Stopped by inspector

[90019]

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.

No, it just seems odd that it's been assumed that because he had a child ticket on him that it was his and that it was recent.

I'm 18 and have an old child ticket in my wallet, does this mean you can assume I'm a fare evader?


Personally, I'm not on either side of the argument, just been reading through it and found that assumption a bit strange.

 

[ukrob]

No, it just seems odd that it's been assumed that because he had a child ticket on him that it was his and that it was recent.

I'm 18 and have an old child ticket in my wallet, does this mean you can assume I'm a fare evader?


Personally, I'm not on either side of the argument, just been reading through it and found that assumption a bit strange.

But the OP is *already* a fare evader - the fact they also have child tickets on them adds to the case that they are a serial fare evader - meaning the case would be taken more seriously.

 

[90019]

But the OP is *already* a fare evader

I don't deny this.

the fact they also have child tickets on them adds to the case that they are a serial fare evader - meaning the case would be taken more seriously.

What I mean is that it seems a bit unfair to automatically assume that because he has a child ticket that it's his and that he must have used it when he wasn't supposed to.

 

[Greenback]

I think it's likely that if the OP had a child ticket that wasn't actually theirs, they might have mentioned that fact originally in mitigation! Yes, we have all assumed it was his, but he hasn;t claimed other wise, so it is really likely that it's someone else? I did consider that it may have been more than two years old, and, though I think it;s unlikely, I mentioned it in my first post. I'm not the tidiest person in the world, but even I clear out my pockets and my wallets every now and then!

 

[ukrob]

What I mean is that it seems a bit unfair to automatically assume that because he has a child ticket that it's his and that he must have used it when he wasn't supposed to.

Automatically suspect, not automatically assume

Rightly or wrongly, it is a pretty natural assumption (especially as the OP has not said otherwise), and I would assume the same if I was the one who stopped the OP.

It would be decided in court if it was the correct assumption or not.

 

[Old Timer]

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..

That is my contention that you could not necessarily prove Fraud and as S2 is still in force then this is what I believe would still be used.

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

The BT Police used to Prosecute, as our TTIs were called as witnesses. In those days we did not have a CPS and the Police used to Prosecute for everything in this area. We used their Prosecutions team, and were very successful.

 

[Dolive22]

I think you could probably prove fraud in many of these cases, but it would be time consuming and expensive. I don't think the offence is made out in the case this thread started out as, but in ones such as the Hadley Park example I think it is made out.

Section 2 of the Theft Act 1978 was repealed effective the 15th of January 2007 by Schedule 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 and the Fraud Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006, which is unfortunate as the intended replacement offence doesn't really cover this situation properly.

 

[spoony]

Yup they did, wasnt just a new street either it seemed to be at every station and I think it was specific to the line (so at sutton coldfield people in four oaks, redditch, Lichfield ect were named and shamed)

On the Tyne & Wear Metro those name and shame boards are like a wall of fame

 

[Helvellyn]

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.

If it goes to Court, then a fine would still come with a conviction for Fare Evasion if found guilty. TOCs have a very high success rate in Court, as they tend not to take cases to Court they don't believe they can win.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if the prosecution is put forward under Section 5 (3) (a) of the Regulation of Railways Act, then the TOC has to prove intent. No ticket, no money, tailgating to exit the station... not that I wish to prejudge!

 

[djw1981]

On the Tyne & Wear Metro those name and shame boards are like a wall of fame

I know a couple of people who appeared on those boards,k and due to the street name after the person's name, their boss saw this, and sacked them for bringing the company into disrepute and professional misconduct - HMRC don't like employing thieves.

 

[jon0844]

Thieving sounds like a plus point for working in revenue & customs. Sure these people weren't promoted?

 

[djw1981]

You appear to confuse HMRC with HM Constabulary!