'Verification Letter' Crosscountry trains

[30907]

@furlong answered it well:

Exactly. A case of alleged gang rape was refused permission for a private prosecution a few years ago. If that fails, I don't see that a "petty" railway ticketing case makes the cut - and the TOCs recognise this, accepting that prosecution in Scotland, for offences committed there, is simply not feasible. Not to mention the fact that Scottish criminal procedure requires there to be two separate witnesses to corroborate each alleged fact.

I am aware of that. Perhaps I need to be more specific.
Are you able to point to evidence (case-law or whatever) that a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution for a journey begun in Scotland must fail in an English court?
For example, the magistrates accepting the argument that the defendant had boarded the train in Scotland but the ticket was first inspected in England?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I am aware of that. Perhaps I need to be more specific.
Are you able to point to evidence (case-law or whatever) that a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution for a journey begun in Scotland must fail in an English court?
For example, the magistrates accepting the argument that the defendant had boarded the train in Scotland but the ticket was first inspected in England?

Failing to present a ticket isn't an offence under Byelaw 18(1). It might be under Byelaw 18(2). If you require any reference as to the jurisdiction of a Court where multiple jurisdictions could be seen to be relevant, can I suggest some 'light' reading in the form of the Lord Chief Justice's judgement in R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229. To summarise, the judgement of La Forest J. in the Canadian case of Libman v. R. (1985) 21 C.C.C. (3rd) 206 was referenced (emphasis mine):

The English courts have decisively begun to move away from definitional obsessions and technical formulations aimed at finding a single situs of a crime by locating where the gist of the crime occurred or where it was completed. Rather, they now appear to seek by an examination of relevant policies to apply the English criminal law where a substantial measure of the activities constituting a crime take place in England, and restrict its application in such circumstances solely in cases where it can seriously be argued on a reasonable view that these activities should, on the basis of international comity, be dealt with by another country.

No part of boarding a train without a ticket (Byelaw 18(1)), when the train is boarded at Glasgow, takes place in England. So England bears little to no relevance to any such alleged crime.

 

[30907]

Let me try again. I was not asking about jurisdiction in general.
Can you point to a case where Magistrates or a higher Court have thrown out an 18.1 prosecution on the grounds that the offence was committed in Scotland but detected in England?
Or indeed a case where the defence was successful that the offence under 18.1 is only committed at the moment of boarding, and therefore the fact that half an hour later the defendant had no valid ticket is irrelevant?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Let me try again. I was not asking about jurisdiction in general.
Can you point to a case where Magistrates or a higher Court have thrown out an 18.1 prosecution on the grounds that the offence was committed in Scotland but detected in England?
Or indeed a case where the defence was successful that the offence under 18.1 is only committed at the moment of boarding, and therefore the fact that half an hour later the defendant had no valid ticket is irrelevant?

There is no case law on your specific questions, as far as I'm aware, because properly defended Byelaw prosecutions are by the very nature of the offence, and its level of seriousness, rare. Not to mention the fact that, being conducted almost invariably as private prosecutions, the TOCs often become shrinking violets as soon as they realise they've picked a fight with the 'wrong person' so to speak, and drop the case.

But nevertheless - in the case of the first question it appears you're asking for me to show case law that simply backs up the matter of jurisdiction, which I have already answered in depth in the previous response. What is relevant is where the criminality takes place - its discovery is a subsidiary consideration.

And in the case of the second question it appears that you're asking me to show you case law that shows that a Byelaw 18(1) offence is committed when the circumstances given by 18(1) are met. I'm not sure how you expect me to explain that any further. 18(1) is perfectly clear (unlike RoRA) and can't be interpreted any other way - "no person shall enter any train...".

If the TOC wishes to prosecute an illegitimately ticketless passenger they could, accordingly, do so under Byelaw 18(1) or under 18(2). Which specific charge they go for will probably depend on their evidence - if the defendant claims to have lost his ticket on the train, then it would be easier to go with a Byelaw 18(2) prosecution. If he doesn't allege that and instead produces a ticket, but one that isn't valid, then a charge under 18(1) would be easier. But they are two clearly separately defined offences and so I don't see what bearing the second part of your question has on 18(1), or indeed what relevance your question has to the OP's situation.

 

[reb0118]

AFAIAA Scots law only applies to journeys taken entirely within Scotland. English law has jurisdiction over cross border journeys.

 

[causton]

AFAIAA Scots law only applies to journeys taken entirely within Scotland. English law has jurisdiction over cross border journeys.

This is mentioned in the NRCoT specifically but unsure if it applies to just that.

These Conditions apply to travel within Great Britain only and are governed by English law, except where a Ticket is bought in Scotland for travel wholly within Scotland, in which case these Conditions will be governed by Scots law.

 

[reb0118]

This is mentioned in the NRCoT specifically but unsure if it applies to just that.

Yes, criminal law may be different. Where the offence commences usually dictates which courts (Scottish or English) have jurisdiction. That said if Cross Country merely demand that the correct fare due is paid, and if that is subsequently refused, then I would think that that would demonstrate intent to avoid payment.

 

[najaB]

AFAIAA Scots law only applies to journeys taken entirely within Scotland. English law has jurisdiction over cross border journeys.

I think that is mainly in relation to civil law (in the event of a dispute), whereas criminal matters will depend on where the crime occurs.

 

[30907]

This is mentioned in the NRCoT specifically but unsure if it applies to just that.

Thank you for the clarification. I had been unable to locate the reference to English law applying to Anglo-Scottish journeys though it was at the back of my mind.

 

[island]

I would agree with ForTheLoveOf that a byelaw 18.1 offence was committed in Scotland and would only be able to be prosecuted there, which, for the reasons he gave, won’t happen. I further agree that a byelaw 18.2 offence was not committed.

I am of the opinion that s5 RRA offences were committed, at the latest, when the passengers lied and said they had forgotten their Railcards rather than tendering the fare due.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would agree with ForTheLoveOf that a byelaw 18.1 offence was committed in Scotland and would only be able to be prosecuted there, which, for the reasons he gave, won’t happen. I further agree that a byelaw 18.2 offence was not committed.

I am of the opinion that s5 RRA offences were committed, at the latest, when the passengers lied and said they had forgotten their Railcards rather than tendering the fare due.

For once we are in total agreement