Who is 'An Authorised Person'?

[Tetchytyke]

Read the paragraoh again:
"authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;
Note the 4 words emboldened!

You're misreading the legislation. The last clause is "any constable acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway". The execution of his duties bit only applies to the constable, not the two categories before. I highlighted both ors in the legislation (in the bit you quoted) to show this.

That's there to clarify that PC Policeman out on the street outside isn't an authorised person.

"Acting in the course of his duties" is what applies to category (a). And this means what you think it means- if they are at work, on duty, doing the job they are supposed to be doing, and that job is related to revenue protection. The cleaner couldn't give permission as it would be obvious they're acting outside their role. Gateline or platform despatch staff have revenue protection responsibilities in their job description. Arguing otherwise would be arguing that a gateline staff member couldn't stop you if you climbed over the barrier, as they wouldn't be an "authorised person".

As I have already said, the operation of the train is irrelevant, as if you are delayed on an Advance ticket you are, in some circumstances, expected to get authorisation to travel from the Ticket Office prior to boarding. Ticket Office staff don't go anywhere near a train, yet if a Ticket Office staff member endorses a ticket it is an authorisation to travel.

Gateline staff are authorised people under the Byelaws, which means if they give you permission to travel then you have permission to travel. The issue isn't whether they're authorised to let you travel- they are- the issue is proving they gave you authorisation to travel. It's for that reason it's usually best to speak to the guard before travelling, as there's less likely to be a dispute.

 

[najaB]

Wow, so much confusion caused by errant punctuation marks and copy and paste gremlins.

The text of the Byelaw says:

(1) Definitions
In these Byelaws the following expressions have the following meanings:
“authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;

For (i) to apply the person needs first to be acting 'in the course of his duties', regardless of if they are (a) an employee or agent of, or (b) a person authorised by the Operator.

That is all we need to consider as (ii) applies only to constables, etc., etc.

 

[222007]

The gateline staff at the station where im based will always come down to the train to speak to the train crew if there's an issue then they leave the decision up to our crews if we take the person

 

[Jonfun]

The problem here is we seem to be going round in circles as to what is actually being discussed. If we're discussing whether a gateline attendant allowing you through his barrier with an invalid ticket constitutes giving someone permission to travel, the answer is clearly no, as there hasn't been any discussion over the particulars of the matter. If we're talking about a situation where someone asks a member of staff "Can I use this ticket on this train" and the staff member is misinformed that the ticket is valid when in fact it isn't, then it's more of a grey area, but I would argue it isn't permission to travel, it's just being given bad information (in the same way of being put on a train going to the wrong destination) and I'd expect a complaint to be raised either by the passenger, or potentially the TOC if dealt with by TIR. If we're talking about a case where a member of staff knows the ticket isn't valid but owing to disruption, or whatever other reason thinks it in the passengers interest to take a train not normally permitted by their ticket then that is clearly giving permission and I'd expect the member of staff to make a suitable endorsement on the ticket.

 

[miami]

in the same way of being put on a train going to the wrong destination

If a member of staff puts someone on the wrong train, and they don't have a valid ticket, are they then forced to buy one?

that is clearly giving permission and I'd expect the member of staff to make a suitable endorsement on the ticket.

You can expect that all you like, the bylaw makes no reference to endorsement

 

[najaB]

You can expect that all you like, the bylaw makes no reference to endorsement

No, it doesn't. But it does potentially make it easier to clarify what was said by whom at a later date.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You can expect that all you like, the bylaw makes no reference to endorsement

It doesn't, but it makes life an awful lot easier if you have proof that "the man on the platform" said you could catch a specific train.

 

[miami]

It doesn't, but it makes life an awful lot easier if you have proof that "the man on the platform" said you could catch a specific train.

It does, and it's a sad state of affair when you have to prove your innocence, but that's the way our legal system works

 

[319321]

Surely, if I found myself in this situation:

The magistrates must believe that I had committed the crime 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If my defence is that a member of staff authorised me to be somewhere, and the train operating company can't disprove it, I have a valid defence.

Part of the above argument would be through looking through CCTV. The train company has access to CCTV footage, and many many stations now have excellent coverage. Surely the train operating company could produce CCTV saying that I didn't speak to anyone?

I could request the CCTV under data protection, and if it shows me talking to a member of staff then all the evidence points to a member of staff authorising me to travel.

Even if CCTV isn't available, couldn't I request all members of staff at that station to appear as witnesses?

 

[najaB]

The magistrates must believe that I had committed the crime 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If my defence is that a member of staff authorised me to be somewhere, and the train operating company can't disprove it, I have a valid defence.

No. That is ignoring the nature of strict liability. All the train company has to prove is that you entered a train for purpose of travel without a valid ticket entitling you to do so. The only valid defence if there was no means to purchase a ticket before travelling, or if you can show that you were given permission to do so (either by an authorised person or by a sign).

Note that you are in breach of 18.1 as soon as you step onto the train without a valid ticket unless you can show 18.3 applied. Otherwise you could just claim that you were given permission by 'someone' but you can't remember who it was. The burden of proof lies with you, not the train company.

I could request the CCTV under data protection, and if it shows me talking to a member of staff then all the evidence points to a member of staff authorising me to travel.

Equally, it could be that the CCTV shows the staff member telling you that you can't travel.

Even if CCTV isn't available, couldn't I request all members of staff at that station to appear as witnesses?

You could, but that will only add to your costs when you lose.

 

[319321]

najab - what are you qualifications in this matter?

Sorry if that comes across as offensive - it's not meant to be.

 

[najaB]

Sorry if that comes across as offensive - it's not meant to be.

No offence taken. I am an interested amateur. My posts are based only on my understanding of the law, and what I have picked up from professionals on the forurm. I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

 

[455driver]

Equally, it could be that the CCTV shows the staff member telling you that you can't travel.
You could, but that will only add to your costs when you lose.

All CCTV would prove is that you were stood near the person, it wouldn't prove what was said so would be worthless in Court when you are trying to prove what was said.

 

[319321]

OK - This is what Wikipedia has to say about 'strict liability':

A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Under strict liability, there is no requirement to prove fault, negligence or intention.

Strict liability therefore means that there is no need to prove intent. There would be a need for the train company to prove that the ticket was not valid. If the customer was saying that the ticket was valid because permission was given by an authorised person, they have a perfectly valid defence as that is specified in the relevant legislation.

If a customer were accused of travelling without a valid ticket because their ticket was invalid because of a restriction on it, eg

A Super-Off Peak Day Return from Rayleigh to Billericay with Restriction Code D1, where the customer is found travelling at 1144. The customer did not understand what restriction code D1 meant. They thought that off-peak was after 9am.

It would be for the train operating company to show that the ticket wasn't valid because restriction code D1 meant the customer could not travel at that time.

In the same way, I argue that it should then be up to the Train Operating Company to show that the customer was not given permission to travel with the ticket.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

 

[najaB]

In the same way, I argue that it should then be up to the Train Operating Company to show that the customer was not given permission to travel with the ticket.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

No, sadly that is not the case. You are correct that there is no requirement for the train company to prove intent. You are also correct that all they need to prove is that the passenger held no ticket or that the ticket was not valid. At that point their job is done.

Your logic requires the train company to prove that something didn't happen, a basic principle in law is that you can't be required to prove a negative.

Let me ask you a question - what conclusive evidence could the TOC provide to prove that negative?

 

[sheff1]

Your main problem is that you are trying to use the bylaws as some sort of reference whilst forgetting that its actually the job role of a gateline assistant which comes first ..

Are you seriously suggesting that the Railway Byelaws, as confirmed by the Secretary of State, somehow take second place as a reference point to the internal job description of an employee of a private company ?

 

[Jonfun]

If a member of staff puts someone on the wrong train, and they don't have a valid ticket, are they then forced to buy one?

You can expect that all you like, the bylaw makes no reference to endorsement

How to deal with any on train ticketing irregularity is down to the revenue staff on board that train. By rights, yes. But if we're talking an old dear who's booked assistance, and the assistance bloke put them on the Glasgow instead of the Cardiff, then obviously more discretion is going to be shown than towards someone with no ticket claiming the bloke on the platform sent them the wrong way.

Well if the ticket's not endorsed, and the member of staff who allegedly acknowledged the ticket is invalid hasn't come and explained the situation to the traincrew, then it isn't going to be accepted on board, is it? I (and I'd imagine most rail staff on here) would expect a member of staff who was giving direct permission to travel on a train normally invalid with a given ticket would make a suitable endorsement to indicate this to revenue staff, accompanied by their booking office stamp, or name and home station, etc.

 

[sheff1]

Read the paragraoh again:
"authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;
Note the 4 words emboldened!

I prefer to read the paragraph in the Byelaws rather than something different which you have written. In the Byelaws, the words you have emboldened quite clearly relate solely to 'any constable' and not 'any other person authorised by an Operator' and hence are completely irrelevant when discussing whether any given TOC employee is an Authorised Person.

 

[319321]

I (and I'd imagine most rail staff on here) would expect a member of staff who was giving direct permission to travel on a train normally invalid with a given ticket would make a suitable endorsement to indicate this to revenue staff, accompanied by their booking office stamp, or name and home station, etc.

As a customer, if I went up to a member of staff and said 'Can I use this ticket on the next train to Leeds and they said 'Yes', that would be enough for me to consider that they had given me permission to travel.

 

[Llanigraham]

I prefer to read the paragraph in the Byelaws rather than something different which you have written. In the Byelaws, the words you have emboldened quite clearly relate solely to 'any constable' and not 'any other person authorised by an Operator' and hence are completely irrelevant when discussing whether any given TOC employee is an Authorised Person.

In your opinion.
I disagree with you.

 

[najaB]

In your opinion. I disagree with you.

Take a look at my copy-paste in post #62. I think it makes it a bit clearer. I think something went wrong when you pasted it.

 

[sheff1]

In your opinion.
I disagree with you.

If you prefer your own version of the Byelaws to the official version published on the Government website, that is your prerogative. I rather suspect, though, that a Court of Law would refer to the official version.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Strict liability therefore means that there is no need to prove intent. There would be a need for the train company to prove that the ticket was not valid. If the customer was saying that the ticket was valid because permission was given by an authorised person, they have a perfectly valid defence as that is specified in the relevant legislation.

(snip)

I argue that it should then be up to the Train Operating Company to show that the customer was not given permission to travel with the ticket.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

One is innocent until proven guilty.

The TOC presents evidence to the court that you were travelling without a valid ticket, and are therefore in breach of the law.

The defendant states that they were given permission by a member of staff to travel, hence the lack of ticket.

The court has to weigh up the evidence on both sides of the argument, and decide if there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to show that the defendant did have permission to travel without a valid ticket.

If the defendant cannot remember who they spoke to, where they spoke to them, and what their role was, and nor can they present written evidence to show that they were given authorisation to travel, then their case is going to be very weak. "The man on the platform said I could" is a common argument and so, naturally, the court will treat it with a certain amount of skepticism, especially if the defendant is unable to present any other supporting evidence or information to make their argument sound more plausible.

"The man on the platform said so" is not very convincing. "The man in the ticket office at 1146 said I could, and here's the authorisation signature on my ticket" is a lot more convincing.

In your opinion. I disagree with you.

Which is your right.

However anyone with a basic understanding of legal grammar should be able to see that the bit about railway business only relates to the police constable, because it is only the police constable who can be going about their duties without being on railway premises. A TOC staff member isn't going about their duties if you catch them on the street outside, or in Tesco, but the PC may well be.

The clause is there to differentiate between PCs operating on and with jurisdiction on the railway (i.e. the BTP) and other PCs.

 

[Shempz]

The court has to weigh up the evidence on both sides of the argument, and decide if there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to show that the defendant did have permission to travel without a valid ticket.

Do you mean "The court has to weigh up the evidence on both sides of the argument, and decide if there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to show that the defendant did not have permission to travel without a valid ticket"


As I understood it, they have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not innocence.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As I understood it, they have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not innocence.

They do, but bear in mind that the prosecution go first in court cases.

The prosecutor will present evidence that shows why they believe you didn't have a ticket/valid ticket/authority to travel. The defendant will explain why that evidence is wrong. They don't have to disprove the prosecutor, they just have to have enough evidence to create reasonable doubt. But without any evidence you'll not usually create much doubt at all.

Essentially with strict liability cases the burden of proof reverses. It's for you to show that you have a defence.

 

[najaB]

As I understood it, they have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not innocence.

Again, all the TOC has to prove is that the customer entered a train for the purpose of travel without a valid ticket entitling them to do so, or that the passenger was not able to present on request said ticket. At that point the passenger is guilty of a Byelaw offence unless they can provide evidence that they were given permission by an authorised person, or there was a sign saying they could board without a ticket.

I ask again - what conclusive evidence could the TOC provide to prove that a conversation did not happen?

 

[reb0118]

As I understood it, they have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not innocence.

Yes, but the passenger is guilty of the offence by merely boarding the train without a valid ticket and/or any other authorisation.

It is the passenger's defence that is being tested beyond reasonable doubt and it is up to the passenger to provide sufficient evidence to support that defence - it is not up to the prosecution to provide it. Although that said I believe that the prosecution must not withhold any material that comes to light that would benefit the defence's case.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is the passenger's defence that is being tested beyond reasonable doubt and it is up to the passenger to provide sufficient evidence to support that defence

Not quite. The defendant just has to provide enough supporting evidence to place reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

In a different case, a man has been acquitted on appeal of making racist and obscene gestures towards black players at a football match, as he argued that making monkey gestures was a sign of displeasure in the steel industry and was not a symbol of racism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-34989006

A football fan who was found guilty of making monkey gestures at three black players during a Championship match has won an appeal against his conviction.

Ernest Goult, 72, was found guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence following Middlesbrough and Blackburn Rovers' game in 2014.

However, he claimed the gesture meant "the pits" or "smelly".

An appeal panel at Teesside Crown Court said they could not be sure the gesture was racist.

Blackburn players Lee Williamson and Markus Olsson and Aston Villa striker Rudy Gestede, who was at the club at the time, gave evidence against Mr Goult. Mr Williamson said he noticed the "pathetic" 72-year-old as he was walking over to the Blackburn supporters, who were seated in the away section of the Teesside club's Riverside Stadium, while Mr Gestede said he was "shocked" to see the gesture.

Mr Olsson said the French forward had got angry as a result.

Representing Mr Goult, Giles Grant said the one-armed gesture was derogatory but meant "the pits" or "smelly", adding that a monkey gesture would usually be accompanied by facial expressions and an "oo-oo" noise.
Giving evidence, Mr Goult denied he held "negative or poor views" of the footballers because their race.

The retired steel worker said the gesture was used in that industry to express displeasure, often in a noisy environment, a claim which was confirmed by another former worker.

Judge Simon Bourne-Arton, who heard the appeal alongside two magistrates, said the players genuinely felt it was a racist gesture, but the appeal panel could not be sure.
He added that while it had been proved that Mr Goult caused alarm and distress, he had not made the typical "utterly objectionable" monkey gesture, where both arms were used along with the "whooping sound of a baboon".

 

[najaB]

It is the passenger's defence that is being tested beyond reasonable doubt...

On a point of order, the task of the defence is not to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Their task is to show that there is doubt about the reliability of the prosecution's case.

To use a non-railway example: if I was to be put on trial for stealing the Crown Jewels, my defence isn't to prove that I didn't steal them, it is to find the flaws in the prosecution's evidence. So I could be found not guilty even if I was wearing them in the court as long as they don't point at them and say "There they are."

 

[Llanigraham]

Not quite. The defendant just has to provide enough supporting evidence to place reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

In a different case, a man has been acquitted on appeal of making racist and obscene gestures towards black players at a football match, as he argued that making monkey gestures was a sign of displeasure in the steel industry and was not a symbol of racism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-34989006

Not a comparable situation or case.