Threw away York to Garforth ticket - help!!

[Flamingo]

Okay, then, points taken, but final question: why could they not have warned passengers on the train that ticket checks were in operation?

We occasionally get a pager message to this effect...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Am I required, then, to retain my tickets after they have been inspected when I'm disembarking at a train station with no barriers? (If I am by law, of course, that's fair enough).
But if that is the case, and I am indeed required by law to retain my ticket until I have fully exited the station, why is there no warning to people to retain their tickets and not throw them in the bin placed conveniently by train doors? Surely, it would at least be fair to warn people so that they do not fall into the same situation into which I have fallen ?

Yes, a passenger is expected to retain their tickets for inspection at any time while on railway property - even if they have already been inspected more than once. In fact there is a Byelaw which defines this requirement quite succinctly : "Railway Byelaw 18 (2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person."

. . . . . if the rail company was motivated by a love of "seeing justice done" rather than profit, surely they would never settle out-of-court? I never even knew that, in criminal cases, two parties could settle a matter out of court; I speak as an historian of 18th, 19th, and 20th century crime and legal history, so I'd like to think I have some grasp of the matter; in fact, I'm trying to think of a time when people involved in criminal disputes have ever settled out of court.

Of course the vast majority of Crimes are prosecuted by the state in the form of the Police, CPS, DPP, NCA etc. But these agencies do have a framework for Out-of-Court disposals, including "Youth Caution", "Community Resolution", a "P.N.D." and others.

There is a very small subset of Criminal Prosecutions which are those brought forward by private individuals, Companies or Agencies. These bring with them their own range of options for an Out-of-Court disposal. (The Railway Regulations in the 19th c. followed from the realisation that the cost of detective work in bringing Criminal proceedings for Larceny was out of all proportion to the cost of the unpaid fares, and with little incentive for the Companies to pursue evasion. The options to assess the prospects of a criminal prosecution available to a private prosecutor will lead to different conclusions from those of a public prosecutor.).

These individuals, Companies or Agencies are quite entitled to take what action they deem most appropriate having regard to the full range of circumstances. An Environment Agency investigation mighjt consider that a custodial sentence imposed by a Court would be appropriate in one case, and the H&S Exec might consider that a warning, prohibition and the imposition of conditions might be appropriate in another. You, as an individual, are quite entitled to bring a Criminal prosecution against another party, say for the tort of Nuisance, Trespass or a ECHR Rights violation, and somewhere along the line you would be entitled to abandon the proceedings and to accept a settlement.

The same framework applies to Railway Companies.

As a researcher into crime in the UK over the last two hundred years, you may have found that the internet has not be a very helpful source of information. Many of the more relevant cases will only be available in hard copy in the form of Law Reports, many of which are only available in their original hard copy.

Hope this helps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you have access to it, I suggest that you might find it helpful to read the judgement in Hanks v Bridgman 1896 1 QB 253.