Stopped by inspector

[Oswyntail]

If you apply for a post that requires an enhanced CRB check, then even a caution will show up. I have just been assessing a batch of these and the cases referred to go back to the 80s at least. In many cases they were "youthful indiscretions" such as the present case, affecting the applications of people now in relative middle age. Many jobs that require such checks will also operate a "self-disclosure" system, with questions along the lines of "will anything show up on a CRB check". Usually best to come clean.

 

[jon0844]

I hate people who put their feet on a seat I may sit on, so I'm all for tough punishment.

I hate the media siding with the poor sobbing girl that 'had never done it before', or the person who 'accidentally' dropped litter and 'had never done it before'. In fact, nobody had ever done it before....

Come on any FCC train at night and you'll see that if there's an empty seat opposite a good 30-40% of people will have their feet up. I am not exaggerating one bit. Some will put a newspaper under their feet, others will take their shoes off and use a paper or bag, but most are just putting their wet, s**t-covered, muddy shoes on the seat edges and leaving a horrid mess behind. Having seen how bad the seats can get, I must highly commend the cleaning team that are doing an amazing job cleaning the sets each night (and so many people probably don't even realise).

The problem today is that you'll get the offender saying 'well, if I didn't make the seats dirty then the cleaners would be out of a job'. Rather like those who make false insurance claims because they've paid in so much and want their fair share. Someone in my office is going to claim for a Nintendo DS when he goes on holiday over Christmas, which his wife lost a few months ago. These people make me sick.

When the media always sides with the poor 'victim', what chance does anyone have? No wonder every entrant to X-Factor and the like know to play on emotions and come up with sob stories. I didn't realise we were all so gullible.

 

[Lampshade]

Hear hear, good post

 

[trickyvegas]

SWT don't, I've seen many posters with the cost of fare evasion added up like you did mounting to several hundreds of pounds. Not sure if I've seen any other TOCs do the same apart from Merseyrail.

TPE certainly do, there were about 4 or 5 convictions recently in my local paper. The compensation amount (the fare that they did not pay) was also listed and in most cases was a cheap £1.20 evening fare. Was it really worth it?

 

[jon0844]

Most people assume they'll get a £20 PF and that's it. In most cases, that IS it. I've seen many situations where an RPI has gone down the PF route for an easy life.

If the PF option was only used in extreme cases, and it was highlighted just how serious court would be (i.e. a criminal conviction and the possibility you'd find it hard to get a job or go to Disneyland Florida) then I think people would think twice.

But, too many people see PF as the simple solution; and many would argue that punishing someone so harshly as to stop them being able to travel to the USA or get a job would be unfair. After all, the offender had 'never done it before'. Never doing something and not being caught are not the same thing!

 

[GB]

If you are convicted you will not be able to enter Australia or the U.S.A. to name the biggest countries

As far as the US goes, that is not strictly true. It depends largely on type of offence, age of offender, date of offence etc etc.

 

[ukrob]

As far as the US goes, that is not strictly true. It depends largely on type of offence, age of offender, date of offence etc etc.

Yes, it does, but you need to apply for a Visa to enter the country rather than just using the Visa waiver scheme. Meaning you will be interviewed face to face.

 

[GB]

Correct, which isn't exactly the same as not being able to enter at all.

 

[ukrob]

Correct, which isn't exactly the same as not being able to enter at all.

I know - I was agreeing with you

 

[jon0844]

Expect to pay quite a bit, and lose at least a whole day, getting a visa from the American Embassy. It isn't a pleasant experience from what I've heard from everyone who has gone to get one for other reasons.

 

[GB]

I know - I was agreeing with you

Lol I know, I was agreeing with what you said aswell

 

[Dolive22]

The offence is not equivalent to fraud. The maximum sentence for fraud is 10 years inside. The maximum for either of these offences is a fine.

If the inspector searched 'dylerturden' (which I doubt) it would be battery unless he validly consented. 'Validly' gets a bit complicated. If the inspector persuaded him to hand over what is technically railway property the issue doesn't arise. Even if the evidence was obtained improperly, the court has broad discretion to allow it in or throw it out.

I couldn't find the Warwick entry guidance about convictions, the Security Industry Authority doesn't include either of the offences in their indicative check for whether a crimina conviction would prevent the issue of a licence and the professional bodies (ICAEW, ACCA, BSB, SRA, ICAS etc.) are pretty vague about their policies, so I can'y say what effect a conviction would have on his future. I do know it would mean he couldn't use the visa waiver program to get in to America, so would need to get a proper visa at the embassy.

The cut off above which a conviction never become spent is 2 1/2 years, as said above.

Other than that, I defer to the soon to be solicitor who (presumably) has a LLB.

Thanks to Helvellyn, I didn't know the byelaws had been updated. I had been using an old, unupdated copy. Where did you get the updated copy?

 

[John @ home]

This is in contravention of the Railway Byelaws (ammended 2006), specifically Section 9

Thanks to Helvellyn, I didn't know the byelaws had been updated. I had been using an old, unupdated copy. Where did you get the updated copy?

The Byelaws on the DfT web site remain the version which came into effect on 7 July 2005. See Helvellyn's link above.

 

[Old Timer]

The offence is not equivalent to fraud. The maximum sentence for fraud is 10 years inside. The maximum for either of these offences is a fine.

I couldn't find the Warwick entry guidance about convictions, the Security Industry Authority doesn't include either of the offences in their indicative check for whether a crimina conviction would prevent the issue of a licence and the professional bodies (ICAEW, ACCA, BSB, SRA, ICAS etc.) are pretty vague about their policies, so I can'y say what effect a conviction would have on his future. I do know it would mean he couldn't use the visa waiver program to get in to America, so would need to get a proper visa at the embassy.

The cut off above which a conviction never become spent is 2 1/2 years, as said above.

Hmmmmm

1) I should read the Theft Act 1978 (as amended) if I was you.

2) The various categories of career are specified in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as amended by the The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2008

3) 2 1/2 years is only applicable if the person is under 17. The person in question is not.

4) Up to date copies of the various Legislation is available on the web

Your post is both inaccurate and adds no value to the debate, and I am not sure why you made it ?.

 

[tony_mac]

1) specifically said 'either of these offences' - if you want to look back you will see which offences he was referring to - which wasn't the theft act.

2) that wasn't the question - it was 'which offences are likely to be taken into consideration' not 'which categories of career are specified'

3) You have misunderstood. A prison sentence of 2.5 years or more never becomes spent.

4) John has already answered that constructively.

Your post is both inaccurate and adds no value to the debate, and I am not sure why you made it ?.

You are obviously not immune to inaccuracies either, and I don't think there is any need to be rude to new members and to actively discourage them from participating.

 

[Dolive22]

1) I spent much of the last academic year getting better acquainted with both Theft acts. Are you thinking of obtaining by deception? It was repealed by the Fraud Act 2006. I personally don't see why railways don't use the Theft and Fraud Act offences a lot more, but they seem to plan to charge either byelaws travel without a ticket or Regulations of the Railway Act travelling intending not to pay the fare.

2) I know, I read it.

3) Are you sure? Liberty's website says otherwise and the Act didn't change the categories by age, only the rehabilitation period. I haven't checked the act for a year or two, but I would probably have heard if the government was changing it.

4) I have tried several times to get the byelaws on the SLD, but they aren't there. I have found and read the RoR acts.

I felt my post added value. I clarified that the law does not take what he did as seriously as fraud (whatever I may think about how serious it is). I tried to make clear what effect a conviction would have on hus life, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find much.

 

[barrykas]

1) I spent much of the last academic year getting better acquainted with both Theft acts. Are you thinking of obtaining by deception? It was repealed by the Fraud Act 2006. I personally don't see why railways don't use the Theft and Fraud Act offences a lot more, but they seem to plan to charge either byelaws travel without a ticket or Regulations of the Railway Act travelling intending not to pay the fare.

At a guess, an prosecution under the Byelaws and/or RoR Act(s) is easier for the TOCs to get a result on than one under the Theft and/or Fraud Act(s).

4) I have tried several times to get the byelaws on the SLD, but they aren't there. I have found and read the RoR acts.

If memory serves, the relevant Act (Transport Act 1962 springs to mind) gives the SoS the power to create the Byelaws, but the Byelaws themselves are tucked away here on the DfT website.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[glynn80]

1) I should read the Theft Act 1978 (as amended) if I was you.

As I have already mentioned to you privately in PMs, the Theft Act does NOT apply to any ticketing irregularities it only applies to "Stolen Ticket" situations. In my PM, I quoted the FRPP on this but still your have chosen to ignore this.

Your post is both inaccurate and adds no value to the debate, and I am not sure why you made it ?.

It seems it is your post that is inaccurate and even worse knowingly inaccurate. It seems you try to manipulate semantics to suit your position ignoring black and white evidence already given to you...

 

[Dolive22]

Thanks Barry, that probably is the reason why they don't try obtaining services by deception or fraud.

The byelaws were TA (1962 I think) for about 30 years, but then politicians started getting bright ideas and they changed alot, first in 93 and several times after that. The current byelaws are Transport Act 2000, but any new byelaws have to be made by individual operators because the government scrapped the SRA who made the last byelaws.

 

[Old Timer]

As I have already mentioned to you privately in PMs, the Theft Act does NOT apply to any ticketing irregularities it only applies to "Stolen Ticket" situations. In my PM, I quoted the FRPP on this but still your have chosen to ignore this....

There are specific offences which can be dealt with under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5.

There are other offences which are dealt with under the Theft Act 1978 Section 2, for example transferring a season ticket, making a season ticket, avoidance of the correct fare, etc There is no power under the 1889 Act to deal with these.

May I clarify your revenue protection experience please ?

It seems it is your post that is inaccurate and even worse knowingly inaccurate. It seems you try to manipulate semantics to suit your position ignoring black and white evidence already given to you...

I suggest you read the exclusions as well as the limits tables, then you will see that my post is entirely accurate. The rest of your paragraph does not justify comment.

 

[glynn80]

There are specific offences which can be dealt with under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5.

There are other offences which are dealt with under the Theft Act 1978 Section 2, for example transferring a season ticket, making a season ticket, avoidance of the correct fare, etc There is no power under the 1889 Act to deal with these.

OK, it looks as if we're going to have to go through this once again.

The FRPP helpfully lists the various pieces of legislation useful in revenue protection work, I am assuming you yourself don't have access to this information otherwise you would have avoided posting such obvious mistakes as you have done above. The legislation listed is as follows:

Rules and regulations to support your role

Your role and authority in ticket examination is supported by:

1. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage;

2. The Railway Byelaws;

3. The Regulation of Railways Act – 1889.

4. Other legislation applicable to revenue protection and rail travel including;

· The Theft Act 1968;

· The Forging and Counterfeiting Act 1981;

· The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Now obviously you are unaware that the TOCs are using legislation such as The Forging and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and PACE, you seem to think they are constrained to only the Theft Act 1968/78 and the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. For example with regard to the statement you made stating that the Theft Act 1978 would be used to prosecute those "making a season ticket", this is not the case at all, The Forging and Counterfeiting Act 1981 would be used.

As I have stated before and will do so once again, the Theft Act is ONLY used in stolen ticket situations.

I suggest you read the exclusions as well as the limits tables, then you will see that my post is entirely accurate. The rest of your paragraph does not justify comment.

Well I hope this post has proved your post is not "entirely accurate" and therefore justifies my previous comment.

 

[Old Timer]

1) I spent much of the last academic year getting better acquainted with both Theft acts. Are you thinking of obtaining by deception? It was repealed by the Fraud Act 2006. I personally don't see why railways don't use the Theft and Fraud Act offences a lot more, but they seem to plan to charge either byelaws travel without a ticket or Regulations of the Railway Act travelling intending not to pay the fare.

Here is the CPS guidance on fare evasion.

You will often have a choice between specific legislation relating to the form of transport, and proceedings under the Theft Act 1978, or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. See the Fraud Act 2006 and Forgery & Counterfeiting, elsewhere in this guidance.
Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Stones 7-7043) is usually used for offences of fare evasion on the railways for:
·travelling/attempting to travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

·having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeding by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

·having failed to pay the fare, giving in reply to a request from an officer of a railway company a false name and address.

Section 103(a) Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (Stones 7-7001) covers a person refusing to quit a carriage on arrival at the point to which he has paid his fare.
Both Section 5 and Section 103(a) are summary only offences. "Intent to avoid payment" in Section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.
There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate to use the Section 5 offence.
Consider using the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006, where there is evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending, or large loss by the transport authority.
Where tickets have been altered or defaced consider a charge under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

The Theft Act is not much used because there are different levels of proof and in any case the 1889 Act is perfectly adequate.

The Theft Act is normally used when there is premeditation and the fare evasion does not fall within that shown in section 5, for example paying the wrong fare with intent.

I have not dealt with fare evasion for some years now but I see that the Fraud Act, as I think you suggested, does give an alternative to the Theft Act in some cases and removes some of the previous proof issues.

There have been a number of topics now where a variety of people get involved and claim the Law is as they feel it is, or reflects their opinion. Inevitably they are wrong and then a whole series of debate starts wher epeople try to justify their argument. That was the basis of my previous answer to you. Nothing personal and no offence was intended.

In the particular case I consider that the Prosecution, assuming no other remedy is agreed, will be an 1889 Section 5, rather than anything else, hence my view was that to bring the Fraud Act into it would only cause confusion, and we would end up in yet another debate where those with opinions and no revenue protection experience line up against those who do have that experience and then try to argue the right of their own case.

This particular one has so far not really gone down that route, but could well do.

I hope that clarifies my views and position

Glynn80
We are talking about a case under section 5 of the 1889 Act. I am aware of those other Acts, which are not relevant in this case. I would respectfully (of course) suggest that I was dealing with fare evasion long before you were on the Railway, and have much more experience in this than you do.

 

[Dolive22]

Thanks you Glynn for the list of relevant enactments and thank you to Old Timer for the Clauses Act. I will look at both.

I suspect that much of the confusion about the Theft Acts is caused by there being two main Theft acts, 68 and 78. The 68 is the one Theft is charged contrary to, while obtaining services by deception and evading liability by deception were charged contrary to the 78 act until those sections were repealed by the Fraud Act. Making off might potentially be relevant where you are expected to pay at the last station, but lets not muddy the waters with that.

My reference to the Fraud Act 2006 was because the most relevant parts of the 78 act were repealed by the FA 2006 and replaced with similar offences under the FA 2006.

My understanding is that TOCs normally charge either the 1889 offence or byelaws, even though there are perhaps a half dozen other options they could try (obtaining services dishonestly, Fraud, making off, until recently the first 2 sections of the TA 78 etc.) if they didn't just want a quick conviction. Most of the other options would open up the option of Crown Court trial, with a legally aided or angry defendant, from whom the TOC would have no chance of recovering the very large legal costs. I do not work in fare protection, so I don't know if this is right, but it seems to fit with what I have heard on here.

I don't want to open another can of worms but I think Transport for London (possibly going back before they were called that) got people for Theft when travel cards were passed on for reuse on the basis that certain rights of the owner were appropriated.

 

[glynn80]

Glynn80
We are talking about a case under section 5 of the 1889 Act. I am aware of those other Acts, which are not relevant in this case. I would respectfully (of course) suggest that I was dealing with fare evasion long before you were on the Railway, and have much more experience in this than you do.

From what I have been able to gather Old Timer, you were previously in revenue protection (or something closely related) but that this was a significant time period ago. However now you are working within the infrastructure realm of the railway far removed from fares and ticketing.

Whilst of course you may have more experience of legislation and revenue protection methods 20 years ago, it seems your knowledge falls short of current working practices and operations with regard to fares, if you require any assistance in getting your knowledge up to date, I am of course happy to educate you though.

 

[Old Timer]

Whilst of course you may have more experience of legislation and revenue protection methods 20 years ago, it seems your knowledge falls short of current working practices and operations with regard to fares, if you require any assistance in getting your knowledge up to date, I am of course happy to educate you though.

I fully agree that my knowledge of fares is not up to speed, indeed it is something I try to keep out of.

Revenue protection whilst having changed in some ways, still uses pretty much the same legislation as I dealt with, and this is supported by the CPS guidance.

I am sure that the revenue protection staff on here will be happy to point out any errors on my part, although frankly experience is suggesting that long debates are likely to ensue on revenue protection issues and would on that basis tend to take up a lot of time.

I think that the revenue protection issue has been done to death over the last few posts and I would only wish to comment in the future if I felt that it was appropriate for me to do so.

Maybe it may be worth having a "sticky" on the principles with possible a agreed Q&A list that people could refer to ?

This would be appropriate for the more "usual" issues.

As for your offer regarding fares information, I shall be more than happy to accept your guidance, although as I said I it is not my intention to get involved in the niceties of routings and ticket types. This is outwith my knowledge and interest, and in any case there are many others (such as yourself for example) who are much better qualified than I am and who have the requisite knowledge in this field.

My reference to the Fraud Act 2006 was because the most relevant parts of the 78 act were repealed by the FA 2006 and replaced with similar offences under the FA 2006..

The CPS consider charges under either section 2 of the 1978 Act, or if appropriate under the Fraud Act.

Whilst the 1889 Act was adequate until very recently, there are obviously now situations which were never considered within that Act.

For example the use of a cheaper ticket from another station with intent to avoid the correct fare. This is something that arose only a couple of times within BR, and I remember the 1978 Theft Act being used where someone attempted to pass a ticket from a station they had not travelled from and at which the train had not stopped in an attempt to avoid the correct (higher) fare. This could be subsequently stopped by break of journey / specific train restrictions.

There does however now appear to be areas where the 1889 Act cannot be applied, some of them have already been debated quite painfully here, and for which there is no Case Law.

Complicated fare evasion, although admitted by ATOC and others to be quite substantial, does not appear to register very high on the ATOC agenda from whast I perceive from conversations with them so I doubt you will see many, if indeed any, Prosecutions outside of the 1889 Act. No doubt along the lines that this would be "customer unfriendly", who knows.

Anyway best regards for Christmas.

OT

 

[Dolive22]

With regards to the CPS guidance, I do not doubt its accuracy but I do doubt that it followed by all TOC legal departments. I suspect that original legal thinking is discouraged at TOCs as arguing a novel point and appeals are both very expensive. The CPS would mainly deal with the complex areas reported to them by BTP, possibly after an investigation.

Having looked at the acts, it does seem that the 89 act is not adequate for all areas. If a passenger boards a train before (say) Hadley Park and goes to Leeds, they can buy a ticket from Hadley Park to Leeds. I don't think they commit an offence under the 89 act. In the past it would have been a textbook section 2 TA 78. I am not sure that it completely carried over to the Fraud Act 2006 equivalent. I will have to get the Big Theft & Fraud Textbook out and see what that says. I think that Fraud is committed but a judge might not let you charge the most serious offence of the set for what was previously a relatively minor offence.

The situation with Hadley Park to Leeds is not one I have personal knowledge of, but I believe that quite a few people do buy a ticket Hadley Park - Leeds on arrival at Leeds from a more distant station.

Out of interest, did the BRB prosecute itself or did the CPS do the job for them?

 

[156499]

you will most likley get a warning or a fine, **** happens, and if its your first offence you should be fine, just explain what happened

Not like no one on this forum hasn't done something they regret!!!

 

[ukrob]

you will most likley get a warning or a fine, **** happens, and if its your first offence you should be fine, just explain what happened

Not like no one on this forum hasn't done something they regret!!!

There is a massive difference between doing something you regret and deliberately evading fares for two years. Can you see that?

The OP had no intention of trying to pay the fare hence doubling up on the barriers. It is not as if they just didn't have a ticket, so your advice is wrong.

 

[90019]

Two things;
Where did it say the child ticket was his?
Where did it say it was recent?

 

[ukrob]

Two things;
Where did it say the child ticket was his?
Where did it say it was recent?

One thing:

It adds to the case against the OP that they are a serial fare evader which means it will more than likely go to court which is what you are disputing.