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

[T11C]

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.

Dave, couple of questions if you'll indulge a new member (and reasonably long time lurker):

1. Is the above the right way round, or did you mean to say you'd prefer Byelaw 18 if the ticket was produced on some later day, and s5(3)(a) RoRA if it wasn't? (I assume 'subsequently' means on a later day rather than later that journey, in case it makes a difference.)

2. I'm getting the impression from your posts that there is case law that the 'or's is s5(3)(a) operate to give the RPI a choice, not to give the passenger a choice. If that's right please could you point me in the direction of this - I'd be interested to look it up.

 

[island]

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.

Goodness me, he's still going.

 

[wildcard]

So - am I right to summarise as follows : In the special case of someone forgetting their season ticket and not having the means to pay for a single ticket ( as the Op's son in another thread / and others forgetting their wallet etc. ) - then they would be asked for their name and address and most likely subsequently sent a letter of intended prosecution. If at this point they provide evidence of their holding a valid season on the day in question and provided this is no more than the second instance of a forgotten season in a 12 month rolling period - they are excused ( unofficially ) . Although I notice the NRE website only mentions allowance for two refunds of the single ticket ( in a 12 month period - the second with an admin charge ).

 

[najaB]

So - am I right to summarise as follows...

That seems a reasonable summary of the most likely course of events. Though we don't have confirmation from the OP of the related thread of the TOC's response when they presented the season ticket.

 

[87 027]

But I don't think we've established that there is case law confirming a successful RoRA prosecution in the circumstances described? (Obviously it's a slam dunk under Byelaw 18)

 

[najaB]

But I don't think we've established that there is case law confirming a successful RoRA prosecution in the circumstances described? (Obviously it's a slam dunk under Byelaw 18)

The issue is that most of these cases never make it past the Magistrate's Court.

 

[87 027]

Which do not create precedent, so a new case could go either way on its own merits? Fair point.

 

[baz962]

With respect, people have been found guilty of RoRA act offences despite giving name and address so Magistrates are also interpreting the law incorrectly.

Quite possibly, magistrates, unlike judges are not legally trained or qualified.

 

[Haywain]

Magistrates are not legally trained but they take advice on legal matters from court staff.

 

[baz962]

Magistrates are not legally trained but they take advice on legal matters from court staff.

Not always

 

[najaB]

Quite possibly, magistrates, unlike judges are not legally trained or qualified.

While being legally trained isn't a job requirement, many of them are. And in any case, that's why their decisions are appealable - and I'm not aware of a flood of convictions being overturned.

 

[baz962]

Which is why their decisions are appealable - and I'm not aware of a flood of convictions being overturned.

Do not doubt it at all was just saying, mind you most people going to magistrates do not take a solicitor, and so would not know if they been wrongly done.

 

[Haywain]

Not always

Really? Perhaps you could be more specific as to when there is not a legally trained advisor present.

 

[baz962]

Really? Perhaps you could be more specific as to when there is not a legally trained advisor present.

If you like oh yea happened to me , satisfied.

 

[Llanigraham]

If you like oh yea happened to me , satisfied.

No, that gives no details what-so-ever.

And I suggest that you do not understand the role of the (legally trained) Magistrates Clerk in the judicial proceedure.

 

[Haywain]

If you like oh yea happened to me , satisfied.

No, because there would have been a court clerk present in the magistrates court, and the clerk is legally trained.

 

[baz962]

No, because there would have been a court clerk present in the magistrates court, and the clerk is legally trained.

You cannot be right , it happened to me, so i know for fact.

 

[baz962]

No, that gives no details what-so-ever.

And I suggest that you do not understand the role of the (legally trained) Magistrates Clerk in the judicial proceedure.

Er are you missing something, this is not about their role, i was taken to court, the magistrates had no one to give them advice, wether that is right or wrong, im not arguing, but it happened, so its fact , stop arguing black is white.

 

[baz962]

And that is a specific event, jan 2010 in watford.

 

[Puffing Devil]

And that is a specific event, jan 2010 in watford.

Let me understand this - you attended a Magistrate's court and there was no court clerk present for the hearing?

How many Magistrates were on the bench?

 

[baz962]

Let me understand this - you attended a Magistrate's court and there was no court clerk present for the hearing?

How many Magistrates were on the bench?

There were if memory serves three. I was taken to court by the child support agency, and I remember the magistrtes, or at least one asking if they could get advice. Someone , I would reasonably assume not a clerk, said there was no one to help, so the prosecution (child support agency solicitor) proffered up the advice.

 

[Llanigraham]

I am missing nothing, thank you.
The Court cannot sit if the Magistrates Clerk is not present.

 

[najaB]

There were if memory serves three. I was taken to court by the child support agency, and I remember the magistrtes, or at least one asking if they could get advice. Someone , I would reasonably assume not a clerk, said there was no one to help, so the prosecution (child support agency solicitor) proffered up the advice.

That was highly irregular and a violation of normal practice. In the circumstances described - no neutral source of legal advice - the court should not have sat and any cases should have been adjourned. It's definitely not good form for the prosecution to be providing advice. If the judgement went against you I hope you appealed.

 

[baz962]

That was highly irregular and a violation of normal practice. In the circumstances described - no neutral source of legal advice - the court should not have sat and any cases should have been adjourned. It's definitely not good form for the prosecution to be providing advice. If the judgement went against you I hope you appealed.

I guessed it was wrong, however it was about child support which I am happy to pay, and only ended in court because a csa staff member put the phone down on me one day. I then refused to deal with them by phone and a subsequent letter they apparently sent never came through my door, and so i got a summons, went to court and agreed to pay child support, nothing to appeal really and I wuld of just been putting off paying and accruing arrears.

 

[baz962]

I am missing nothing, thank you.
The Court cannot sit if the Magistrates Clerk is not present.

You were missing something you said I am not aware of their role, I never called the role into question, I said they were not present, and the court did indeed sit, wether it should have i never debated, but it did.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I have never, ever, experienced a court sitting without a clerk/legal advisor, and around 2010 it became a formal requirement that courts sit with a clerk.

I'm wondering what advice was being sought and it the clerk was not able to help in the specific circumstance; if it's a judicial decision that is frequently bounced back to the bench, or there may have been no guideline or specific advice in your case.

Whilst not wanting to dispute your impression of the proceedings, it would be, as many posters have said, extremely unusual for a court to sit without a clerk. Not just from the legal advice position, more from the management of the list and recording of results. I have seen courts cancelled for the lack for a clerk.

 

[baz962]

I have never, ever, experienced a court sitting without a clerk/legal advisor, and around 2010 it became a formal requirement that courts sit with a clerk.

I'm wondering what advice was being sought and it the clerk was not able to help in the specific circumstance; if it's a judicial decision that is frequently bounced back to the bench, or there may have been no guideline or specific advice in your case.

Whilst not wanting to dispute your impression of the proceedings, it would be, as many posters have said, extremely unusual for a court to sit without a clerk. Not just from the legal advice position, more from the management of the list and recording of results.

Definately none there as the person, maybe the usher , stated that there was no one there, cannot remember the specific question but the csa solicitor gave the advice, who I knew to be because I had sat with her and another csa rep in a room to agree before going in before the magistrates.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Where was the usher sitting in the court?

 

[baz962]

Where was the usher sitting in the court?

Was not sitting, he called us in and was standing somewhere between the bench and my table

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR) clearly require a Magistrates Bench to site with the assistance of a Clerk for the overriding objective of administering Justice (CPR VI 24A). Rules 24.A.3 and A.4 allow those functions of the Clerk to be delegated.

24A.5 It shall be the responsibility of the justices’ clerk or legal adviser to provide the justices with any advice they require to perform their functions justly, whether or not the advice has been requested, on:

(a) questions of law;
(b) questions of mixed law and fact;
(c) matters of practice and procedure;
(d) the process to be followed at sentence and the matters to be taken into account, together with the range of penalties and ancillary orders available, in accordance with the relevant sentencing guidelines;
(e) any relevant decisions of the superior courts or other guidelines;
(f) the appropriate decision-making structure to be applied in any given case; and
(g) other issues relevant to the matter before the court.​

24A.6 In addition to advising the justices, it shall be the justices’ legal adviser’s responsibility to assist the court, where appropriate, as to the formulation of reasons and the recording of those reasons.

However, I suspect that in the incident baz962 is referring to, the Mags were perhaps not hearing a Criminal Prosecution. They may have been receiving a Statement, a request for an Order, considering questions of Case Management, etc. Rule 2.2 does limit that requirement for a Clerk (or their delegated alternative) (my bold) :

‘court’ means a tribunal with jurisdiction over criminal cases. It includes a judge, recorder, District Judge (Magistrates’ Court), lay justice and, when exercising their judicial powers, the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, a justices’ clerk or assistant clerk;
‘court officer’ means the appropriate member of the staff of a court;
‘justices’ legal adviser’ means a justices’ clerk or an assistant to a justices’ clerk; . . .