-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?
- Thread starter Kel
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Can you provide some more context please as to the situation here? Is this concerning a prosecution and attempting to rely on a get-out that the National Rail Byelaws do not allow for penalties to be imposed under this Byelaw?
[removed follow up statement until the OP replies]
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
If you're on TfL property then TfL byelaws apply. If you're on NR property then they have to use the National Railway Byelaws. 17(1) is exactly the same in both.
I cannot find anything in either document that says prosecutions for breaches of 17(1) are not allowed.
I cannot find anything in either document that says prosecutions for breaches of 17(1) are not allowed.
Last edited:
Yes it has to do with Strict Liability Prosecution which is about to take place very very soon. I was being restrictive to get the requisite answer to the query.
Lets look at the quoted paragraphs to demonstrate the distinction between the Railway Byelaws and Transport for London Railway Byelaws (TfL Byelaws).
If Barking Station belongs to Network Rail then would you agree with me that it would be improper for anyone to be charged at the paid side of the Ticket Hall with TfL Byelaw for entering Compulsory Ticket Area with no valid pass. I am not sure if Barking Station is a designated Compulsory Ticket Area by the Department for Transport but would be pleased to be properly informed.
Railway byelaw 17(1) accepts penalty fare whereas TfL byelaw 17(1) is prosecution.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I agree that it is not significant to know which Company has detected this matter and is considering a prosecution. Any railway officer may bring about a Byelaw prosecution.
The Railway Byelaws, in common with any other Byelaws, cannot create an offence where there is also a statutory offence which captures the incident. In this case, that statutory offence would be under, either, the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994 as amended (triggering a Penalty Fare in a 'Compulsory Ticket Area' [CTA]) or, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (not having paid their fare).
To avoid that ambiguity, which could give rise to a double liability, the National Railway Byelaws specifically states that Byelaw 17 carries no penalty:
The TfL Byelaws are not as explicit in confirming that a prosecution may not follow from a Byelaw 17 Offence, but I understand that it is TfL policy not to prosecute under Byelaw 17, for exactly the reason I have given.
Consequently, it should not be relevant to this particular incident to know which Byelaws have been applied, as the offence under either Byelaw 17 should not result in a prosecution. The only relevance is in knowing whether the counter argument will be as explicitly stated in the Byelaws (National Rail Byelaws) or will follow from the permitted scope of any Byelaw (TfL Byelaws) which would render a prosecution ultra vires.
Unfortunately, the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations have tried to anticipate the hazard of double liability in a specific way which, on the surface, appears inadequate in its intention to avoid a conflict with the Byelaws:
It is my opinion that the inadequacy in this clause lies in its attempt to ensure that the statutory offence legislated by Parliament is not duplicated by a Byelaw, but that in fact, it does the opposite, it attempts to ensure that the statutory offence in a CTA does not alter a Byelaw prosecution. That inadequacy is, I believe, resolved by the TfL policy under which the Company will not prosecute a Byelaw 17 offence, thereby allowing the statutory provision to remain as Parliament intended.
It follows from all the above facts that there is one possible permutation of those facts which could lead to an unlawful prosecution. That might arise if a Railway Officer who was not employed by TfL (and therefore not constrained by TfL policy) was to consider prosecuting a TfL Byelaw 17 offence in a CTA where the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations also apply.
The Railway Byelaws, in common with any other Byelaws, cannot create an offence where there is also a statutory offence which captures the incident. In this case, that statutory offence would be under, either, the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994 as amended (triggering a Penalty Fare in a 'Compulsory Ticket Area' [CTA]) or, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (not having paid their fare).
To avoid that ambiguity, which could give rise to a double liability, the National Railway Byelaws specifically states that Byelaw 17 carries no penalty:
. Although there is no penalty for a violation of Byelaw 17, it does allow for the person simply to be removed from Railway property (and as it happens, a person in this position has a horrible tendency to make a fuss which quickly puts them at hazard of committing one of the other Railway Byelaws, or a Public Order offence, both of which can be prosecuted!).
The TfL Byelaws are not as explicit in confirming that a prosecution may not follow from a Byelaw 17 Offence, but I understand that it is TfL policy not to prosecute under Byelaw 17, for exactly the reason I have given.
Consequently, it should not be relevant to this particular incident to know which Byelaws have been applied, as the offence under either Byelaw 17 should not result in a prosecution. The only relevance is in knowing whether the counter argument will be as explicitly stated in the Byelaws (National Rail Byelaws) or will follow from the permitted scope of any Byelaw (TfL Byelaws) which would render a prosecution ultra vires.
Unfortunately, the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations have tried to anticipate the hazard of double liability in a specific way which, on the surface, appears inadequate in its intention to avoid a conflict with the Byelaws:
It is my opinion that the inadequacy in this clause lies in its attempt to ensure that the statutory offence legislated by Parliament is not duplicated by a Byelaw, but that in fact, it does the opposite, it attempts to ensure that the statutory offence in a CTA does not alter a Byelaw prosecution. That inadequacy is, I believe, resolved by the TfL policy under which the Company will not prosecute a Byelaw 17 offence, thereby allowing the statutory provision to remain as Parliament intended.
It follows from all the above facts that there is one possible permutation of those facts which could lead to an unlawful prosecution. That might arise if a Railway Officer who was not employed by TfL (and therefore not constrained by TfL policy) was to consider prosecuting a TfL Byelaw 17 offence in a CTA where the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations also apply.
Last edited:
Can you clarify what operative regulation or law can be legally/lawfully used for prosecution when you say any railway officer may bring about a Byelaw prosecution? I have asked this question because lawfulness is an inherent procedural requirement for prosecution.
See ralphchadkirk post that the required byelaw to be used for prosecution is conditional on whether the property belongs to TfL or NR. In this case it belongs to NR property, or so I think since Barking Station is yet to be officially transferred to TfL. But the individual, who has long pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense, was charged with violation of TfL Byelaw 17(1). The hearing will take place in a matter of days.
The summons under the "Magistrates Court Act 1980,s1: M.C. Rles 1981,r98" reads:
See ralphchadkirk post that the required byelaw to be used for prosecution is conditional on whether the property belongs to TfL or NR. In this case it belongs to NR property, or so I think since Barking Station is yet to be officially transferred to TfL. But the individual, who has long pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense, was charged with violation of TfL Byelaw 17(1). The hearing will take place in a matter of days.
The summons under the "Magistrates Court Act 1980,s1: M.C. Rles 1981,r98" reads:
Haven't been there for a while, but I'm fairly certain the whole of Barking station is covered by a CTA, with posters and stickers to that effect at/on the gateline.
And I suspect that London Overground, c2c and London Underground have an agreement in place to do Revenue Protection for one another.
And I suspect that London Overground, c2c and London Underground have an agreement in place to do Revenue Protection for one another.
Last edited:
Not sure of the value of your comments here. There may be others interested to look for help for her elsewhere. Whilst you have not provided the link you are referring to I believe that there can be no two exact the same answer. It will not be surprising if people are seriously concern as to her prosecution.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Then I suggest, if the hearing is in a matter of days, you contact an experienced solicitor to represent you. There is nothing we on here can do.
I know someone who took his solicitor to court for not providing proper advice and won based on opinions he gathered from forumers.
As a forumer I am here to solicit opinion. I thank you for your initial opinion you provided. Others might be generous to provide additional opinions as well.
Byelaw 28 of the TfL Byelaws defines a compulsory ticket area as "any part of the railway identified by a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket" and the railway as "(a) the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any associated equipment; and (b) any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries".
The question is "is Barking station a 'railway premises of Transport for London'?" I am not competent to answer it, but I suspect something will turn on whether "of Transport for London" refers to ownership or mere use.
I echo the above suggestions that the person charged with the offence take urgent legal advice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The copy of the c2c Penalty Fares scheme which I have states that c2c does not have any CTAs, which seems enough to dispose of this permutation.
The question is "is Barking station a 'railway premises of Transport for London'?" I am not competent to answer it, but I suspect something will turn on whether "of Transport for London" refers to ownership or mere use.
I echo the above suggestions that the person charged with the offence take urgent legal advice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The copy of the c2c Penalty Fares scheme which I have states that c2c does not have any CTAs, which seems enough to dispose of this permutation.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
Well, if the OP has their case in a few days, they are leaving it a bit late to try and find a loophole. I hope they return to let us know if they succeed, or if they become an inclined plane wrapped helically around a central axis.
If there is a picture of the 'entry' side to the ticket gates then that would be helpful too in judging whether Barking is a Compulsory Ticket Area or not. The photos on Stations Made Difficult on the National Rail website are too blurry.
This would only mean that c2c cannot charge their customers a Penalty fare at this location, and does not determine whether London Underground or London Overground operate compulsory ticket areas in any part of the station.
The question is not about penalty fare in this case but prosecution under TfL.
I think I find the comments of island helpful.
I am advised that she sought legal advice and was told that it was a Strict Liability Offense which meant that no other considerations is required for TfL to prove the case against her. That she was in possession of a freedom pass that she was not the holder of that pass is all that was required to prove the pass was not hers.
She was also told that it was within the discretion of the Revenue Inspector to accept her statement or to be penalised either through a penalty fare or prosecution. That in her case it appeared the Prosecution Team decided to prosecute.
She said when she requested to be represented she was told that she would have to pay separately for case preparation and legal representation if she wishes to challenge the charge against her. When she requested for merit advice of her case, she was told an extra fee would have to be paid.
Thank you, but I am not a lawyer, nor even very good at legal matters, so I urge you to obtain appropriate advice from a properly-qualified person before attempting to advance a complicated argument like mine, not least because it could be faulty.
I have contacted her to find a way of taking some more pictures. Would let you know when that was done within the next 24hours
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
So she used a Freedom pass that did not belong to her?
I wonder why you are reluctant to provide any details of the case. People who are genuinely seeking help would be doing all they can to help others help them.
I wonder why you are reluctant to provide any details of the case. People who are genuinely seeking help would be doing all they can to help others help them.
I think I was being restrictive to get the best help from forumers based on the prosecution case against her. Usage of an Oyster Card is defined below.
MrsDavidCaruso
Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 7
How can forum posters help you when you don't give us all the facts. I have noticed that you have not mentioned on here the fact that you are also accusing
the Ticket Inspector of Racism
If you look closely at the label in question you will see it refers to an £80 penalty fare or prosecution. On the basis that a penalty fare of that amount is only charged by TfL, I think it is reasonable to assume that the alternative prosecution would also be instigated by TfL.
I too am not a lawyer, or in any way legally trained, but having read the recent comments in this thread I feel compelled to offer this opinion.
Mojo,
These are some of the pictures sent to me of Banking Station as I requested following to your request.
island,
I would not be involved if I think the lady is guilty of the offense after I heard her story and read the materials sent to me through a third party known to me. I have seen blatant injustice and this is not the forum to say it. If you visit any of the station you would see that a number of people are allowed to go through without any pass whatsoever. Post #7 provided the basis of the case.
MikeWh,
I do not think I am disputing the fact that TfL charges £80 (£40 if paid within 21 days).
As you can see above to prosecute is a subjective judgment call and not an objective criteria.
I find the contribution of DaveNewcastle in post #5 helpful. Public bodies must be made to follow the due process upon which the law was made. We must expose any wrong process and help anyone not to be convicted on any wrong process.
The issue is that Oyster Card is a property of TfL. Banking Station belongs to National Rail and National Rail does not prosecute on byelaw 17(1).
The individual appeared to have got legal advice yet the individual has not changed her plea. I cannot encourage the individual to plead guilty if she is convinced she ought never to have been prosecuted.
You cannot find the brains of enlightened people fighting injustice together in one great barrister.
These are some of the pictures sent to me of Banking Station as I requested following to your request.
island,
I would not be involved if I think the lady is guilty of the offense after I heard her story and read the materials sent to me through a third party known to me. I have seen blatant injustice and this is not the forum to say it. If you visit any of the station you would see that a number of people are allowed to go through without any pass whatsoever. Post #7 provided the basis of the case.
MikeWh,
I do not think I am disputing the fact that TfL charges £80 (£40 if paid within 21 days).
As you can see above to prosecute is a subjective judgment call and not an objective criteria.
I find the contribution of DaveNewcastle in post #5 helpful. Public bodies must be made to follow the due process upon which the law was made. We must expose any wrong process and help anyone not to be convicted on any wrong process.
The issue is that Oyster Card is a property of TfL. Banking Station belongs to National Rail and National Rail does not prosecute on byelaw 17(1).
The individual appeared to have got legal advice yet the individual has not changed her plea. I cannot encourage the individual to plead guilty if she is convinced she ought never to have been prosecuted.
You cannot find the brains of enlightened people fighting injustice together in one great barrister.
Attachments
Seems clear cut to me, despite how much technicality you might want to bring.
Had the female not been stopped by the inspector the fare would have been avoided at an unjustified cost to the public purse.
Frankly, it saddens me seeing seemingly unfounded allegations of racism like this which only serve to make genuine cases of discrimination less believeable.
Your friend got caught red handed (and almost certainly red faced), and will be dealt with for the crime commited.
Had the female not been stopped by the inspector the fare would have been avoided at an unjustified cost to the public purse.
Frankly, it saddens me seeing seemingly unfounded allegations of racism like this which only serve to make genuine cases of discrimination less believeable.
Your friend got caught red handed (and almost certainly red faced), and will be dealt with for the crime commited.
MrsDavidCaruso
Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 7
I thought you were saying on this forum and on other forums that the lady in question did not see any thing to say she was entering a compulsory ticket area yet in the last picture there is a clear sign that says do not pass this point without a valid ticket
- Status