The effect of split ticketing on detecting short faring

[pedr]

A very quick search of the Horizon inquiry records led to a lawyer witness who testified that he didn’t follow the Code when he worked for a firm which did occasional private prosecutions on some matters relating to dogs, but once employed by the Post Office he did apply the Code to the cases he was considering prosecuting on their behalf.

In most railway cases, of course, applying the Code is irrelevant. There is a general public interest in prosecuting those guilty of crimes. Disputes over whether something should be a crime or not are seldom relevant so there’s rarely a public interest issue (in the sense meant in the Code) in deciding to prosecute someone who is undoubtedly guilty of a Bylaw offence. The issue in the Post Office is the wilful (institutional) ignoring of evidence which would undermine the prosecution and which, if disclosed, would make the likelihood of conviction much less.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

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.

Thanks, that's helpful.

Is it also the case that the 1996 Act only applies to lawyers representing a private prosecutor?

 

[L401CJF]

In fact, come to think of it, I recently held a ticket to Ryde via Hovertravel, which is valid via Portsmouth and Southsea. As I had time to spare in Portsmouth, I decided while travelling to continue on the train to Portsmouth Harbour. I therefore bought (online) a single from Portsmouth and Southsea to Portsmouth Harbour to cover the short stretch where my original ticket wasn’t valid (I’ve had the discussion with staff and ticket offices and the consensus is “via Hovertravel “tickets aren’t technically valid at Harbour even though in most cases the discrepancy will be overlooked). Anyway, on alighting at Harbour my ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was rejected by the barrier. The staff member asked me where I’d come from, immediately citing the short distance ticket I held as often used by fare cheats to get through the barrier at Harbour after travelling ticketless from further afield. That he mentioned fare evasion in his first few words was like red rag to a bull as far as I was concerned, knowing I was totally innocent - had he been more conciliatory in bios opening remark things would have been very different on my part. So 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. He then said again that I may be trying to avoid the fare. I told him that if he believed this it was for him to prove me doing wrong, not me to prove I’m in the right - and that he needed to prove I was on the train before Portsmouth and Southsea before insisting on seeing a ticket for that part of the journey. I reminded him that the ticket from Portsmouth and Southsea was perfectly valid at Portsmouth Harbour and I had no obligation to retain the ticket for any other part of my journey once it had been completed. He then gave up and let me through the barrier. Had he insisted I was trying to evade the fare I’d have told him to call BTP and then embarrassed him by showing the other ticket. I can see how the ticket I held might have suggested doughnutting but its up to the railway to prove a customer’s malfeasance, not to make unfounded accusation and then expect the customer to prove their innocence.

To be fair I've done similar onboard, if I'm doing a ticket check from a barriered station and I know they're in use, then somebody asks to buy a ticket from said station I'll ask how they got in. If they then say they've come off another train I'll ask to see the ticket for that service. Those who genuinely have one are happy to show it and I'm polite about it and explain my reasons - usually that we get a lot of people trying it on and that means people like them end up paying for it through increased fares etc. Never had an issue with a genuine traveller but then again I dont open the conversation with an accusation!

It is worth me doing though, I've left Chester before and done above, and sold tickets to people who attempted to buy a ticket off me from Chester who after some quizing had actually come from Alsager, Hartford, Hereford, Liverpool, Warrington..

I think attitude plays a big part in it though, if you're outright accusing of fare evasion in the opening sentence then I can understand why you'd get your back up - it's happened to me before as a passenger too under different circumstances and is very frustrating.

 

[Pushpit]

A very quick search of the Horizon inquiry records led to a lawyer witness who testified that he didn’t follow the Code when he worked for a firm which did occasional private prosecutions on some matters relating to dogs, but once employed by the Post Office he did apply the Code to the cases he was considering prosecuting on their behalf.

In most railway cases, of course, applying the Code is irrelevant. There is a general public interest in prosecuting those guilty of crimes. Disputes over whether something should be a crime or not are seldom relevant so there’s rarely a public interest issue (in the sense meant in the Code) in deciding to prosecute someone who is undoubtedly guilty of a Bylaw offence. The issue in the Post Office is the wilful (institutional) ignoring of evidence which would undermine the prosecution and which, if disclosed, would make the likelihood of conviction much less.

I think it was a "she" not a "he" actually. She did give examples of where she did use the Public Interest on Horizon, for example where the suspect was elderly (some were in their 80s) and the sums were small (under £5,000). It may have been an "or" rather than an "and" but that detail wasn't explored.

But for the second paragraph, that's going a bit further than I would go, though the Post Office was indeed reckless here. I think Sir Wyn William's report on the Inquiry, over a year away, will probably tighten the rules and guidance in this space, in favour of more candour and balance in non CPS prosecutions. But the underlying point here is that if TOCs are relying on the total accuracy of computer based records, this will be dangerous if anyone with IT knowledge stands up and says "actually that area is riddled with bugs".

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Legal precedent I believe prevents them from doing this - BR tried and lost in Court.

Obviously that precedent does not exist in the entirely separate country of Ireland.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Legal precedent I believe prevents them from doing this - BR tried and lost in Court.

Although that wouldn't prevent the law being changed, which can overturn precedent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although that wouldn't prevent the law being changed, which can overturn precedent.

Indeed, but the railway can't do that on its own (it would not be as simple as changing a Byelaw), and the Government would be unlikely to agree to do that.

 

[tspaul26]

Is it also the case that the 1996 Act only applies to lawyers representing a private prosecutor?

The 1996 Act applies to all prosecutors.

 

[sheff1]

To be fair I've done similar onboard, if I'm doing a ticket check from a barriered station and I know they're in use, then somebody asks to buy a ticket from said station I'll ask how they got in. If they then say they've come off another train I'll ask to see the ticket for that service. Those who genuinely have one are happy to show it and I'm polite about it and explain my reasons - usually that we get a lot of people trying it on and that means people like them end up paying for it through increased fares etc. Never had an issue with a genuine traveller but then again I dont open the conversation with an accusation!

It is worth me doing though, I've left Chester before and done above, and sold tickets to people who attempted to buy a ticket off me from Chester who after some quizing had actually come from Alsager, Hartford, Hereford, Liverpool, Warrington..

I think attitude plays a big part in it though, if you're outright accusing of fare evasion in the opening sentence then I can understand why you'd get your back up - it's happened to me before as a passenger too under different circumstances and is very frustrating.

Excellent summary. If someone opens the conversation with a reasonsble request / explanation, fine. If. as has happened on far too many occasions, the opening gambit is an accusation of criminality my response is likely to be far less amenable.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The 1996 Act applies to all prosecutors.

Thanks again.

The comments I made in #13, followed from that understanding, rather than that the Code for Crown Prosecutors applies directly.

 

[Cowley]

Ok. It’s been an interesting thread, although I think we can probably leave the Post Office side of the discussion now that it’s been clarified.

Carry on!

 

[Hadders]

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:

How are you gouing to enforce it? How to Irish Rail enforce it? (I suspect they don't).

Furthermore the fact that we now have Train Operators offering split tickets on their own websites (LNER) as well as Trainline means split tickets are here to stay, it's no longer a niche product.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Even if enforceable it would be a sledgehammer solution to the stated problem, which concerns use of split tickets where one is a e-ticket and evidence of it not having been scanned at a gateline raises suspicions of short faring. If those suspicions arise during ticket checks on train or at a gateline while the ticket is being used, they should be allayed by the passenger simply presenting whichever other tickets are held.

If there is a potential problem, it's where ticket checks are made some days or weeks after a passenger is required to present a valid ticket or tickets, by searching databases. From the results, a TOC may suspect the absence of a scan shows a ticket was used for short faring or doughnutting. Further database searches may identify the purchaser of the ticket. How does that person respond to an accusation that they have travelled on the railway without paying their fare? They may be in a position to show they held other tickets at the time, but what if that's not the case?

 

[Krokodil]

If there is a potential problem, it's where ticket checks are made some days or weeks after a passenger is required to present a valid ticket or tickets, by searching databases. From the results, a TOC may suspect the absence of a scan shows a ticket was used for short faring or doughnutting. Further database searches may identify the purchaser of the ticket. How does that person respond to an accusation that they have travelled on the railway without paying their fare? They may be in a position to show they held other tickets at the time, but what if that's not the case?

In these circumstances it's better for the TOC to arrange a sting to catch them red-handed. Once they've proven that they short-fared on that occasion then they can go "and these are the other occasions where we have reason to believe that you were not in possession of a valid ticket"

 

[londonbridge]

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.

This was exactly my argument when I bought some items from a shop, started walking home and got caught short, so I went into another shop, used the customer toilet and came straight back out again. Something set the security alarms off and the guard came running out into the car park after me demanding to check my bag. I refused, saying I hadn’t bought anything, told him to check the cctv and carried on walking.

 

[island]

This was exactly my argument when I bought some items from a shop, started walking home and got caught short, so I went into another shop, used the customer toilet and came straight back out again. Something set the security alarms off and the guard came running out into the car park after me demanding to check my bag. I refused, saying I hadn’t bought anything, told him to check the cctv and carried on walking.

This runs the risk of getting oneself arrested on suspicion of theft. Setting off an inventory control alarm and refusing to interact is sufficient suspicion.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This runs the risk of getting oneself arrested on suspicion of theft. Setting off an inventory control alarm and refusing to interact is sufficient suspicion.

Only the police have the power of search (apart from a couple of exceptions that aren't relevant here)
Setting off an alarm isn't really suitable suspicion, particularly if they say they haven't done anything. Certainly I wouldn't do it, nor recommend anyone else does

 

[spag23]

Certainly I wouldn't do it, nor recommend anyone else does

Sorry, @Deafdoggie, but who is this recommendation addressed to? To the customer, walking away? Or to Security, challenging the shopper?

 

[daodao]

In these circumstances it's better for the TOC to arrange a sting to catch them red-handed. Once they've proven that they short-fared on that occasion then they can go "and these are the other occasions where we have reason to believe that you were not in possession of a valid ticket"

A reasonable approach. From time-to-time, RPIs could scan and thus validate all tickets at stations from which short-faring is known to occur frequently, with train guards instructed not to sell or scan any tickets from this station on board the trains while the sting was taking place. Passengers exiting the railway at a subsequent station, who then presented an un-scanned ticket from the selected station at the gate-line, would be unequivocally guilty of short-faring, because it could be proven (not merely suspected) that they did not board a train at this station. The ToC could then investigate other previous ticket purchases with this station as the origin.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A reasonable approach. From time-to-time, RPIs could scan and thus validate all tickets at stations from which short-faring is known to occur frequently, with train guards instructed not to sell or scan any tickets from this station on board the trains while the sting was taking place. Passengers exiting the railway at a subsequent station, who then presented an un-scanned ticket from the selected station at the gate-line, would be unequivocally guilty of short-faring, because it could be proven (not merely suspected) that they did not board a train at this station. The ToC could then investigate other previous ticket purchases with this station as the origin.

Unless they were splitting. Though in that case they could ask for the other bit of the split.