Should TOC’s lose the right to prosecute?

[Thomas31]

In my opinion if a crime has been committed it should be up to the CPS to prosecute and the operating companies should lose their right to bring private prosecutions.

 

[matt_world2004]

In my opinion if a crime has been committed it should be up to the CPS to prosecute and the operating companies should lose their right to bring private prosecutions.

I would rather revenue enforcement operations were split and became a function of the btp. There would be no financial incentive to prosecute when it's not in the public interest then. Such as those with a valid ticket

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There's been plenty of discussions on this matter recently. I don't think many people here would disagree with your suggestion but it doesn't look like anything is going to change anytime soon. Certainly I don't imagine the longstanding right to private prosecutions will be inhibited; it might be regulated slightly more tightly than before.

 

[PupCuff]

I would rather revenue enforcement operations were split and became a function of the btp. There would be no financial incentive to prosecute when it's not in the public interest then. Such as those with a valid ticket

The problem becomes if you hand revenue enforcement over to the police, where previously a revenue officer may have used their discretion to sell a ticket or issue a warning, the police will be duty bound to investigate the crime. Where previously details had been taken and the train company elect to request payment of the fare and issue a warning, instead it'd be a summons without even the option of settling out of court. And BTP's workload would quite easily double or treble, meaning a resultant increase in cost, which will be passed on to the TOCs, which ultimately, will be passed on to the passenger through their train fares (though some of that would be mitigated by the redundancy of revenue protection officers). Additionally, I think there's more risk of the police themselves getting ticket validity wrong and claiming that it isn't valid when it is as railway revenue is a complex area as in many cases the BTP aren't 'railway people' so to speak, they are police officers.

Would the public not see it as disproportionate having a police officer carrying handcuffs and a taser checking their tickets and not a rail staff member carrying a t-key and a ticket machine?

In my view TOCs dealing with their own revenue protection matters is a sensible way of doing things as it means that valuable police, CPS etc time is not wasted with a deluge of 'low level' offences (ie, we're talking dodging a train ticket not murder).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The problem becomes if you hand revenue enforcement over to the police, where previously a revenue officer may have used their discretion to sell a ticket or issue a warning, the police will be duty bound to investigate the crime. Where previously details had been taken and the train company elect to request payment of the fare and issue a warning, instead it'd be a summons without even the option of settling out of court. And BTP's workload would quite easily double or treble, meaning a resultant increase in cost, which will be passed on to the TOCs, which ultimately, will be passed on to the passenger through their train fares (though some of that would be mitigated by the redundancy of revenue protection officers). Additionally, I think there's more risk of the police themselves getting ticket validity wrong and claiming that it isn't valid when it is as railway revenue is a complex area as in many cases the BTP aren't 'railway people' so to speak, they are police officers.

Would the public not see it as disproportionate having a police officer carrying handcuffs and a taser checking their tickets and not a rail staff member carrying a t-key and a ticket machine?

In my view TOCs dealing with their own revenue protection matters is a sensible way of doing things as it means that valuable police, CPS etc time is not wasted with a deluge of 'low level' offences (ie, we're talking dodging a train ticket not murder).

If the current railway offences had to stay (and that is itself a separate question), there's no reason it should be treated any different to shoplifting, albeit it's really a much less serious offence than that. Small scale cases are handled in-house, big cases handed over to the police.

As for the BTP not having ticketing knowledge, this is true but there is no reason why RPIs couldn't be recruited if ticket checking was to be made their responsibility. Really it ought to work more like the Scottish system, where BTP are the only organisation that can really escalate things to a prosecution, but most things are dealt with civilly.

 

[matt_world2004]

The problem becomes if you hand revenue enforcement over to the police, where previously a revenue officer may have used their discretion to sell a ticket or issue a warning, the police will be duty bound to investigate the crime. Where previously details had been taken and the train company elect to request payment of the fare and issue a warning, instead it'd be a summons without even the option of settling out of court. And BTP's workload would quite easily double or treble, meaning a resultant increase in cost, which will be passed on to the TOCs, which ultimately, will be passed on to the passenger through their train fares (though some of that would be mitigated by the redundancy of revenue protection officers). Additionally, I think there's more risk of the police themselves getting ticket validity wrong and claiming that it isn't valid when it is as railway revenue is a complex area as in many cases the BTP aren't 'railway people' so to speak, they are police officers.

Would the public not see it as disproportionate having a police officer carrying handcuffs and a taser checking their tickets and not a rail staff member carrying a t-key and a ticket machine?

In my view TOCs dealing with their own revenue protection matters is a sensible way of doing things as it means that valuable police, CPS etc time is not wasted with a deluge of 'low level' offences (ie, we're talking dodging a train ticket not murder).

I think the idea would be to have revenue inspections as a seperate role to policing with staff working in regions to police ticketless travel.

There should be a public interest test before bringing prosecution's/penalty fares. I don't think it is in the public interest to prosecute people who have an invalid ticket where there has been no financial loss to "the railway"

 

[PupCuff]

I think the idea would be to have revenue inspections as a seperate role to policing with staff working in regions to police ticketless travel.

There should be a public interest test before bringing prosecution's/penalty fares. I don't think it is in the public interest to prosecute people who have an invalid ticket where there has been no financial loss to "the railway"

I would say there is a reasonably high public interest actually. The subsidy to keep the railways running comes from the taxpayer and the more fares evaded the more the taxpayers have to shell out in increased subsidy. Additionally, there is a great correlation between those fare evading and those who choose to commit other crimes such as using the rail network for drug dealing or assaulting rail staff, or engage in anti-social behaviour on the railways and effective revenue protection acts as a strong deterrent to those who engage in such illicit activities.

It's also very difficult to prove no financial loss. If one were to pay £4.20 for a ticket to Wolverhampton from Birmingham but then instead travelled to a destination where the fare was identical, without looking, let's say, Water Orton, clearly there will still be a financial loss somewhere as different TOCs will be getting a different share of the fares income.

 

[Starmill]

I would say there is a reasonably high public interest actually. The subsidy to keep the railways running comes from the taxpayer and the more fares evaded the more the taxpayers have to shell out in increased subsidy.

I think you've critically misunderstood the public interest test. There is not ever going to be public interest in a conviction over an avoided £3.40 train fare on the basis of the economics of funding the railway. It may be in the public interest for some other reason, but I find it extremely difficult to think of one.

Additionally, there is a great correlation between those fare evading and those who choose to commit other crimes such as using the rail network for drug dealing or assaulting rail staff, or engage in anti-social behaviour on the railways and effective revenue protection acts as a strong deterrent to those who engage in such illicit activities.

Maybe but this isn't legally relevant to whether the case is in the public interest, unless there's enough evidence of an offence of assault or anti-social behaviour.

It's also very difficult to prove no financial loss. If one were to pay £4.20 for a ticket to Wolverhampton from Birmingham but then instead travelled to a destination where the fare was identical, without looking, let's say, Water Orton, clearly there will still be a financial loss somewhere as different TOCs will be getting a different share of the fares income.

Again this is muddled thinking. It is who lost what, and how much it was actually worth that matters.

 

[PupCuff]

I think you've critically misunderstood the public interest test. There is not ever going to be public interest in a conviction over an avoided £3.40 train fare on the basis of the economics of funding the railway. It may be in the public interest for some other reason, but I find it extremely difficult to think of one.
Maybe but this isn't legally relevant to whether the case is in the public interest, unless there's enough evidence of an offence of assault or anti-social behaviour.
Again this is muddled thinking. It is who lost what, and how much it was actually worth that matters.

You're perfectly entitled to think whatever you want, I guess, I shan't stop you from holding an opinion.

In my view it works pretty well as it is. Dodge your ticket, you can have your day out in front of the magistrate to explain yourself and if your excuse entertains the 'beak' as much as it did the staff member who reported you, you get to do the same to every employer/professional body/any other authority requiring a criminal record check for the next however long and it certainly will have been much better financially had you have just paid the £4.20 initially.

If the same approach was taken by shops in respect of shoplifters, and other 'low level' crimes affecting individual industries I would fully support it and it might take off some of the pressure on our overstretched police forces to deal effectively with more serious crime or ones involving non-compliant offenders.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would say there is a reasonably high public interest actually. The subsidy to keep the railways running comes from the taxpayer and the more fares evaded the more the taxpayers have to shell out in increased subsidy.

It always comes down to this circular argument, doesn't it . TOCs love to trot it out when justifying new anti-passenger measures.

Taxpayers aren't having to shell out a penny of extra subsidy just because a defendant accused of fare evasion has failed to pay their fare. Exactly the same services would have been operated, and thus exactly the same costs incurred, regardless of whether or not that passenger had ever travelled on the train. Now, the taxpayer subsidy will of course fail to be reduced by the amount of the unpaid fare, but that is a completely different matter to subsidy having to be increased.

The argument ultimately boils down to two unsupportable principles. Firstly, that the defendant in question should be considered guilty of a crime just because they failed to reduce taxpayer subsidy, when they could just have lawfully not travelled at all, which would also have involved failing to reduce subsidy. So this effectively criminalises the mere act of deciding to take the train, even though from a societal view point (emissions etc.) taking the train is frequently the best option and thus one that should be encouraged.

Secondly, it applies a penalty out of all proportion to the crime being committed, namely a fine typically several orders of magnitude larger than the evaded fare, plus potential loss of employment or employment prospects. This is done not because the crime in question is truly serious, but purportedly to send a message discouraging others to try and do the same. That is unsupportable because one person is then unduly punished for the ill intentions of others - this is the sort of 'collective responsibility' nonsense that schools dish out as a lazy and poorly considered punishment.

A further point arises when the strict-liability Byelaw offences are considered. These criminalise behaviour that could perfectly well be innocent, merely because it would be operationally inconvenient or not economically feasible to produce the evidence required to prove any mens rea. That might be considered acceptable for something that actively endangers others in society, such as speeding, but it's difficult to justify it for what is, at worst, an economic crime. So effectively the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm is abandoned because it's easier not to bother with it.

Additionally, there is a great correlation between those fare evading and those who choose to commit other crimes such as using the rail network for drug dealing or assaulting rail staff, or engage in anti-social behaviour on the railways

The same sort of logic could be used to say that statistically speaking a much greater percentage of people of minority ethnic backgrounds are convicted of committing crimes, so we'll just use the fact they're guilty of one crime, and punish them for the other crimes they probably also committed. I don't think I need to elaborate much further on why such sweeping generalisations and stereotypes are unacceptable. We might as well scrap rights like the presumption of innocence whilst we're at it...

effective revenue protection acts as a strong deterrent to those who engage in such illicit activities.

Now this may indeed be provable (and it certainly seems logical), but effective revenue protection needn't mean criminalisation of people committing really quite minor offences such as fare evasion. I think it's rather telling that, by comparison, the standard treatment for being caught with a small quantity of cannabis is a warning that doesn't even generate a criminal record. Are we suggesting that a trivial economic crime is worse than doing drugs?

It's also very difficult to prove no financial loss. If one were to pay £4.20 for a ticket to Wolverhampton from Birmingham but then instead travelled to a destination where the fare was identical, without looking, let's say, Water Orton, clearly there will still be a financial loss somewhere as different TOCs will be getting a different share of the fares income.

So you're suggesting that passengers should be punished because of the artificial splitting up of the industry between what are now no more than glorified government contractors? This is really one of those cases where it's rail industry 'logic' overriding any kind of common sense. It's true that if lots of people did this, it would be harder to find out some idea of passenger numbers, but the percentage of people doing something like this is tiny so would barely affect the figures.

Not to mention that, again, an internal industry squabble shouldn't spill over to become the passenger's problem - and any half-decent crack at the ticketing system would have seen PAYG and/or zonal fares systems implemented long ago. But no, for the rail industry it's easier just to penalise the passenger for their own failings.

I would much prefer fare evasion to go up by a few percent (bearing in mind most people will pay their fare whether there are known consequences or not), than for there to be swindlers like TIL out there profiting from the criminalisation of petty offences, and peoples' lives being turned upside down and filled with stress.

 

[matt_world2004]

I would say there is a reasonably high public interest actually. The subsidy to keep the railways running comes from the taxpayer and the more fares evaded the more the taxpayers have to shell out in increased subsidy. Additionally, there is a great correlation between those fare evading and those who choose to commit other crimes such as using the rail network for drug dealing or assaulting rail staff, or engage in anti-social behaviour on the railways and effective revenue protection acts as a strong deterrent to those who engage in such illicit activities.

The fragmented nature of the railway should be no reason to prosecute someone when there was no financial loss to the collective railway.where there has been no financial gain by the defendant and there has been no financial loss to the railway. There is no public interest in prosecuting imho

 

[Wallsendmag]

The fragmented nature of the railway should be no reason to prosecute someone when there was no financial loss to the collective railway

So you should be able to travel on United with a Virgin Atlantic ticket? No overall loss to the Airline industry

 

[PupCuff]

It always comes down to this circular argument, doesn't it . TOCs love to trot it out when justifying new anti-passenger measures.

Taxpayers aren't having to shell out a penny of extra subsidy just because a defendant accused of fare evasion has failed to pay their fare. Exactly the same services would have been operated, and thus exactly the same costs incurred, regardless of whether or not that passenger had ever travelled on the train. Now, the taxpayer subsidy will of course fail to be reduced by the amount of the unpaid fare, but that is a completely different matter to subsidy having to be increased.

The argument ultimately boils down to two unsupportable principles. Firstly, that the defendant in question should be considered guilty of a crime just because they failed to reduce taxpayer subsidy, when they could just have lawfully not travelled at all, which would also have involved failing to reduce subsidy. So this effectively criminalises the mere act of deciding to take the train, even though from a societal view point (emissions etc.) taking the train is frequently the best option and thus one that should be encouraged.

Secondly, it applies a penalty out of all proportion to the crime being committed, namely a fine typically several orders of magnitude larger than the evaded fare, plus potential loss of employment or employment prospects. This is done not because the crime in question is truly serious, but purportedly to send a message discouraging others to try and do the same. That is unsupportable because one person is then unduly punished for the ill intentions of others - this is the sort of 'collective responsibility' nonsense that schools dish out as a lazy and poorly considered punishment.

A further point arises when the strict-liability Byelaw offences are considered. These criminalise behaviour that could perfectly well be innocent, merely because it would be operationally inconvenient or not economically feasible to produce the evidence required to prove any mens rea. That might be considered acceptable for something that actively endangers others in society, such as speeding, but it's difficult to justify it for what is, at worst, an economic crime. So effectively the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm is abandoned because it's easier not to bother with it.


The same sort of logic could be used to say that statistically speaking a much greater percentage of people of minority ethnic backgrounds are convicted of committing crimes, so we'll just use the fact they're guilty of one crime, and punish them for the other crimes they probably also committed. I don't think I need to elaborate much further on why such sweeping generalisations and stereotypes are unacceptable. We might as well scrap rights like the presumption of innocence whilst we're at it...


Now this may indeed be provable (and it certainly seems logical), but effective revenue protection needn't mean criminalisation of people committing really quite minor offences such as fare evasion. I think it's rather telling that, by comparison, the standard treatment for being caught with a small quantity of cannabis is a warning that doesn't even generate a criminal record. Are we suggesting that a trivial economic crime is worse than doing drugs?


So you're suggesting that passengers should be punished because of the artificial splitting up of the industry between what are now no more than glorified government contractors? This is really one of those cases where it's rail industry 'logic' overriding any kind of common sense. It's true that if lots of people did this, it would be harder to find out some idea of passenger numbers, but the percentage of people doing something like this is tiny so would barely affect the figures. Not to mention that, again, an internal industry squabble shouldn't spill over to become the passenger's problem - and any half-decent crack at the ticketing system would have seen PAYG and/or zonal fares systems implemented long ago.

I'm afraid whilst many will agree with you, the 'crime doesn't justify the punishment' line just won't work on me. Being caught with a small quantity of cannabis and getting a warning which doesn't even get you a criminal record is literally of no benefit to anyone. I would support the legalisation of cannabis (benefits include increase in tax revenue, potential medical uses etc) however if we are going to keep it illegal, it should have stronger punishments. Whilst I understand and respect the view of the left-wing tending to favour rehabilitation, I favour the fear of punishment as the primary means of preventing reoffending. If you know that dodging your ticket is going to have you down to the tune of a few hundred pounds and mean a very difficult conversation with the boss, there is much less incentive to do it.

I would point out that it isn't 'artificial splitting up of the industry' - it's private companies who are ultimately competitors in the marketplace. I don't disagree that there are plenty of opportunities to explore PAYG ticketing but those systems work best on a local or regional level and then you risk having issues where you leave, say, 'Greater Manchester Zone 6' and enter 'West Yorkshire Zone 6'.

My opinion is that you are clouding the debate with your personal views that the rail network should be one nationalised entity and currently (though who knows what will happen after the current EMAs are up) I'm afraid it simply is not.

The fragmented nature of the railway should be no reason to prosecute someone when there was no financial loss to the collective railway

The railway is fragmented because it is privatised - it is private companies running their services. They do not care if you have paid £4.20 to West Midlands Trains if you then travel on Avanti without buying a ticket which is valid for their service.

 

[matt_world2004]

So you should be able to travel on United with a Virgin Atlantic ticket? No overall loss to the Airline industry

Where united and virgin Atlantic part of a universal ticketing system with their franchise specifications set by the government or a devolved authority.

It's quite frankly a disgrace that people are issued penalty fares for travelling on the TfL rail with a Heathrow express ticket. Or for travelling on the Piccadilly line with a Heathrow express ticket for example

The railway is fragmented because it is privatised - it is private companies running their services. They do not care if you have paid £4.20 to West Midlands Trains if you then travel on Avanti without buying a ticket which is valid for their service.

They are in effect government contractors running the service to a government specification using a unified ticketing sytem

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So you should be able to travel on United with a Virgin Atlantic ticket? No overall loss to the Airline industry

Airline comparisons are always wanting, but the nearest comparison would be asking whether you should be allowed to travel on a United Express flight with a ticket for United (pre-supposing that walkup flight tickets were still a thing), or whether you should be penalised for travelling on Virgin Atlantic instead of Delta (even though both are part of an alliance and indeed have revenue pooling agreements on many transatlantic routes). In either case there is a close legal relationship between the companies (NB United Express is actually a contracted out operation) and they advertise as one integrated network.

The suggestion that stiff penalties are acceptable for paying your fare to the DfT via one [EMA] contractor instead of another, simply doesn't hold water. It might do so where there is genuine operational, contractual and financial separation between operators (as in the case of HEx vs TfL Rail or the Picc line) but under the current circumstances of the EMAs it's laughable.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm afraid whilst many will agree with you, the 'crime doesn't justify the punishment' line just won't work on me. Being caught with a small quantity of cannabis and getting a warning which doesn't even get you a criminal record is literally of no benefit to anyone. I would support the legalisation of cannabis (benefits include increase in tax revenue, potential medical uses etc) however if we are going to keep it illegal, it should have stronger punishments. Whilst I understand and respect the view of the left-wing tending to favour rehabilitation, I favour the fear of punishment as the primary means of preventing reoffending. If you know that dodging your ticket is going to have you down to the tune of a few hundred pounds and mean a very difficult conversation with the boss, there is much less incentive to do it.

That is more of a fundamental left vs right political ideology issue. Either way, the current approach is eminently inconsistent, for no apparent reason; that we both agree on. I'd argue it's fare evasion that is punished far too harshly, you may disagree.

I would point out that it isn't 'artificial splitting up of the industry' - it's private companies who are ultimately competitors in the marketplace.

If all services were operated on an open access basis then it would be true competition. As it is, there is cross-TOC competition for a limited number of flows but mostly this is just due to historical or operational reasons. Under the current EMAs and even under the franchise system that came before, the only true competition comes between bidders for the contracts at the time of tender. Pretending that the railway can compete within itself is almost entirely farcical. Admittedly the industry tried to fight against this dogmatically induced madness, but it's had plenty of time to get its act together.

I don't disagree that there are plenty of opportunities to explore PAYG ticketing but those systems work best on a local or regional level and then you risk having issues where you leave, say, 'Greater Manchester Zone 6' and enter 'West Yorkshire Zone 6'.

That is a separate issue. In a properly integrated public transport system (or at least train ticketing system), all conurbations would be zonally priced. So it wouldn't make any difference whether you go to Water Orton or Wolverhampton if they're both in 'Birmingham Zone 6'. This sort of system is half-there but only in some areas. Again, it is unsupportable to penalise passengers for industry failings. It's the easy option though so it'll continue to happen.

My opinion is that you are clouding the debate with your personal views that the rail network should be one nationalised entity and currently (though who knows what will happen after the current EMAs are up) I'm afraid it simply is not.

The operation of the rail network is already nationalised by many definitions of the term. It's not about suggesting changing the makeup of the industry; it's about making the industry recognise that it is one transport mode, one system, where different parts are operated by different contractors, but ultimately all working towards the same goal. Stuff like the pathetic Gatwick Express vs Southern/Thameslink brand discrimination is a prime example of what I mean.

The railway is fragmented because it is privatised - it is private companies running their services. They do not care if you have paid £4.20 to West Midlands Trains if you then travel on Avanti without buying a ticket which is valid for their service.

They should care, because their paymasters (the DfT) are getting the same cash either way. Of course "that's not how it works"

 

[matt_world2004]

Penalty fares and prosecution's should be used to serve as a deterrent/punishment against fare evasion. Prosecuting people who have paid a fare that is equal or greater than the one they would have otherwise paid without evidence of a deliberate , but miscalculated fraud is not a deterrence or punishment it is a form of victimisation. Anecdotally on the disputes and prosecution forum it appears most of the cases where the customer has been reported for prosecution for avoiding an fare without financial gain. Most of the time , the customer has a valid ticket. It just hasn't been recognised as such by the railway. Such as the recent expired student oyster photocard case.

 

[najaB]

In my opinion if a crime has been committed it should be up to the CPS to prosecute and the operating companies should lose their right to bring private prosecutions.

Didn't we have this conversation about a week ago?