• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
The case is about the lawfulness for London Underground Prosecutor to prosecute under TfL Railway Byelaws within National Railway facilities rather than prosecution under the National Railway Byelaws. The issue has nothing to do with validity of ticket. The issue also had nothing to do with intention of the individual to travel which Regulation of Railways Act 1889 would have applied.

Post #4 provided the legal argument of the Defendant. London Underground Prosecutor informed the Magistrates that the copy of the National Railway Byelaws provided by the Defendant in which Byelaw 17 was excepted under section 24 was an outdated byelaw which should no longer be in the new National Railway Byelaw (the prosecutor never showed the magistrate that new National Railway Byelaw). That both TfL Byelaws and National Railway Byelaws have the same laws for Byelaw 17 and 18 as well as basis of prosecution.

London Underground Prosecutor then provided to the court TfL Byelaws of 2010/11 in, which with the exception of Byelaw 17 was included. That all the TOC including London Underground decided to make Byelaw 17 and 18 congruent which led to the updated version. That the National Railway Byelaws provided by the Defendant was therefore an outdated law which was no longer current. That the Defendant provided an old version of the National Railway Byelaws.

In summary, the Magistrate was led to believe that Section 24 with the phrase with the exception of Byelaw 17 has been repealed, then decided the case on the basis of the TfL Railway Byelaws which according to them carried the current version of the Byelaws. The Defendant was thereafter found guilty of the offence. The Defendant was also fined about £350 in total including London Underground Prosecution costs.
My understanding was that the defendant was prosecuted under the TfL Byelaws and not the NR Byelaws, which are different instruments.

Aside from that, will the defendant be appealing to the Crown Court?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Kel

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2013
Messages
16
So, the result of the "unprecedented hearing" was that the defendant was found guilty of the offence and fined £350?

So they are a fare-dodger.

Strangely the Magistrates did not consider her a fare dodger as they were satisfied that she has a paid oyster card with enough credit on that day and which was frequently used. On the concessionary card which led to her prosecution the Magistrates found that it was only used four different days over a period of three months.

The Magistrates found her guilty because she was in a Compulsory Ticket Area at a time she was not with her pay as you go Oyster Card. The Magistrate refused to accept that her invitation to use the manual gate by an authorised person gave the requisite permission under Section 9(2)(3) and 17(3) of the TfL Byelaws.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My understanding was that the defendant was prosecuted under the TfL Byelaws and not the NR Byelaws, which are different instruments.

Aside from that, will the defendant be appealing to the Crown Court?

You are correct. She wanted an appeal to the Division Court rather than to the Crown Court.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
You are correct. She wanted an appeal to the Division Court rather than to the Crown Court.

As I understand it, an appeal to the Divisonal Court is only permissible on the grounds of the magistrates having erred in law or exceeded their jurisdiction (a case stated). Evidence will not normally be heard. This would need to be applied for within 21 days of the conviction.

As before, it is most advisable to seek appropriate legal advice.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
So someone failing to use their Oyster PAYG card to travel is not a fare dodger? An interesting (and somewhat flawed) interpretation in my view.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
Forum members have delivered their opinions on your client's case. If you are looking for people to agree with you then I'm afraid you are not going to get one.

Your client should consider herself lucky that she did not end up with a criminal record, if she used someone else's Freedom Pass rather than pay for her journey in the correct manner.

You are just repeating your question and I'm sure people all understand that you want to challenge the prosecution on a technicality. Come back and update us when your appeal has been considered by a higher court, and if you win, we will look at our advice for such cases again.

Until then this thread is locked. There is nothing more to add and it is becoming a joke.
 

Kel

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2013
Messages
16
The Higher Court Held: The Appellant has no case to answer.

Briefs of the proceedings

1. The Prosecution made opening submission.

2. The Prosecution called and examined their witnesses including the Ticket Inspector. The Appellant cross examined their witnesses very briefly.

3. The Appellant made submission that she has no case to answer as only the National Railway Byelaws is the valid law at the Compulsory Ticket Area where the incidence took place. (Note that the Appellant has not given evidence before making submission at this stage because she believes that she has no case to answer and be subjected to giving evidence under oath).

4. The Prosecution submitted that the Appellant was caught with a Freedom Pass which was not hers and non transferable at a Compulsory Ticket Area. Furthermore, the Appellant does not have a valid ticket with her when she was caught at the Compulsory Ticket Area and the Inspector gave evidence that the Appellant was going to travel with London Underground Trains. That she committed an offense and summonsed under correct law - the TfL Railway Byelaws.

... Court adjourned to deliberate...

...Resumed...

5. The Court asked both parties to provide their positions as to whether both TfL Railway Byelaws and the National Railway Byelaws are valid in the common area or one of TfL Railway Byelaws or National Railway Byelaws is the valid law in the common area.

6. The Prosecution submitted that both laws are valid depending on where the customer is travelling to hence they have joint inspection between TfL and C2C. That in the present case that the Court received evidence from the Ticket Inspector who confirmed that the Appellant was going to travel to a London Underground Train destination. That TfL Byelaw is therefore the valid law upon which to prosecute the Appellant. That if the Appellant was to travel to a C2C destination then the Appellant would have been handed over to a C2C Inspector and the National Railway Byelaws would have been the valid law for prosecution.

7. The Appellant submitted that only one law is valid in the common area and that law is the National Railway Byelaws by virtue of the fact that the common area is 100 percent owned by Network Rail in which C2C is the lessee and Station Facility Owner.

... Court adjourned again

.... Resumed ...

The Court Judgment in brief

A customer stopped at the Compulsory Ticket Area has a number of possible destinations to go using either the London Underground Trains, London Overground trains or C2C trains. Under caution the customer has a right not to state his or her destination when asked to do so by a Ticket Inspector. (Furthermore there can be no certainty as to the customer destination until the customer has executed that journey).

The matter we have to consider is whether that area the Appellant was stopped was governed by TfL Railway Byelaws or National Railway Byelaws or both Byelaws.

.... (note that the "..." was to reduce the judgment as the Court recites so many legal passages and gave reasons for each of them relating to the case)

We have reached a firmed decision that only the National Railway Byelaws is the valid law in the common area and we do find that the Appellant has no case to answer.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,042
Location
Yorkshire
This is interesting. Are you in a position to share the full judgment (perhaps by email)?
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
It is now too late to commence another prosecution for the strict liability offence under the correct byelaw.

The prosecutor now has the option of trying again with a fraud prosecution. I don't think we've been told enough about what actually happened to guess at how likely that would be to succeed.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I, too, would be very interested to read the actual court report. Most intriguing.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
It is now too late to commence another prosecution for the strict liability offence under the correct byelaw.

By that would you mean one that explicitly carries no penalty?

(And please reread post #5 from DaveNewcastle which already suggested what some valid alternative approaches might have been.)
 
Last edited:

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,571
Location
Yorkshire

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,436
Location
Cambridge
The opinion of the courts, from the limited detail of posting, seems to be that the freedom pass was used in error on this occasion. Having lost the strict liability case, I doubt that any other case could proceed.

Hopefully LO will decide to avoid prosecution for one-off pass misuse, which could be in error, and focus on serial offenders.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,876
The opinion of the courts, from the limited detail of posting, seems to be that the freedom pass was used in error on this occasion. Having lost the strict liability case, I doubt that any other case could proceed.

Hopefully LO will decide to avoid prosecution for one-off pass misuse, which could be in error, and focus on serial offenders.

To me, it appeared that the opinion of the courts was that the legislation under which the prosecution had been brought was not applicable to the circumstances and location. I am not convinced that the case would have failed if the location had been one where TfL byelaws would apply.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,571
Location
Yorkshire
To me, it appeared that the opinion of the courts was that the legislation under which the prosecution had been brought was not applicable to the circumstances and location. I am not convinced that the case would have failed if the location had been one where TfL byelaws would apply.

That was my reading of it - and they should have used NR byelaws in this case.
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,436
Location
Cambridge
To me, it appeared that the opinion of the courts was that the legislation under which the prosecution had been brought was not applicable to the circumstances and location. I am not convinced that the case would have failed if the location had been one where TfL byelaws would apply.
Indeed, but the judgement could certainly have gone either way. I dare say that the judgement was influenced by a desire to let TfL lose for their overzealous behaviour:

A customer stopped at the Compulsory Ticket Area has a number of possible destinations to go using either the London Underground Trains, London Overground trains or C2C trains. Under caution the customer has a right not to state his or her destination when asked to do so by a Ticket Inspector. (Furthermore there can be no certainty as to the customer destination until the customer has executed that journey).
In spite of the fact that the customer did indeed mention a desire to travel on the District Line.

If the passenger appeared to have been using the Freedom pass over a long time period, was only caught on this occasion, but the prosecution could not prove the previous use and so used the CTA offence, I imagine things would have still turned out differently.
 
Last edited:

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I too would be grateful for the Judgement in full, and if that is not convenient, then details of the date, the Court, the names of the parties - any 2 of these should enable me to access it (but I am puzzled by reference to 'The Higher Court' - just which Court would that have been, please).

Indeed, but the judgement could certainly have gone either way.
I agree - but it could have 'gone' in several directions -depending on the jurisdiction of exactly in which Court it was heard (and the Terms of Reference of those sitting in Judgement), those outcomes could have included a direction to remit the matter to the lower Court with specific directions, to quash the decision of the lower Court, to sustain the decision of the lower Court, to leave the decision of the lower Court unchanged but to vary the awards of costs, penalties or other Orders, and more.

The difficulty I am having with your summary, Kel, is fundamental - you haven't told us what the Court was asked to decide. You did say, in point No 5 in your summary of the chronology of the hearing) "5. The Court asked both parties to provide their positions as to whether both TfL Railway Byelaws and the National Railway Byelaws are valid in the common area or one of TfL Railway Byelaws or National Railway Byelaws is the valid law in the common area." But what was the question that had been brought to the Court? Without knowing the question, it is impossible to make proper sense of the answer!
Please assist us!

Exactly what was the question (what was written in the Application to Appeal)?
Or, if that's not convenient, can you please give us the Court references?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top