Rather large out of court settlement

[yorkie]

I am glad that the moderators of this forum have now changed their view, and also see these payments as "bribing" the train company not to take legal action.

I am glad that the moderators of this forum have now changed their view, and also see these payments as "bribing" the train company not to take legal action.

bb21's view is bb21's view and I'm not aware he has changed his view?

As for the "bribing", what about when a Train Company offers an out of court settlement? It is common (here's just one recent example) for Northern to offer to settle out of court for £80. So, in effect, Northern are asking people to "bribe" (your words) the Company.

 

[bb21]

bb21's view is bb21's view and I'm not aware he has changed his view?

That's correct. I have not changed my view on this.

This in no way represents the view of any other forum staff (unless someone can provide me with the tool to read their minds), or the forum as a whole I would add.

 

[Deerfold]

Of course, but paying the Oyster maximum fare every day to get through the barriers at Cannon Street was not the most cost effective way of doing that.

Wasn't the suggestion earlier that he'd been arriving in the morning before the barriers were open so only paying one maximum fare a day - combined with dodging the gates occasionally this may have been cheaper.

He'd undoubtably have been less conspicuous with a Z1-2 travelcard.

 

[drbdrb]

I would suggest that any person, natural or legal, that solicits a payment on the threat of criminal prosecution if that payment is not made, is open to accusations of accepting bribes (with the exception of circumstances approved by parliament).

Out of court settlements properly relate to civil, not criminal matters. Normally if two parties cannot agree a settlement, it proceeds to court to determine the amount due. It is not the case that if the sum is not sufficient, that one party can put their prosecution hat on, and send the other to prison.

 

[Emyr]

I would suggest that any person, natural or legal, that solicits a payment on the threat of criminal prosecution if that payment is not made, is open to accusations of accepting bribes (with the exception of circumstances approved by parliament).

Out of court settlements properly relate to civil, not criminal matters. Normally if two parties cannot agree a settlement, it proceeds to court to determine the amount due. It is not the case that if the sum is not sufficient, that one party can put their prosecution hat on, and send the other to prison.

I'd call it blackmail.

 

[PermitToTravel]

It might be worth noting that the CPS too will occasionally deal with offences by out of court settlement, where they seem that this will be more beneficial to the public interest than prosecution.

 

[londiscape]

Punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society (assuming he goes to prison)

Leaving aside the implications for out-of-court settlements, which other members have addressed with far more eloquence than I can muster, please, can anyone calling for this guy to get banged up get a sense of perspective?

Jails are full. The purpose of jailing someone is a) to remove a dangerous person from having the liberty of committing (violent) offences against other individuals in society and b) as a last resort against someone who has repeatedly failed to reform in light of multiple non-custodial sentences.

While I have little sympathy with this individual, he is not out robbing houses, mugging old ladies at knifepoint, or shooting teenage kids for "dissing" him. I live in London, and the aforementioned happens far too often, and these are the kinds of people that deserve custodial sentences. This bloke is guilty of bunking his fare. Although for a long time, this is all.

If other members here feel that he should be made an example of because he is <Harry Enfield> considerably richer than yow </Harry Enfield> then he is in a position to satisfy the demands of criminal justice by means of a financial reparation, ie. a fine - of which magnitude should be determined by a competent court of law. This, in my opinion, would be the most justiciable method of disposing of this case.

 

[455driver]

^^^ wot ee sed but wivout du long wordz ^^^

 

[SephenWorceste]

I was under the impression that fraud of that magnitude would or could result in time in prison. I am sure I have seen reports as such for benefit fraud and workplace fraud. If the person is found guilty then we shall see. I do not how the guidelines.

I am trying to remember. Was there a person who committed fraud on trains. He did it over a period of time. I think it included a first class rover purchased with fake cheques. He was caught. I cannot remember if he went to prison.

Best wishes, Stephen.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Peter Young (old thread [clicky]). I don't know if he went to prison, but he was certainly so sentenced.

 

[SephenWorceste]

That was the chap.

 

[LWB]

Off topic but sticking to the OP title, this makes 40 odd thousand seem small beer to buy your way out of court.

 

[SephenWorceste]

Very good.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I was under the impression that fraud of that magnitude would or could result in time in prison. I am sure I have seen reports as such for benefit fraud and workplace fraud. If the person is found guilty then we shall see.

I am trying to remember. Was there a person who committed fraud on trains. He did it over a period of time. I think it included a first class rover purchased with fake cheques. He was caught. I cannot remember if he went to prison.

I wonder though it this would count as fraud? It would be a very complex case to argue and with a high chance of failure in my opinion.

Using fake cheques etc would certainly be fraudulent, but what this chap has done is simply travelling without a ticket and then using a technical loophole to get through the barriers. It doesn't seem that he ever attempted to create fake tickets or avoid detection by any other means.

 

[Merseysider]

I wonder though it this would count as fraud? It would be a very complex case to argue and with a high chance of failure in my opinion.

Using fake cheques etc would certainly be fraudulent, but what this chap has done is simply travelling without a ticket and then using a technical loophole to get through the barriers. It doesn't seem that he ever attempted to create fake tickets or avoid detection by any other means.

A vital element of any successful prosecution for fraud is the need to show that deception of some sort occurred. It could be argued either way, but whatever he's 'done' for I hope sends a message to others who may be considering a similar thing.

 

[Jonny]

Wasn't the suggestion earlier that he'd been arriving in the morning before the barriers were open so only paying one maximum fare a day - combined with dodging the gates occasionally this may have been cheaper.

He'd undoubtably have been less conspicuous with a Z1-2 travelcard.

I have a sneaky feeling that he might even have got away with it if he had done that, doubly so if he had used a paper travelcard (if they're still available) as they are harder to track. Either way, it is pretty unlikely that he would have been caught had he had a travelcard, although the lack of tap-in or tap-out had it been a (hypothetical) Oyster Travelcard would be suspicious, although there are innocent explanations for such discrepancies.

Personally, I think that he might well have been picked up on suspicious activity by TfL, and it wouldn't be too hard for a tip-off to be provided to SouthEastern although the eagle-eyed barrier attendant is another explanation. I would even dare to suggest that the quick settlement was because he managed to get away with it so easily for so long, to cover over how easy it was to get away with, and how easy it would be under slightly different circumstances.

Another problem for any criminal case would be the lack of evidence apart from a confession (which may be deemed to be inadmissible by reason of self-incrimination without sufficient supporting evidence) for all but the most recent incidences - and bear in mind that any civil case is already settled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

> How exactly is he a danger to society?

Fraud be it rail, benefit, tax, immigration or financial is real a danger. It undermines the consensus on which our society depends. If he only pays when he gets caught why should I pay. If nobody pays then we would have no trains.

If your point is that it "undermines the consensus on which our society depends" then you might as well send everyone to prison, and this coming from someone who pays his rail fares. After all, I can think of a few other things, not necessarily criminal, that could be considered to undermine the consensus of whatever 'society' is that I have done (although they would be illegal in other countries that I visited this year).

Oh, and 'danger to society' is usually taken to be in terms of violence or deliberately inducing the fear of violence.

 

[Springs Branch]

It is a shame though.

Anyone else would have the book thrown at them, yet if you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

I guess when you see Bernie Ecclestone stumping up around £60,000,000 to buy his way out of the German courts, even £43,000 can start to look like small change.

 

[Deerfold]

I guess when you see Bernie Ecclestone stumping up around £60,000,000 to buy his way out of the German courts, even £43,000 can start to look like small change.

Both my wife and I thought it was odd that you could avoid a charge of bribery by paying out a large sum of money to a court.

 

[richw]

Both my wife and I thought it was odd that you could avoid a charge of bribery by paying out a large sum of money to a court.

Me too, is that not bribery in itself?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't recall reading about any incident which has been referred to on this forum as 'bribery' and which was, in fact, bribery.

This is an odd forum in some ways, with people being exceptionally concerned about the application of the technically correct terminology when it concerns trains, and a disregard for that same correctness when applied to law.

If I ever read about 'bribery' on here, and see that it really is 'bribery', then I'll say so - but as long as these terms are being used incorrectly, I'll just leave you all to get on with whatever it is you're doing.

 

[Clip]

Me too, is that not bribery in itself?

How can it possibly be bribery when German law apparently allows you to pay such a sum and not recieve a custodial or criminal conviction?

I may have the wrong dictionary but isnt bribery a crime? If so then he has not bribed the Gernam government/court.

how odd.

 

[scotsman]

I don't recall reading about any incident which has been referred to on this forum as 'bribery' and which was, in fact, bribery.

This is an odd forum in some ways, with people being exceptionally concerned about the application of the technically correct terminology when it concerns trains, and a disregard for that same correctness when applied to law.

If I ever read about 'bribery' on here, and see that it really is 'bribery', then I'll say so - but as long as these terms are being used incorrectly, I'll just leave you all to get on with whatever it is you're doing.

Post of the year.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How can it possibly be bribery when German law apparently allows you to pay such a sum and not recieve a custodial or criminal conviction?

It depends if you're using the word in its general sense, or in its specific legal sense. It's definitely hush money, whichever way you look at it, but the German law allows it so there we are.

We're in the ludicrous situation where Gerhard Gribkowsky was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for accepting a bribe from Ecclestone which was, according to Ecclestone and the prosecutor, never actually offered. I'd say Gribkowsky missed a trick when he was prosecuted. I wonder how his conviction can stand now the prosecutor agrees there was no bribe paid by Ecclestone to Gribkowsky.

 

[jon0844]

But doesn't the payment simply mean he's no longer guilty OR innocent. Which leaves Bernie in a rather bizarre position really. How the hell does that stand in law?

You can't call him (legally) guilty, but nor can he claim himself to be innocent in the eyes of the law?

Maybe we should have such a similar setup here. Then we can charge millions to rich people and celebs, and fix the economy in a matter of weeks.

 

[talltim]

I don't recall reading about any incident which has been referred to on this forum as 'bribery' and which was, in fact, bribery.

This is an odd forum in some ways, with people being exceptionally concerned about the application of the technically correct terminology when it concerns trains, and a disregard for that same correctness when applied to law.

That's because it is a rail forum, not a law forum

 

[Tetchytyke]

But doesn't the payment simply mean he's no longer guilty OR innocent. Which leaves Bernie in a rather bizarre position really. How the hell does that stand in law?

He's taking it to mean he's innocent, other people can take it to mean the opposite.

IIRC German law is similar to Scottish law, with three verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven.

 

[jon0844]

He must clearly know he isn't innocent though - more so than anyone else where there could be an element of doubt!!

 

[richw]

How can it possibly be bribery when German law apparently allows you to pay such a sum and not recieve a custodial or criminal conviction?

I may have the wrong dictionary but isnt bribery a crime? If so then he has not bribed the Gernam government/court.

how odd.

He must clearly know he isn't innocent though - more so than anyone else where there could be an element of doubt!!

If he was innocent he could have proceeded with the case got not guilty and walked away with £60million better off.

The definition of bribery is:

Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

So let's break this down, he gave money, that altered the behaviour of the court (recipient). He gave an item of value (£60m) to influence the court decision to end his trial without verdict. This is legalised bribery in German law.

 

[DownSouth]

If he was innocent he could have proceeded with the case got not guilty and walked away with £60million better off.

Equally, if the prosecution was confident that their case would succeed they could have pushed on instead of entertaining any talk of a settlement.

For a case that had been pursued so zealously, to then turn around and accept a settlement makes it look like the prosecution had a weak case but had done a good enough job of bluffing and blustering to convince Bernie's lawyers that the case was strong.

If that's the case, hats off to them. They got $100,000,000 for the state, and no need to pay for Bernie's legal costs as they would have after an acquittal.

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't it rather similar to pleading guilty and being fined?