Court Summons, Virgin only ticket.

[455driver]

Well, it's exactly the kind of situation I could envisage my own children getting into when they were late-teenagers; buy cheapest ticket, spend all your cash, roll up at Picc just in time for the last train home (and it's only 20 miles or so), XC guard demands extra payment they haven't got, an argument and suddenly decent kids who've made a simple mistake are being hailed as criminals. Not nice and not necessary. Probably happens more than we get to hear of.

If you (or your kids) want flexibility then buy a flexible ticket, the cheap tickets have restrictions on them (that is why they are cheap) and buying the cheap ticket means you agree to those conditions/ restrictions.

Rocket science it aint! :roll:

 

[neilmc]

Please can you clarify how you feel CrossCountry refusing to accept a ticket which is invalid can constitute sharp practice by Virgin Trains?

I think the sharp practice is in providing a single-TOC ticket when there is no facility for getting home on a Virgin train late in the evening - though reading it again this doesn't appear to be the OP's position but one I have read of previously on the forum. Presumably the idea is to offer the customer a small discount and deprive XC of their share of revenue on a competitive route, which again could be seen as sharp practice.

I don't blame XC for not accepting the ticket, but did they go straight for prosecution when the OP had no immediate means of paying?

 

[Ferret]

Neilmc, given that it's reached the summons stage, with disclosure of witness statements etc, I'd say this is quite an advanced case.

 

[Mark_H]

The thing is though, the OP had no intention of paying according to his own admission. This then left the guard with very few options. Whether the guard could have handled it differently is anyone's guess as none of us were there to see what other solution, if any, was offered, and the exact circumstances on the day.
...
He gave XC reasons to accuse him of intending to avoid paying the correct fare (partly by refusing to purchase a valid ticket), so unsurprisingly the accusations followed.

Again, is it fair to say he had "no intention" and "refused" to pay? He had no means, not due to an intention to travel without paying, but due to paying and then making a stupid mistake about the ticket validity.

I wonder if anyone could point me towards some guidance on how intent to evade is judged?

 

[bb21]

Again, is it fair to say he had "no intention" and "refused" to pay? He had no means, not due to an intention to travel without paying, but due to paying and then making a stupid mistake about the ticket validity.

I wonder if anyone could point me towards some guidance on how intent to evade is judged?

I think I probably could have worded that better. The OP's actions are quite often interpreted as having no intention to pay the correct fare. He admitted that he had no valid ticket (He asked me do I have a valid ticket to which I replied 'No'). Maybe it is the way the OP worded his sentences, but that probably appeared to the guard that he was aware his ticket was not valid. (Contradiction with what he claims I know but it is how he came across to the guard that would have mattered at the time.)

On top of that, he had no money to pay for a valid ticket (intentionally or not). These two things together could appear to conform to the typical behaviour of someone trying to avoid paying the correct fare.

(By "intention", I didn't mean to accuse the OP of deliberately evading his fare, but rather in the sense that he put himself in that perilous situation (with no money) and clearly had no intention of paying extra money for his journey. Not a wise move as an adult. In hindsight, "intention" is a bad choice due to the confusion it can cause and I have amended that sentence accordingly.)

 

[Ferret]

bb21, I think some posting on this thread are taking the English definition of intent, rather than understanding the legal definition.

Furthermore, I have a strong suspicion that the OP has had a further opportunity to pay the fare since the incident, maybe with a small admin charge added and has not done so. One could argue that this is demonstrating further intent to avoid the fare due.

 

[island]

Furthermore, I have a strong suspicion that the OP has had a further opportunity to pay the fare since the incident, maybe with a small admin charge added and has not done so. One could argue that this is demonstrating further intent to avoid the fare due.

I think you might be right. A head may have been buried in metaphorical sand...

 

[Mark_H]

bb21, I think some posting on this thread are taking the English definition of intent, rather than understanding the legal definition.

I would be interested to know the legal definition. The best I can find with some searching is:

The intention to avoid payment may be proved by showing that the passenger has ignored opportunities to pay his fare or has taken measures to avoid a ticket inspector. (source)

and

"Intent to avoid payment" in section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due. (source)

I'm not clear on how a situation where you mistakenly but honestly have an incorrect ticket falls into this. On the one hand, "does not mean a dishonest intent" means an accidental evader could be caught by this offence, but on the other hand walking past ticket offices in the belief that you had a correct ticket does not mean you have "ignored opportunities to pay".
I would hope that someone being found on a train with the wrong ticket, who then pays up, wouldn't be committing an offence. However, the OPs case turns on whether being unable to pay at that point equates to ignoring an opportunity under the legislation (as opposed to just showing a lack of foresight), and I don't know what the answer to that is.
I would be interested to hear the "official" view, if anyone knows it.

 

[michael769]

I'm not clear on how a situation where you mistakenly but honestly have an incorrect ticket falls into this.

It does not in itself. But one must realize that the court does not have a mindreader and must therefor infer intent not from what the accused thinks but from the evidence of their actions (including both what they do and what they say), if these actions lead to the conclusion that they intended to avoid the fare (with sufficient certainty to meet the reasonable doubt test) then an conviction can be obtained.

Furthermore an honest belief that a ticket is valid does not make it valid. Upon being discovered and informed that the ticket is invalid the passenger would still need to pay the correct fare for a valid ticket. Refusing to do so, knowing that their ticket is invalid, without a very good reason could in itself be enough to show willful intent not to pay the valid fare.

 

[W230]

As the above post says you can't mind read so intent is proved by people's actions.

Intent can be formed at any time. So the OP may have got on the train and had no intent to avoid any fare - as far as he was concerned there was no additional fare, he thought he had a valid ticket. However, when it turned out that his ticket was not valid did he form the intent of avoiding the fare by not purchasing one?

The time in question where intent becomes relevant is from when he became aware that he did not have a valid ticket.

His actions will speak for his intent. It does not matter whether he got the wrong ticket innocently or not. As already discussed he bought said ticket and is required to abide by its restrictions. So when he states he could not buy another ticket due to having no cash/cards etc etc then what was his intent?

The guard will have gone from this. In my cynical ways having re read the first post I have come to the same conclusion. He was duty bound to buy a new ticket and having no money does not relieve him of this!

 

[6Gman]

I think the sharp practice is in providing a single-TOC ticket when there is no facility for getting home on a Virgin train late in the evening - though reading it again this doesn't appear to be the OP's position but one I have read of previously on the forum.

But if you've bought a Virgin-only ticket doesn't it make sense to check the Virgin timetable for return trains?

Or are you suggesting single-operator tickets shouldn't be allowed?

 

[Mark_H]

It does not in itself. But one must realize that the court does not have a mindreader and must therefor infer intent not from what the accused thinks but from the evidence of their actions (including both what they do and what they say), if these actions lead to the conclusion that they intended to avoid the fare (with sufficient certainty to meet the reasonable doubt test) then an conviction can be obtained.

Furthermore an honest belief that a ticket is valid does not make it valid. Upon being discovered and informed that the ticket is invalid the passenger would still need to pay the correct fare for a valid ticket. Refusing to do so, knowing that their ticket is invalid, without a very good reason could in itself be enough to show willful intent not to pay the valid fare.

I agree, but of course there are plenty of ifs and buts involved still, and it would be very useful to hear if there is any guidance (or precedent cases, etc) used by ToCs and/or the courts to decide what demonstrates intent and what doesn't.

The distinction between the two possible offences may not be that much in practical terms, but some faced with an "intent" prosecution may be concerned by the implications on their record (as the OP seems to be).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . it would be very useful to hear if there is any guidance (or precedent cases, etc) used by ToCs and/or the courts to decide what demonstrates intent and what doesn't.

Plenty!
And they are used every day.
See here:- RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide > Section 8 - Legal > Case Law in Section 8.2.3 Case Law.

As for defining 'intent', it was a hundred years ago that Moulton LJ determined that intent is demonstrated by a person's behaviour and their words; that the Courts are not expected to look into their mind at their thoughts. This was repeated almost exactly by Lord Denning in consideration of Contract Law in Oscar Chess v Williams [1957], which would be applicable to Rail travel.

Usually, it is the precedent set by Corbyn that railway staff use to detect evasion.

 

[michael769]

I agree, but of course there are plenty of ifs and buts involved still, and it would be very useful to hear if there is any guidance (or precedent cases, etc) used by ToCs and/or the courts to decide what demonstrates intent and what doesn't.

Criminal Justice Act 1967 Sect. 8:

S. 8 Proof of criminal intent

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—

(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but

(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

R v Moloney [1985] 1 AC 905 House of Lords:

An example : where a person boards a plane bound for Manchester, clearly he /she intends to travel to Manchester, even though it is the last place he/she wants to be and the motive for boarding the place is simply to escape pursuit. The person demonstrates his intention to go there because it is a moral certainty that this is where the plane will arrive.

 

[Mark_H]

Thank you both for the useful pointers, I shall read and absorb.

 

[Starmill]

We get lots of people using virgin only tickets between mcr picc and mac/stoke I make it clear that they are not valid but we still get them and people still claim they didn't know. At least xc and virgin look similar

This always makes me laugh: for a through-journey, the Northern service costs more! Hah!