Solicitor struck off after dodging £650 in rail fares

[Islineclear3_1]

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/theft-of-services.html

What is Theft of Services?

Theft of services is a criminal act that occurs when a person obtains services from another person through unlawful means. If a person has used force, threats, or deception to obtain services, they can be charged with this type of crime.

What are Some Examples of Theft of Services?
Generally, theft of services refers to when someone receives services without intending to pay for them. Some common examples include:

• Not paying for WiFi Internet connections and cable television services after they have been provided;
• Installing hardware to illegally reroute WiFi and cable services to your residence;
• Failure to pay for automobile repairs;
• Eating or drinking at a restaurant, and then leaving without paying (commonly referred to as “dining and dashing”);
• Staying at a hotel and failing to pay;
• Evading payment of a fare on public transportation; and
• Altering a gas or electric meter in order to pay less on monthly utility bills.

 

[GB]

Legalmatch is USA and USA laws....not necessarily reflective of UK laws. As others have said, the Theft Act does not make provisions for theft of services...only theft of actual property.

 

[mallard]

s others have said, the Theft Act does not make provisions for theft of services...only theft of actual property.

Well, the Theft Act (1978; "ordinary" theft is in the 1968 act) does have provisions for "Evasion of a liability by deception" (S2, repealed and replaced by the Fraud Act 2006) and for "Making off without payment" (S3). Both of these refer to goods or services.

In theory (if it weren't repealed), S2 could apply to someone who hasn't paid a rail fare but claims to have done so (since it requires deception; however, precedent is established that it's impossible to deceive a machine, so it would have to involve a human revenue collector, not just an automated ticket barrier or similar), S3 could apply to someone who knows that payment is due (as surely anyone who travels by train does) and leaves without paying or intending to pay.

 

[Stigy]

Bit over the top isn't it? He hasn't actually stolen anything he has used a service and not paid for it. I'm not excusing what he did but I think it needs to be kept in perspective.

Oh, that’s okay then.

It’s on a par with stealing, and is dishonest. If a solicitor (or any number of trusted individuals) has this general mindset, can they be trusted in their work either?

It’s my view that people like this ought to be dealt with by the courts anyway, and not able to buy their way out of trouble, which happens a lot (like the £40k case a few years ago with SET). They need to be made an example of.

 

[Mag_seven]

It’s my view that people like this ought to be dealt with by the courts anyway, and not able to buy their way out of trouble, which happens a lot (like the £40k case a few years ago with SET). They need to be made an example of.

Yes I'm a bit disappointed the TOC took no legal action and went for an out of court settlement. People have been taken to court for evading far lesser amounts.

 

[jon0844]

Bit over the top isn't it? He hasn't actually stolen anything he has used a service and not paid for it. I'm not excusing what he did but I think it needs to be kept in perspective.

It rather sounds like you are excusing what he did.

 

[yorkie]

It’s my view that people like this ought to be dealt with by the courts anyway, and not able to buy their way out of trouble, which happens a lot (like the £40k case a few years ago with SET). They need to be made an example of.

I can't see train companies ceasing to accept out of court settlements anytime soon, as it would reduce their revenue.

 

[6Gman]

Using a service but not paying for it is theft, no?

In any case, it's notable that Govia Thameslink Railway didn't take legal action, but, instead, offered a settlement. The much higher penalty has occurred because Mr Kemeny's regulator has found that he broke their principles and acted dishonestly, to which he has admitted. I suggest reading the judgement that @Romilly has previously linked to. where the panel's findings are outlined, along with the reasoning for their decision.

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/11845.2018.Kemeny.pdf

Your link is very interesting. I would suggest all posters on here should read it. Noteworthy that he appears to have avoided (at least part of) the fare on 64 days out of 65. Which is pretty systematic! Also worth noting that he was on £38,000 salary and never had less than £4,000 in his bank account.

 

[farleigh]

I wonder if the fact he was a solicitor makes people want him punished more heavily?
The fact that a plumber or other tradesman who can earn twice as much, will often work unattended in houses and would not lose their job is fine then?

 

[6Gman]

I wonder if the fact he was a solicitor makes people want him punished more heavily?
The fact that a plumber or other tradesman who can earn twice as much, will often work unattended in houses and would not lose their job is fine then?

No. But plumbers don't have a professional regulatory body.

 

[Stigy]

Your link is very interesting. I would suggest all posters on here should read it. Noteworthy that he appears to have avoided (at least part of) the fare on 64 days out of 65. Which is pretty systematic! Also worth noting that he was on £38,000 salary and never had less than £4,000 in his bank account.

Not a great solicitor if he was only on £38k a year....that’s cruel, I guess he may have been quite young in service so no doubt if he was allowed to flourish he’d have been on twice that!

 

[6Gman]

Not a great solicitor if he was only on £38k a year....that’s cruel, I guess he may have been quite young in service so no doubt if he was allowed to flourish he’d have been on twice that!

He'd only been qualified a year or so.

 

[Antman]

I wonder if the fact he was a solicitor makes people want him punished more heavily?
The fact that a plumber or other tradesman who can earn twice as much, will often work unattended in houses and would not lose their job is fine then?

Exactly what I thought, most jobs require an element of trust and many solicitor's don't earn as much as some people seem to think.

 

[bb21]

I think the thread has run its course given the amount of bickering.