Should Railway Offences get a Criminal Record?

[Chrisgr31]

Every now and again there is a lot of media attention about not the fact that it should no longer be a criminal record not to pay for a TV licence when you should have one.

Every now and again I read the Disputes and Prosecutions pages on the form and I have to wonder why there isnt the same pressure to stop it being a criminal offence to have feet on seats (if indeed it is), not to pay a fare etc.

I am not saying that people should have the right to dodge fares and I know that many will be as guilty as sin and could be regular offenders, but a number will be relatively innocent. ie arrived late, no barriers, jump on train, and instead of guard get a Revenue protection inspector.

I appreciate it is difficult but at present the system almost encourages TOCs to limit ticket buying opportunities at the start of a journey, using machines, long queues, sometimes sell tickets on trains, and then send RPIs out on occasions and issue penalty fares riling passengers who have bought from guards before.

I do appreciate that there is a need to prevent regular fare dodgers but fear the current system may work to the detriment of those who have genuinuely made an error too frequently.

Maybe a national database showing who has been stopped etc would help so the same people dont get away with it all the time?

 

[185]

Theft is theft, and there should be prosecutions for it.

That said, I feel the burden of proof could be a little higher perhaps, and the courts should also take into account failings by the complainants / train companies to reliably offer the full range of tickets at each stop.

 

[yorkie]

There are existing laws for theft, fraud etc. I don't think there should be specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation, and certainly not any strict liability ones.

Ever wondered why so many fares in Scotland get collected? Because it's much harder to prosecute!

 

[380101]

There are existing laws for theft, fraud etc. I don't think there should be specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation, and certainly not any strict liability ones.

Ever wondered why so many fares in Scotland get collected? Because it's much harder to prosecute!

Revenue allegedly increased by £40,000 per week at Glasgow Central once all the barriers where fully operational. This is quite believable given the amount of chancers that try and fare dodge on the Ayrshire lines alone. Having ticket examiners on all Strathclyde services also keeps revenue high and fare dodging to a minimum.

 

[BrianTheLion]

Revenue allegedly increased by £40,000 per week at Glasgow Central once all the barriers where fully operational. This is quite believable given the amount of chancers that try and fare dodge on the Ayrshire lines alone. Having ticket examiners on all Strathclyde services also keeps revenue high and fare dodging to a minimum.

There is however a massive flaw at Glasgow Central, and that is the lift!

If you're coming off platforms 11 to 15 I think it is (the far ones) you can get the lift down one floor to the concourse without going through any barriers. Its madness not have this covered but Ive seen loads of people getting on the Inverclyde trains and getting away without paying

 

[cf111]

I have to admit I find the English system where it is very easy for companies to prosecute people through the court system a bit strange, but that's just me being used to the Scottish system where anyone other than the Procurators Fiscal or Her Majesty's Advocate prosecuting an accused is so very rare.

All that being said, if you walked into a shop and lifted one of their products without paying and were successfully prosecuted then you'd end up with a criminal record. Is stealing from the railway any different?

 

[380101]

There is however a massive flaw at Glasgow Central, and that is the lift!

If you're coming off platforms 11 to 15 I think it is (the far ones) you can get the lift down one floor to the concourse without going through any barriers. Its madness not have this covered but Ive seen loads of people getting on the Inverclyde trains and getting away without paying

You don't even need to go down the lift to dodge the barriers. Not going to say how, but if you stand and look at the bike racks round by the BTP office you should be able to work it out

 

[Jonfun]

I think that prosecutions should be allowed, but in most cases I would prefer to see a situation where on the spot fines (similar to penalty fares, but at say £80 or £100, reduced by 50% for payment there and then) were issued for passengers with no/incorrect tickets - and indeed other byelaw offences - instead, and only if the offender refused to give their details or subsequently failed to pay the fine they would be prosecuted. That way, there is enough of a deterrent to ensure people comply with the law before travelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd abolish the Byelaws but keep a modified version of RoRA, but only to be used for serious cases of evasion such as those making fake season tickets and such. Nobody would in my view ever be prosecuted for simply having no ticket; PFs are (traditionally) for that.

 

[najaB]

For my two cents worth, I think the current system has it right in that there are three levels of penalty: penalty fares, byelaws and the RoRA, but the problem is that there needs to be more consistency in application.

The reason I say that three levels work is because minor mistakes (e.g. wrong ticket) should result in no more than a financial sanction, more serious breaches (e.g. no ticket having passed an opportunity to purchase) result in a non-recorded conviction and serious matters (e.g. reusing Carnet ticket) result in a recordable conviction.

 

[6Gman]

For my two cents worth, I think the current system has it right in that there are three levels of penalty: penalty fares, byelaws and the RoRA, but the problem is that there needs to be more consistency in application.

The reason I say that three levels work is because minor mistakes (e.g. wrong ticket) should result in no more than a financial sanction, more serious breaches (e.g. no ticket having passed an opportunity to purchase) result in a non-recorded conviction and serious matters (e.g. reusing Carnet ticket) result in a recordable conviction.

I agree with najaB.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reason I say that three levels work is because minor mistakes (e.g. wrong ticket) should result in no more than a financial sanction

Minor mistakes, if they are known to be mistakes, should not result in anything other than being sold (an excess to, if applicable) the correct ticket.

I don't agree with the idea of the PF being for genuine mistakes *at all*. If that's all it's for, it should be abolished.

 

[Jonfun]

What do you define as a minor mistake?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you define as a minor mistake?

Things like tickets that would be valid other than for a time or route restriction. Indeed, ISTR that the former is not presently PFable.

For forgotten season tickets or Railcards I would charge a PF but refundable on production of the season ticket or Railcard. For an out of date Railcard or season ticket, but only out of date by a short period, I would similarly charge a PF but refundable against the backdated renewal of the Railcard or season ticket. In all of these cases the number of refunds would be limited to perhaps one per calendar year with a full refund plus one more with refund of all but the standard £10 admin fee.

I think overall there would be a presumption that people are not trying it on, because mostly they aren't.

 

[Jonny]

I have to admit I find the English system where it is very easy for companies to prosecute people through the court system a bit strange, but that's just me being used to the Scottish system where anyone other than the Procurators Fiscal or Her Majesty's Advocate prosecuting an accused is so very rare.

All that being said, if you walked into a shop and lifted one of their products without paying and were successfully prosecuted then you'd end up with a criminal record. Is stealing from the railway any different?

Well, the difference is that the shop has lost physical property and possibly an actual sale if the goods cannot be recovered intact. On the other hand, the railway (directly at least) loses nothing of significance from fare evasion but fails to gain what it should. Under English law at least, travel fraud is not theft, and nor should it be.

 

[Clip]

Well PFs have worked perfectly well for 30 years including under BR and work well in TfL form so there's pretty much nothing wrong with them.
It comes back to being personally responsible for yourself and your travel documents- but we know that isn't a thing with some on here.

 

[yorkie]

Is stealing from the railway any different?

Theft is no different where it occurs, but if you're looking to get into analogies, it's best not to go there!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well PFs have worked perfectly well for 30 years including under BR and work well in TfL form ....

I don't think so. The Penalty Fare Support guys have uncovered many incorrectly issued Penalty Fares, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, the difference is that the shop has lost physical property and possibly an actual sale if the goods cannot be recovered intact. On the other hand, the railway (directly at least) loses nothing of significance from fare evasion but fails to gain what it should. Under English law at least, travel fraud is not theft, and nor should it be.

Indeed, nor is software piracy theft, despite the fact that FAST like to have people believe it is. There is a perfectly good legal term for it - copyright infringement.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There are existing laws for theft, fraud etc. I don't think there should be specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation, and . . . .

It can be helpful to look at the evidence and the reasoning which leads to exceptional legislation such as the many versions of the Regulation of Railways Act and the Railway Clauses Considation Act.
Without them, then the default position applied to ralway operators : the laws on theft, fraud, trespass and complicated mixes of other torts and common law offences applied to the railways.

It created a lot of very hard work for the Railways and provided a lot of complex opportunities for regular passengers to devise schemes whose probability of success was determined by odds. The odds of the Railways actually putting people on the ground to detect evasion was considered to be in favour of the fare dodging criminal.

The Courts were quite content to prosecute, and you shouldn't have any difficulty finding hundreds of cases of Fraud proseuted against railway fare evaders, and the term of their prison sentence. If you are having any difficulty, then please let me know and I will be happy to assist. The number of private investigators employed by Railway Companies to follow fare dodgers was quite staggering!

There were hundreds of fare evasion scams detected and prosecuted before the "specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation" was introduced. Have you checked to see what the penalties were ? Have you equated their lengthy custodial sentences with the modest fines and out-of-court settlements which flow from the private prosecution system under our "specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation" when reacing your assessment?

When the pressure to reduce the impact of those historic Frauds and Thefts was acknowledged by members of Parliament, then a simpler, and less punitive regime was adopted, which removed the risk of the most extreme penalties for fare dodgers, and put the Railway Companies in the unusual position of a procedure to manage their losses without engaging the Police (or now, the CPS) and without the severity of the judgements for the passenger which flow from the Common Law and Statutes which, it must be remembered, can still be brought to bear on a person travelling on the railways, regardless of any special railway legislation.

The default position of prosecuting a Fraud, Theft or Trespass was not, and is still not, removed.

The only benefit that I can imagine which would follow from a repealling of the "specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation" comes from the reduction in Statutes by two, and the speed with which passengers find themselves facing accusations of Fraud, Theft or Trespass (and the penalties which follow).

It is impossible for me to reconcile your regular advocacy for increased passengers' rights and restricted Railway Operators' rights with a wish to repeal the "specialist railway ticketing criminal legislation". I see the RoRA as a short cut to a simple resolution for the fare dodger - the outcome without that Act will be less supportive of your advocacy for increased passenger rights.

 

[D Foster]

So if not paying a fare is not theft (or fraud) because nothing material is taken - does that mean that not paying a taxi or a mini cab for a journey is not theft (or fraud)?

Not paying a cabbie would be putting his livelihood at risk. It's a different scale but not paying the railway impacts on railway jobs.

Like not having car insurance everyone that fails to pay properly puts up the cost for everyone else - so it's not only the seller that loses out - it's all the other users as well.

Okay; there is a need to make proper provision for ticket availability and reasonable actions whenever there are issues... However, would anyone expect to be allowed to fly if any of their documentation was missing?

 

[yorkie]

It's pretty clear to me that the way forward is the situation you have in Scotland, where - for whatever reasons - prosecutions are almost unheard of, but there is a much reduced prospect of people not paying their fares. I'm not going to get into the details of how that is achieved, but that's clearly the best approach.

And no, Scotrail don't go round hiring loads of private investigators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if not paying a fare is not theft (or fraud) because nothing material is taken - does that mean that not paying a taxi or a mini cab for a journey is not theft (or fraud)?

Not paying a cabbie would be putting his livelihood at risk. It's a different scale but not paying the railway impacts on railway jobs.

Indeed, so by that logic there should be similar laws for taxis. Probably best to leave the analogies out of it!

Like not having car insurance everyone that fails to pay properly puts up the cost for everyone else - so it's not only the seller that loses out - it's all the other users as well.

Okay; there is a need to make proper provision for ticket availability and reasonable actions whenever there are issues... However, would anyone expect to be allowed to fly if any of their documentation was missing?

No, but to achieve that on the railways would require the closure of the vast majority of stations on the network!

 

[bnm]

I think it's totally wrong that private companies are both investigator and prosecutor.

 

[yorkie]

I am not interested in being bamboozled by legalese, I know how they do things in Scotland is good, and how it should be everywhere, and I'm sticking to that!

I think it's totally wrong that private companies are both investigator and prosecutor.

Agreed.

 

[D Foster]

Indeed, so by that logic there should be similar laws for taxis. Probably best to leave the analogies out of it!

No, but to achieve that on the railways would require the closure of the vast majority of stations on the network!

The law for taxis means that failure to pay gets the police attending (When they're available )

Close the stations! Let them walk! Then they can whinge about the cobblers and the council pavements.

Somewhere in the pile I have a copy of a letter from someone high up in the GWR in the C19 complaining that all the people wanting to travel by train were a nuisance that was getting in the way of the serious business of moving goods and minerals - and that something would have to be done to curtail the problem. They just should never have built all those passenger platforms!

 

[Via Bank]

Clearly for cases where someone is trying to defraud the railway (dumbbelling, fake season tickets, etc.) they should be prosecuted under RoRA and receive a criminal record.

I am less convinced that prosecution is an appropriate response where, for instance, someone sees a long queue at the machines and gets on a train without a ticket, or doesn't realise the booking reference on their email isn't the same thing as a ticket. In these cases I would rather the customer be given the benefit of the doubt and/or sold the appropriate fare (or given a UPFN if they have no money).

If someone refuses to pay or accept a UPFN then I think it's reasonable to pursue a civil case to recover the unpaid fare and appropriate administration costs. And if someone gives false details here, it's certainly a valid argument that they're trying to defraud the railway, and a more serious (recordable) prosecution could be pursued.

It is certainly inappropriate to prosecute (or threaten prosecution) where the passenger has been misled by one of the bizarre quirks of the ticketing system (e.g. they have made a perfectly reasonable assumption that Manchester Stations includes any station in Manchester, such as Airport or Salford Central, rather than just the central group of four, or - and I know some on this thread will violently disagree with me on this - confusion over the Oyster boundary.) In this case, they should simply be sold the appropriate ticket, full stop.

PFing, penalty fake-ing, or reporting those caught out by the railway's insane internal complexities only serves to burn bridges, particularly with occasional passengers who are most likely to be caught out. And such an occasional punter who, having tried to pay what they presume to be the appropriate fare, is rewarded with a PF or a court summons for their trouble, is certainly not going to go recommending rail travel to their friends and family in a hurry.

It is all well and good to say the passenger should take personal responsibility for their travel documents. I could accept that if we had a simple, easily-understandable and convenient ticketing system (for instance, as in Switzerland.) But we don't.

And the various railway companies and authorities refuse to take any responsibility for it being difficult, confusing, error-prone and inconvenient to select the appropriate fare, pay it, and receive the corresponding travel documents. So I would much rather err in favour of the passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if not paying a fare is not theft (or fraud) because nothing material is taken - does that mean that not paying a taxi or a mini cab for a journey is not theft (or fraud)?

Yes. That doesn't make it OK, it just means that specific criminal offences have specific names and we should use the correct ones.

 

[infobleep]

Why aren't penalty fares introduced nation wide? If they are so good, everywhere should have them.

Clearly there would be lines where ticket buying opportunities may not exist but does that matter given the rules cater for that already.

 

[najaB]

Why aren't penalty fares introduced nation wide? If they are so good, everywhere should have them.

Like most things, cost. A full PF scheme is expensive to implement so it has only been done by those operators who see a high enough incidence of minor ticketing infractions for it to be worthwhile. I hope that the new Northern franchise will follow suit.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I think that it goes without saying that there should be a greater penalty for those that are deliberately defrauding the system by using fake tickets or some other course of action that is plainly deliberate.

However it can get difficult to determine what is deliberate and why it is being used. Does it really help society as a whole if someone who is in financial difficulties doesn't buy a ticket gets caught then because of fear of the cost gives an incorrect starting point, is then accused of an offence, taken to Court gets a criminal record, which potentially affects thei ability to work, and thereby meaning they are a greater drag on the state?

The flip side is of course that if you don't take action against them then everyone would claim financial difficulties and why should a TOC care about someone's ability to pay?

However if failing to pay your TV licence is to be decriminalised (and after all that is effectively theft as well) then why shouldn't be rail offences?

As regards the theft option at one point does it become theft? If you go shopping and pick up an item it is, as far as I am aware, only theft if there is a deliberate intention not to pay. So you can walk out the door carrying it without being guilty of theft? Surely therefore if travelling the point of the theft comes when you walk out of the destination station without paying?

If you have gone up to a member of staff to pay at any point in your journey it is not theft in that sense although the rules in a penalty fare area indicate differently.

If a penalty fare area is to exist though it has to be enforced consistently. It is no good if 99 times out of a 100 someone can walk on to a train and buy a ticket from a guard or at the destination but 1 time in a 100 will get a penalty fare. You either need to enforce a penalty fare scheme all the time or not all, however if you are goi g to enforce it you then need sufficient ticket buying opportunities at the commencement point and of course that leads to another issue as to how early you need to get to a station to get a ticket.

 

[LateThanNever]

I am not interested in being bamboozled by legalese, I know how they do things in Scotland is good, and how it should be everywhere, and I'm sticking to that!

I think it's totally wrong that private companies are both investigator and prosecutor.

Agreed.

Add to this the strict liability system which means that if the RailCorp sells the passenger a wrong ticket for the journey undertaken, the passenger becomes liable for the RailCorp's error. Giving this sort of unbridled power to unaccountable corporations is probably against the passenger's human rights and certainly upsets the right to the presumption of innocence.