Successful prosecution after penalty fare?

[glasgowniteowl]

With a few new threads from as a result from investigations by digital fraud teams, I was wondering if anyone has seen any example of a successful prosecution for historic evasion found by trawling ticket retailers ie trainline after a passenger has paid a penalty fare?

I would have thought at least one would have appeared by now, however I have only seen threats of prosecution and people paying out of court settlements as a result, but has anyone any references for one which has actually gone to court

 

[30907]

With a few new threads from as a result from investigations by digital fraud teams, I was wondering if anyone has seen any example of a successful prosecution for historic evasion found by trawling ticket retailers ie trainline after a passenger has paid a penalty fare?

I would have thought at least one would have appeared by now, however I have only seen threats of prosecution and people paying out of court settlements as a result, but has anyone any references for one which has actually gone to court

I think it will be sometime before we get a feel for this. I don't recall many cases before this year.

 

[Hadders]

Almost everyone who comes here for advice wants the matter to go away (for a multitude of different reasons) and the best way of achieving that is to co-operate and pay up.

I'm sure there are people who will fight it, and I'd be very interested to hear of any cases.

 

[Haywain]

I would have thought at least one would have appeared by now, however I have only seen threats of prosecution and people paying out of court settlements as a result, but has anyone any references for one which has actually gone to court

It could take a long time to actually get a case before the courts, there are currently backlogs of as much as a couple of years in the court system.

 

[guilbert]

It could take a long time to actually get a case before the courts, there are currently backlogs of as much as a couple of years in the court system.

For jury trials in the Crown Court, yes but I don't believe the wait for summary cases is anything like that long.

 

[Haywain]

For jury trials in the Crown Court, yes but I don't believe the wait for summary cases is anything like that long.

Is fraud a summary case?

 

[jumble]

With a few new threads from as a result from investigations by digital fraud teams, I was wondering if anyone has seen any example of a successful prosecution for historic evasion found by trawling ticket retailers ie trainline after a passenger has paid a penalty fare?

I would have thought at least one would have appeared by now, however I have only seen threats of prosecution and people paying out of court settlements as a result, but has anyone any references for one which has actually gone to court

I would be quite interested in understanding if any forum member is aware in practice of anyone having a fully paid up penalty fare cancelled and the person being prosecuted
( I am aware that this is theoretically possible but back in the real world)

 

[ainsworth74]

Is fraud a summary case?

I'm fairly sure it's an either-way so it's heard either in the magistrates or if serious enough (or the defendant opts for it) gets kicked upstairs to the crown court. So the single justice summary procedure is unavailable, though it may avoid the delays of the crown court at least.

 

[Haywain]

I'm fairly sure it's an either-way so it's heard either in the magistrates or if serious enough (or the defendant opts for it) gets kicked upstairs to the crown court. So the single justice summary procedure is unavailable, though it may avoid the delays of the crown court at least.

The delays do exist in the magistrates court though - we have seen recently a case of a simple statutory declaration case having to wait several months, and with a fraud charge there is no pressure on a prosecutor to even bring charges, as there is no time limit.

 

[ainsworth74]

The delays do exist in the magistrates court though - we have seen recently a case of a simple statutory declaration case having to wait several months, and with a fraud charge there is no pressure on a prosecutor to even bring charges, as there is no time limit.

Yes sorry I missed some words there! I was trying to say "avoid the extreme delays of the crown court" rather than suggesting there were no delays in the magistrates!

 

[Greyman1]

If you haven't been spoken to under caution there will be no case.
Also, Regulations of Railways Act is summary only and therefore has a 6 month limit to it for prosecutions, meaning anything more than 6 months ago can't be brought into play.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you haven't been spoken to under caution there will be no case.

That's not true. Cases can and have been brought where there hasn't been an interview under caution.

 

[Greyman1]

That's not true. Cases can and have been brought where there hasn't been an interview under caution.

Can I ask where this information is from?

 

[AlterEgo]

Can I ask where this information is from?

We see it on the forum all the time. Cases are routinely brought without any interview under caution, often merely from withdrawing the ticket, or even after refusal or failure to pay or appeal a Penalty Fare or UFN. An interview under caution is good evidence but it is completely wrong to say it is absolutely necessary to bring a case.

 

[Greyman1]

We see it on the forum all the time. Cases are routinely brought without any interview under caution, often merely from withdrawing the ticket, or even after refusal or failure to pay or appeal a Penalty Fare or UFN. An interview under caution is good evidence but it is completely wrong to say it is absolutely necessary to bring a case.

To clarify. Court case or out of court settlement? I have never seen this personally having worked in the industry for a long time. I would be curious to see some details of an actual case on this.

 

[AlterEgo]

To clarify. Court case or out of court settlement? I have never seen this personally having worked in the industry for a long time. I would be curious to see some details of an actual case on this.

Just one example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/statutory-declaration-northern-rail.265435/#post-6711200 - the passenger simply had their ticket withdrawn, no interview conducted.

An interview under caution is certainly not necessary to bring a prosecution. There are loads of examples in this area of the forum; it’s very common for guards to withdraw a ticket, and since they aren’t PACE trained, no interview happens. Yet the train companies can still bring a case.

 

[Haywain]

If you haven't been spoken to under caution there will be no case.

As others have pointed out, this is nonsense. For a strict liability offence nothing more than evidence of the offence is required (see also: speeding, drink driving etc).

 

[dosxuk]

I would have thought at least one would have appeared by now, however I have only seen threats of prosecution and people paying out of court settlements as a result, but has anyone any references for one which has actually gone to court

It does seem that the majority of cases posted about on this site are from people going "I've had this letter, I've not done anything wrong, but how do I get an out-of-court settlement rather than a conviction". To me that would suggest that the railway is actually being pretty good at detecting these issues, rather than just being a "fishing expedition" that members here like to call them.

Regulations of Railways Act is summary only and therefore has a 6 month limit to it for prosecutions, meaning anything more than 6 months ago can't be brought into play.

While this is true, evidence of multiple ticketing irregularities could give rise to a fraud charge, which has a limit of six years from when it was detected. It's not as simple as "it was more than 6 months ago, nothing the TOC's can do now". However, with it being both a lot more difficult for the rail authorities to get a fraud charge to stick and the consequences to offenders of a fraud conviction, both parties are going to be a lot more hopeful of settling it out of court than taking it to trial - this is going to seriously limit the number of cases which do end up being tried in court where we might actually see some of this tested.

 

[Watershed]

which has a limit of six years from when it was detected

6 years is the default statute of limitations for civil claims. For offences that are 'triable either way' or 'indictable' the default position ts that there is no time limit at all in the English and Welsh legal system.

 

[island]

6 years is the default statute of limitations for civil claims. For offences that are 'triable either way' or 'indictable' the default position ts that there is no time limit at all in the English and Welsh legal system.

Indeed.

Fraud cases brought by the train companies are incredibly rare.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It does seem that the majority of cases posted about on this site are from people going "I've had this letter, I've not done anything wrong, it’s true that I fare dodged but how do I get an out-of-court settlement rather than a conviction".

I,m not sure if this is a typo, but my perception is more like the above.