

So no offence.

 

[najaB]

So it is not an offence. I would have thought you of all people would have known he could give his name and address.

Have you considered, even for a moment, that a professional lawyer might know a thing or two about the law and how to interpret it?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Your missing out the fact that where no ticket is presented he can give his name and address as an alternative. See here. . . . .

Thanks for reminding me of the statute. I guess that you don't want to believe that a Prosecution under, either, the RoRA (I'd be inclined to rely on S5.3(1) ) if the mythical ticket subsequently appeared, or Railway Byelaw 18, if it didn't, would succeed.

Fair enough - I admire your commitment and tenacity.

 

[talltim]

I’m not going to argue that the courts haven’t applied the law as people say, but I will say it is badly worded. I say that because if it was unambiguously worded then people wouldn’t be arguing about the meaning

 

[najaB]

I say that because if it was unambiguously worded then a person wouldn’t be arguing about the meaning

Fixed that for you. There really isn't any ambiguity.

 

[talltim]

Two people actually, ForTheLoveOf and Falcon

 

[talltim]

Plus it takes at least two to argue anyway!

 

[talltim]

Im a bit confused about the use of the word ‘either’. To me that implies two options, yet both 5.1 and 5.2 have three options.
Edit, seems I am wrong

used before the first of two (or occasionally more) given alternatives (the other being introduced by ‘or’).

 

[najaB]

Im a bit confused about the use of the word ‘either’. To me that implies two options, yet both 5.1 and 5.2 have three options.

The either is either produce or deliver up your ticket.

It really is much more simple than @falcon is making it out to be. There are three conditions: you present or deliver up your ticket when requested, you pay your fare when requested or you give your name and address when requested. Fail to do any of the three and you've fallen foul of the law. Doing any of them later doesn't negate the fact that the law was already broken.

Falcon seems to believe that the law requires you to do all three.

 

[talltim]

No, I’m not sure I don’t agree with Falcon’s reading.
In 5.1 the use of the word ‘or’ is where the problem lies. The three parts read as equal options, when in fact the first two should be the options, with the third a result of doing neither of the first two.
Really it should say something like :
If he fails to either show a valid ticket or a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, then he must give the officer or servant his name and address; and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale][F2[F3level 2 on the standard scale]].

 

[Fare-Cop]

Let me see if I've got this law thing right now?

I take a bottle of Whisky off the shelf at Waitrose and walk out of the store (or I take a rail journey, complete it and attempt to leave the railway )
I am stopped at the exit by a security guard who asks me to show my receipt, which I haven't got, but I say I've got one at home (or I leave the station and fail to show a ticket on request, but say 'I've got one at home)
The security guard asks me to pay for the Whisky and I refuse (or the ticket inspector asks me to pay the rail fare in accordance with the rules and I refuse)
The security guard asks for my name and address and I give him a name and an address (the ticket inspector asks for my name and address and I give him a name and an address)

No offence committed, I didn't pay, I drift off home and enjoy the free Whisky......right?? ( or No offence committed, I didn't have a ticket at home, but because I gave a name and address the journey is free.....right?)

 

[najaB]

In 5.1 the use of the word ‘or’ is where the problem lies. The three parts read as equal options, when in fact the first two should be the options, with the third a result of doing neither of the first two.

It is written correctly, they are equal options. As written it allows for the situation where a passenger presents a ticket that the inspector believes to be invalid - he can compel the passenger to give their name and address.

With your proposed wording a passenger could present an invalid ticket and face no penalty.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No, I’m not sure I don’t agree with Falcon’s reading.
In 5.1 the use of the word ‘or’ is where the problem lies. The three parts read as . . . .

Pause just there, please, for a momment.
That is exactly the question of interpretation which is assisted by reference to the body of jurisprudence (i.e. case law).
The prior decisions are not called 'authorities' without good reason.
Thanks.
Now. Feel free to carry on . . . . . .

 

[talltim]

No, it doesn’t (although I left some extra words in when I was editing). If they show an invalid ticket then that’s one of the two options gone. If they don’t do the other option (pay) then they go to name/address and possible prosecution.

 

[talltim]

Pause just there, please, for a momment.
That is exactly the question of interpretation which is assisted by reference to the body of jurisprudence (i.e. case law).
The prior decisions are not called 'authorities' without good reason.
Thanks.
Now. Feel free to carry on . . . . . .

I know what you are saying, I agree that that is how the law is interpreted and I have no intention of contesting it. My point really is that laws should be written correctly to start with and not need interpretation...

 

[najaB]

No, it doesn’t (although I left some extra words in when I was editing). If they show an invalid ticket then that’s one of the two options gone. If they don’t do the other option (pay) then they go to name/address and possible prosecution.

How will the inspector be able to complete a report and send the ticket for inspection if the passenger can't be compelled to give their name and address?

 

[najaB]

My point really is that laws should be written correctly to start with and not need interpretation.

All laws have to be interpreted - Parliament writes law, the Court interprets it.

 

[falcon]

Thanks for reminding me of the statute. I guess that you don't want to believe that a Prosecution under, either, the RoRA (I'd be inclined to rely on S5.3(1) ) if the mythical ticket subsequently appeared, or Railway Byelaw 18, if it did, would succeed.

Fair enough - I admire your commitment and tenacity.

The thing is Dave based on the evidence we have there is no offence under RORA (which is what those transport people are claiming).

It is not for us here to say if the ticket is mythical or not. We have been told there was a season ticket previously bought. So that's what I have gone by.

I have based this on the RORA as stated in the letters from the Transport services people or whoever they are. They did not mention a bye law offence.

That bye law 18 is wicked!

 

[talltim]

How will the inspector be able to complete a report and send the ticket for inspection if the passenger can't be compelled to give their name and address?

5.1 currently says they can be prosecuted for not giving details, but that is toothless as without the details you don’t know who to prosecute! It’s 5.2 that covers the process if details are refused

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . laws should be written correctly to start with and not need interpretation...

That is a Constitutional matter. Lawmakers regularly and intentionally leave the definitions to the Courts to decide. The rationale is that Parliament and those drafting legislation are dealing with generalities, while the Courts deal with real people and specific circumstances. So, quite deliberately, parliamentarians will say 'No. we'll leave that to the Courts to decide.' And while some will disagree. I would prefer an Act to be clarified by real Judges listening to real problems brought to them by those affected by the legislation, than by members of Parliament.
There really is a very fundamental principle that you are questioning here : the Common Law vs Parliament.

I am biased towards the Common Law, built on decisions based on the experience and practice of real challenges in the world. I accept that others prefer Parliamentary authority, and (not wishing to make a party political point at all) I believe it was the Labour government under T.Blair that made the biggest inroads into replacing Common Law with new Statutes.

 

[talltim]

Dave, I do get what you are getting at, but in which case why not just create a law that says ‘traveling without a valid ticket is illegal’ and leave the courts to work out the interpretation? They’ve obviously gone to quite a lot of time and effort to word a law with clauses and sub clauses and yet failed to do it right.

 

[najaB]

It’s 5.2 that covers the process if details are refused

5.2 allows for them to be detained, but doesn't in itself make it an offence to refuse to give their details.

 

[najaB]

Dave, I do get what you are getting at, but in which case why not just create a law that says ‘traveling without a valid ticket is illegal’

Because there are many circumstances where it is perfectly legal to travel without a valid ticket.

 

[talltim]

Well leave that up to the court to decide!
Ok
‘Travelling without a valid ticket may be illegal’

 

[najaB]

Well leave that up to the court to decide!

Then we would have people being taken to court even when there was no opportunity to purchase the ticket they required.

 

[talltim]

Then we would have people being taken to court even when there was no opportunity to purchase the ticket they required.

See my edit above. After the first couple of cases would there would be precedent for when it is and when it is not legal

Edit: I might not be using the word precedent in the exact legal definition

 

[87 027]

A fascinating discussion. However it seems to me that there is no previous case cited which covers precisely the circumstances in question i.e. failed to show or pay for a ticket on demand, gave name and address and subsequently produced season ticket but this was not accepted by the court as proof of having previously paid fare, therefore RoRA conviction succeeded.

As Dave implies, a lot seems to hinge on "subsequently"

 

[Fare-Cop]

That is a Constitutional matter. Lawmakers regularly and intentionally leave the definitions to the Courts to decide. The rationale is that Parliament and those drafting legislation are dealing with generalities, while the Courts deal with real people and specific circumstances. So, quite deliberately, parliamentarians will say 'No. we'll leave that to the Courts to decide.' And while some will disagree. I would prefer an Act to be clarified by real Judges listening to real problems brought to them by those affected by the legislation, than by members of Parliament.
There really is a very fundamental principle that you are questioning here : the Common Law vs Parliament.

I am biased towards the Common Law, built on decisions based on the experience and practice of real challenges in the world. I accept that others prefer Parliamentary authority, and (not wishing to make a party political point at all) I believe it was the Labour government under T.Blair that made the biggest inroads into replacing Common Law with new Statutes.

I have to agree with all of that, particularly the point about being biased toward common law and would just add that whilst we are all entitled to our opinions & beliefs, the fact that this particular legislation has stood the test of 129 years suggests that none of the legislators have yet come up with a good reason to alter it in any substantial way.

 

[talltim]

Dave, I'd like to thank you for giving me some insight into the way laws are created and then their meaning becomes established. Although I was arguing 'the other side' to you, I've learnt from it and got a starting point for more research.

 

[falcon]

I have to agree with all of that, particularly the point about being biased toward common law and would just add that whilst we are all entitled to our opinions & beliefs, the fact that this particular legislation has stood the test of 129 years suggests that none of the legislators have yet come up with a good reason to alter it in any substantial way.

I agree it is realy good statutory law and gives railway servants powers they would never be affored if the law were to be drafted today. A statutory right to detain someone is a very rear thing indeed.

The police only had the statutory right to arrest someone from 1984 (PACE).

It's not the RORA that falls down it is the fact that there is no way of identifying people ( no national ID card). As a result only people who honestly give their name and address get prosecuted while those who lie avoid prosecution.

The only way to legislate for that is as Labour did in the Identity cards Act 2006. But it got scrapped.
So the liar escapes and the honest get punished.

Democracy the least worst of all the systems available.