The effect of split ticketing on detecting short faring

[Llanigraham]

Pardon my simplistic question, but don't the laws relating to railway ticketing say that you have to show your ticket if requested by an authorised member of staff?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I said I’d just arrived on the train from Waterloo. He then asked to see my ticket from Waterloo, and given his previous comment I said no I wouldn’t show it do him.

If on arrival at at Portsmouth Harbour you admitted boarding the train at Waterloo, you're obliged to produce a valid ticket or tickets for that journey, or pay the fare (from Waterloo), or give your name and address. If you did none of those things, you're not totally innocent. You're liable to be prosecuted under 5(1) of RoRA.

 

[John R]

If on arrival at at Portsmouth Harbour you admitted boarding the train at Waterloo, you're obliged to produce a valid ticket or tickets for that journey, or pay the fare (from Waterloo), or give your name and address. If you did none of those things, you're not totally innocent. You're liable to be prosecuted under 5(1) of RoRA.

For info, the relevant section is as follows.

Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 2 on the standard scale].

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [F2or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company F3... may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

So the member of staff was perfectly within his rights to ask for the tickets for the full journey, and given the propensity of passengers to use tickets from Portsmouth & Southsea for short faring then not only was he within his rights but it was a totally reasonable request.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be fairly easy to tell most people who had made a genuine journey from Southsea to Harbour, as they would either have purchased a paper ticket at Southsea (you can see the location code in the ticket number if I recall) or would have scanned an e-ticket in there having purchased it very close to the time of travel. Only a small number of people would have purchased such a ticket elsewhere, though to be fair there may be unscanned e-tickets if the gates were open.

Only if neither of those were the case would there be a need to delve into what happened, i.e. that it was a split and the other part of the split could be shown.

 

[allotments]

a computer system is designed to record and store specific data based on particular inputs and events and, when working correctly, will only contain that data if the events and inputs took place

Only this week I found an example of an Avanti West Coast delay repay computer system displaying different ticket data that I had not submitted (appearing as if I had submitted it) and associating this with my delay repay claim, simultaneously not displaying one of my submitted tickets.

It's quite disturbing to see that customer submitted data is effectively being modified by the software and then the modified version used to process the claim.

 

[robbeech]

but if you just did a simple database query you'd be wasting time sending threatening letters to people with perfectly valid tickets.

Respectfully I disagree. We have see. Numerous cases of this where database queries have thrown up ‘suspicious’ results which have turned out to be genuine. Of course most are suspicious so the operators find this an efficient method.

However…

find it quite troubling that TOCs are increasingly resorting to searching databases and extracting records which purport to show fares evasion and, with nothing else, are presenting it as evidence of criminal acts.

It is troubling, but this is how they operate. It’s an efficient way to catch fare evaders and sadly a few innocent people (a very small percentage ok sure) getting caught up in it is not something the railway concerns itself over, rightly or wrongly. Infact if it can bully a few genuine passsngerd into paying back a few hundred quid in delay repay claims in the process then it’s a tidy bonus.

their approach will lead to miscarriages of justice.

Perhaps, but if nobody knows it’s a miscarriage of justice …….

So if a policeman sees you leaving Tesco with a bottle of gin under your arm and asks if you’ve stolen it, you’d choose not to show him your receipt and challenge him to prove you’ve stolen it?

Surely cooperating and dealing with the situation quickly and calmly is better for everyone?

Absolutely. I see little point not cooperating when the attitude test is passed. In this situation if I had a receipt I’d be more than happy to show it. If however I had chosen to not accept a receipt (as is recommended for environmental purposes) then I would expect to be taken on my polite word and would stand my ground.

In a rail ticketing scenario, show a ticket if you have it, but if you’ve lost it at a gateline and can’t readily provide a receipt or some clear evidence such as a return portion then it’s a bit of tough luck for the railway.

Only this week I found an example of an Avanti West Coast delay repay computer system displaying different ticket data that I had not submitted (appearing as if I had submitted it) and associating this with my delay repay claim, simultaneously not displaying one of my submitted tickets.

I don’t necessarily feel this is exactly the same thing. This sounds like a typical GCSE IT project delay repay incompetence issue, some of the things spoken about here are somewhat more direct. I agree with your point that it’s problematic though.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Perhaps, but if nobody knows it’s a miscarriage of justice …….

If innocents are caught up in the trawl, those who've done nothing wrong, but coughed-up the settlement when threatened with prosecution, or were prosecuted and convicted, will know it's a miscarriage of justice. They will have a burning sense of grievance and many will share it. If it goes on long enough, inevitably a sufficiently large group will form and I think we know how that would proceed.

If TOCs really are looking at PO Horizon as a 'How To' guide, but guess it will somehow work out differently for them, they are wishful thinking.

 

[sheff1]

I see no reason why, having made a journey, one shouldn't be asked at its end to show tickets for all of it.

I can immediately think of one very good reason - one or more tickets may have been retained by 'the railway' when someone travelling on split tickets went through the barrier between trains at a split point.

For info, the relevant section is as follows
Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 2 on the standard scale].

So from now on I (and others) must refuse to put a ticket in the gate for the leg of the journey now complete as I may be obliged to show it on the next leg of the journey and/or at the end point. Will be interesting to see what the unhelpful barrier staff at places like Leeds/Manchester Piccadilly make of that when I pop out between trains to grab a snack from Greggs.
"I need to retain this ticket because I am travelling on to xxxx" (where the ticket I want to retain has been fully used already and is not valid to xxxx)

 

[robbeech]

those who've done nothing wrong, but coughed-up the settlement when threatened with prosecution, or were prosecuted and convicted, will know it's a miscarriage of justice.

Not always. We see lots of passengers who just accept what they’re told on the railway as gospel as it’s simply far too complicated. This could be something like getting a penalty fare for no ticket when there are no facilities (working or otherwise) at your origin. Being sold a more expensive ticket at a ticket at a ticket office or TVM and accepting that’s just how it is. Being denied travel on a later services during disruption, particularly with split tickets and just accepting these MUST be the rules because that what the railway tells them. The general public have absolutely zero clue about 99% of the rules and the railway benefits from that daily so sees no incentive to make it clearer.

 

[John R]

I can immediately think of one very good reason - one or more tickets may have been retained by 'the railway' when someone travelling on split tickets went through the barrier between trains at a split point.

Except if you have gone through a barrier on a split ticket and then re-entered you have not made one journey but two. So it’s not relevant to the case cited where someone travelled direct from Waterloo on one service.

 

[sheff1]

Except if you have gone through a barrier on a split ticket and then re-entered you have not made one journey but two. So it’s not relevant to the case cited where someone travelled direct from Waterloo on one service.

No I have made one journey in accordance with NRCoT which explicitly states one may use a combination of tickets to make a journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can immediately think of one very good reason - one or more tickets may have been retained by 'the railway' when someone travelling on split tickets went through the barrier between trains at a split point.

Then you would tell them that honestly if they asked, not come up with some snarky comment about them having no right to check.

Stopping fare evasion is in all our interests. Who do you think pays for it?

 

[gnolife]

Except if you have gone through a barrier on a split ticket and then re-entered you have not made one journey but two. So it’s not relevant to the case cited where someone travelled direct from Waterloo on one service.

So, to give an example, I often travel on itineraries like
10:10 Johnstone - Glasgow Central
10:38 Glasgow Central - Oxenholme

It is significantly cheaper to split the ticketing at Glasgow, which is fully barriered for ScotRail services.

Are you seriously telling me that you believe this to be two journeys?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

So from now on I (and others) must refuse to put a ticket in the gate for the leg of the journey now complete as I may be obliged to show it on the next leg of the journey and/or at the end point.

I don't think you need to retain all the split tickets you use for the entirety of a split ticketed journey. What is required is that you have a valid ticket (or tickets) for any train you travel on and must produce it (or them) when asked.

The example was of a passenger travelling on a train from Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour, with tickets split at Portsmouth and Southsea. Up to and including Southsea he's required to show only the Waterloo to Ryde ticket. If he remains on the same train beyond Southsea he's required to show both tickets until he exits the barrier at Harbour, or boards another train. If he'd alighted at Southsea and exited there - perhaps to visit Greggs - then travelled to Harbour on a later train, when asked at Harbour where he'd come from he would say Southsea and be required to show his Southsea to Harbour ticket.

If he'd simply changed trains at Southsea, rather than exiting and re-entering the station, I think that remains the case. BUT... exiting at Harbour with a ticket from Southsea which has not been checked at the barrier at Southsea, will raise suspicions of doughnutting. Being able to show the Waterloo to Ryde ticket would be the easiest way of allaying those suspicions, so it's probably in the passenger's best interests to do so, rather than a strict requirement.

 

[miklcct]

I don't think you need to retain all the split tickets you use for the entirety of a split ticketed journey. What is required is that you have a valid ticket (or tickets) for any train you travel on and must produce it (or them) when asked.

The example was of a passenger travelling on a train from Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour, with tickets split at Portsmouth and Southsea. Up to and including Southsea he's required to show only the Waterloo to Ryde ticket. If he remains on the same train beyond Southsea he's required to show both tickets until he exits the barrier at Harbour, or boards another train. If he'd alighted at Southsea and exited there - perhaps to visit Greggs - then travelled to Harbour on a later train, when asked at Harbour where he'd come from he would say Southsea and be required to show his Southsea to Harbour ticket.

If he'd simply changed trains at Southsea, rather than exiting and re-entering the station, I think that remains the case. BUT... exiting at Harbour with a ticket from Southsea which has not been checked at the barrier at Southsea, will raise suspicions of doughnutting. Being able to show the Waterloo to Ryde ticket would be the easiest way of allaying those suspicions, so it's probably in the passenger's best interests to do so, rather than a strict requirement.

So what is the definition of a "journey" here? If one gets off the train at Portsmouth & Southsea and gets on another train to Portsmouth Harbour, does the person take one or two journeys?

 

[Pushpit]

The general public have absolutely zero clue about 99% of the rules and the railway benefits from that daily so sees no incentive to make it clearer.

If TOCs really are looking at PO Horizon as a 'How To' guide, but guess it will somehow work out differently for them, they are wishful thinking.

And if the TOCs want a crash course in this, have a look at this particular witness to the Horizon inquiry - and any TOC solicitor or paralegal should appreciate it could be them next:

More Singh’d against than Singh-ing

There has been some rank incompetence on display from various Post Office witnesses over the course of this inquiry, but I think we’ll have to go some way to find a worse performance than thi…

www.postofficescandal.uk

This is my big concern here, in terms of this thread and in terms of at least some of the cases raised here. The courts exist not to prosecute thieves, but to establish justice. If the TOCs assume that everyone they are dealing with is a thief, well mostly they are probably correct, but we can see here and elsewhere in the forum that there are cases where innocent mistakes are seen as a cash cow for the TOCs. Just as the Proceeds of Crime legislation was used to bankrupt innocent sub-postmaster for mistakes they did not make. Add in the sheer complexity of rail fares and the enforcement process then there is a genuine risk of mass miscarriage of justice. All because it suits the TOC to use prosecution powers under the Crown, rather than invest in the equipment, processes and staff to ensure correct ticketing at the point of travel.

 

[island]

Firstly, those bringing private prosecutions have a duty to conduct investigations impartially and follow all reasonable lines of inquiry including looking for evidence which tends to disprove the criminal acts took place or that the suspect was responsible

Source please.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

section 2.5.

The code for Crown Prosecutors does not apply to private prosecutors.

 

[Pushpit]

The code for Crown Prosecutors does not apply to private prosecutors.

Oh yes it does. If you prosecute privately, as the TOCs do, you become the Crown. So cases come before the court as Rex versus Smith. Smith is the passenger, Rex is His Majesty, represented here by the TOCs as the prosecuting lawyer. Have a look at the Horizon inquiry to understand this fully. In that instance the Post Office Limited prosecuted innocent people without regard to two key principles in that Code: the evidential test and the public interest test. In the inquiry, for PO and external solicitors, Counsel, and PO lawyers, they are all being repeatedly asked "if you knew the Code applied to you, why did you not apply it?". This gets the witness stuck since if they say "I didn't know the code applied" then they know they would be dis-barred pretty quickly.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh yes it does. If you prosecute privately, as the TOCs do, you become the Crown. So cases come before the court as Rex versus Smith. Smith is the passenger, Rex is His Majesty, represented here by the TOCs as the prosecuting lawyer.

I don't wish to sound sceptical, but are you sure anyone - even me - who brings a private prosecution, becomes a Crown prosecutor?

 

[Pushpit]

I don't wish to sound sceptical, but are you sure anyone - even me - who brings a private prosecution, becomes a Crown prosecutor?

If you were to take someone to court, it would usually be a civil or family court issue, and thus the case would end up as AlterEgo versus Smith, you would not be the Crown, and that explains 99% of private law cases here. If your ran AlterEgo Emporium and were recovering losses from a shoplifter, this is the more plausible course of action, civil rather than criminal law. And incidentally, this is why I think TOCs should be confined to the civil court process, and both you and TOCs can be as biased as you like towards Mr or Ms. Smith.

But as the Code makes clear in 1.3, it does apply to all crimiinal prosecutions, partly in law, partly by convention:

1.3 The Code gives guidance to prosecutors on the general principles to be applied when making decisions about prosecutions. The Code is issued primarily for prosecutors in the CPS but other prosecutors follow the Code, either through convention or because they are required to do so by law.

This has become a hot topic thanks to the Horizon issue. But the bottom line for the TOCs is that prosecutions must be impartial and must be based on public interest. I can't see the public interest in giving a 19 year old a criminal record for the £6 mistake of jumping on a LNER train with a Northern Advance ticket after Northern cancelled the service.

 

[island]

Oh yes it does. If you prosecute privately, as the TOCs do, you become the Crown.

This is nonsense with no basis in law.

Welcome to the forum, though. Interesting that you've started here as your first place to post.

 

[pedr]

I haven't been able to work out why, but the Code for Crown Prosecutors appears to have been applicable to Post Office/Horizon cases, although apparently not followed at all closely enough. This may be due to the previous status of Royal Mail and the Post Office as public bodies, initially as services provided by a central government department. Considering whether government-owned TOCs ought to be following it may be interesting!

In general, private prosecutors are not required to follow the Code (and private prosecutions are titled 'Prosecutor v Defendant' rather than R v Defendant.

 

[Llanigraham]

Oh yes it does. If you prosecute privately, as the TOCs do, you become the Crown. So cases come before the court as Rex versus Smith. Smith is the passenger, Rex is His Majesty, represented here by the TOCs as the prosecuting lawyer. Have a look at the Horizon inquiry to understand this fully. In that instance the Post Office Limited prosecuted innocent people without regard to two key principles in that Code: the evidential test and the public interest test. In the inquiry, for PO and external solicitors, Counsel, and PO lawyers, they are all being repeatedly asked "if you knew the Code applied to you, why did you not apply it?". This gets the witness stuck since if they say "I didn't know the code applied" then they know they would be dis-barred pretty quickly.

When I took prosecutions for a Government Dept the cases were listed as "Govt Dept v persons name". There was no mention of the Crown and the CPS were not involved in any way.

 

[sheff1]

I don't think you need to retain all the split tickets you use for the entirety of a split ticketed journey. What is required is that you have a valid ticket (or tickets) for any train you travel on and must produce it (or them) when asked.

That was my understanding until I saw the post to which I replied which suggested otherwise. Although as that was subsequently followed up by the clearly false assertion that going through a barrier means you have made two journeys not one I am now minded to disregard the first post.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I haven't been able to work out why, but the Code for Crown Prosecutors appears to have been applicable to Post Office/Horizon cases, although apparently not followed at all closely enough. This may be due to the previous status of Royal Mail and the Post Office as public bodies, initially as services provided by a central government department. Considering whether government-owned TOCs ought to be following it may be interesting!

If you've been following the Horizon debacle, there's a lot been written which appears to be misleading or contradictory about the status of the Post Office as a prosecutor. Some lawyers saying the PO, as a consequence of its history, has acquired a unique position, others that it has a particular or recognised status as a prosecution authority. My understanding is formed from an exchange made in Parliament about the PO, after the Bates v Post Office Judgement was handed down.

The Minister says the PO's powers to bring a private prosecution are not specific to the PO. It has the same right as any other individual or a company, to bring a private prosecution. If that's the case and as, in the opinion of the Horizon Inquiry at least, the PO is obliged to follow the code when undertaking investigations and prosecutions, I can only imagine the same applies to every private prosecutor, including TOCs.

As to why the Code for Crown Prosecutors is applicable to a private prosecutor, the answer may possibly be found in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. This Act has repeatedly been referred to during phase 4 of the Horizon Inquiry. Generally abbreviated to CPI.

 

[Krokodil]

was like red rag to a bull as far as I was concerned

Do you enjoy wasting everyone's time, including your own?

Because in English law its the authorities job to find evidence to accuse someone. Not to expect someone against have have no evidence of wrong doing to prove their innocence. I think if an offence had been committed, then any criminal court case could run into difficulty because PACE (Police and criminal Evidence Ace) procedures had not been followed.
Police are not allowed to go 'fishing' with someone interviewed under caution.

The barrier staff had a reasonable suspicion that the poster had not come from P&S. The evidence was a ticket that had not gone through the barriers there.

 

[Haywain]

I can only imagine the same applies to every private prosecutor, including TOCs.

So having stated this as fact, it is actually just your imagination?

 

[daodao]

Is not the solution to this problem to make it illegal to use split tickets for a single journey on the same train, as distinct from a journey where one makes a change of train, as in Ireland? The Irish Railways "Conditions of Carrriage" states:

11. Re-booking at intermediate stations
11.1 Except where specially authorised, passengers are not permitted to re-book at an intermediate station for the purpose of continuing their journey by the same train. Two or more tickets covering different portions of one journey are not available unless the fares paid for such tickets are equivalent in amount to the price of a single journey ticket between the same points. Any passenger using two or more tickets covering different portions of one journey will be liable to pay the full ordinary single fare for the journey made and he or she may be liable to prosecution.

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/IrishRail/media/Imported/conditionsoftravel1.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

Is not the solution to this problem to make it illegal to use split tickets for a single journey on the same train, as distinct from a journey where one makes a change of train, as in Ireland? The Irish Railways "Conditions of Carrriage" states:

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/IrishRail/media/Imported/conditionsoftravel1.pdf

Yes, if you're happy to screw over passengers even more than now.

 

[tspaul26]

The code for Crown Prosecutors does not apply to private prosecutors.

Not directly, but see below.

Oh yes it does. If you prosecute privately, as the TOCs do, you become the Crown.

Incorrect.

I don't wish to sound sceptical, but are you sure anyone - even me - who brings a private prosecution, becomes a Crown prosecutor?

You are right to be sceptical. “Crown Prosecutor” is a specific legal concept under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

And incidentally, this is why I think TOCs should be confined to the civil court process, and both you and TOCs can be as biased as you like towards Mr or Ms. Smith.

This would not materially change things (see below).

But as the Code makes clear in 1.3, it does apply to all crimiinal prosecutions, partly in law, partly by convention:

Convention is not legally binding.

This has become a hot topic thanks to the Horizon issue. But the bottom line for the TOCs is that prosecutions must be impartial and must be based on public interest. I can't see the public interest in giving a 19 year old a criminal record for the £6 mistake of jumping on a LNER train with a Northern Advance ticket after Northern cancelled the service.

The public interest is in discouraging ticketless travel.

This is nonsense with no basis in law.

Correct

In general, private prosecutors are not required to follow the Code (and private prosecutions are titled 'Prosecutor v Defendant' rather than R v Defendant.

Correct, although sometimes you see “R v Accused at the instance of Prosecutor”. That’s a tad old fashioned though.

The Minister says the PO's powers to bring a private prosecution are not specific to the PO. It has the same right as any other individual or a company, to bring a private prosecution. If that's the case and as, in the opinion of the Horizon Inquiry at least, the PO is obliged to follow the code when undertaking investigations and prosecutions, I can only imagine the same applies to every private prosecutor, including TOCs.

The Post Office is in the same position as any other private prosecutor, but is not obliged to follow the Code.

The point that everyone seems to be missing is that the Post Office was legally represented. This means that its lawyers were under professional obligations to adhere to the Code or explain why they were not doing so. A private prosecutor who is not legally qualified would not be under such obligations, but there are (in theory) other procedures in place to deal with such people.

This is partly why the lawyers have been squirming so much, on top of the more general failings in disclosure and the lack of candour with the court which have been suspected for some time and are now coming to light.

As to why the Code for Crown Prosecutors is applicable to a private prosecutor, the answer may possibly be found in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. This Act has repeatedly been referred to during phase 4 of the Horizon Inquiry. Generally abbreviated to CPI.

The 1996 Act is irrelevant. The Code is promulgated under the 1985 Act and applies directly only to designated Crown Prosecutors.