Should Railway Offences get a Criminal Record?

[Tetchytyke]

Well PFs have worked perfectly well for 30 years including under BR and work well in TfL form so there's pretty much nothing wrong with them.

Like most things, cost. A full PF scheme is expensive to implement so it has only been done by those operators who see a high enough incidence of minor ticketing infractions for it to be worthwhile. I hope that the new Northern franchise will follow suit.

Northern used to have a statutory Penalty Fare scheme in Leeds, but they abolished it, preferring to use their own Penalty Fake system.

If Penalty Fares were so brilliant, why do we think Northern might have done such a thing?

And if Penalty Fares are so brilliant, why are we seeing TL/GN and Abellio moving towards their own Penalty Fake systems?

It is certainly inappropriate to prosecute (or threaten prosecution) where the passenger has been misled by one of the bizarre quirks of the ticketing system (e.g. they have made a perfectly reasonable assumption that Manchester Stations includes any station in Manchester, such as Airport or Salford Central, rather than just the central group of four, or - and I know some on this thread will violently disagree with me on this - confusion over the Oyster boundary.) In this case, they should simply be sold the appropriate ticket, full stop.

PFing, penalty fake-ing, or reporting those caught out by the railway's insane internal complexities only serves to burn bridges, particularly with occasional passengers who are most likely to be caught out. And such an occasional punter who, having tried to pay what they presume to be the appropriate fare, is rewarded with a PF or a court summons for their trouble, is certainly not going to go recommending rail travel to their friends and family in a hurry.

It is all well and good to say the passenger should take personal responsibility for their travel documents. I could accept that if we had a simple, easily-understandable and convenient ticketing system (for instance, as in Switzerland.) But we don't.

I'd agree with all of this.

People who are deliberately cheating should have the book thrown at them; doughnutting, dumbbelling, forging, hiding in the bogs are all activities that should see stricter sanctions than we do now.

People who are not out to defraud should not see criminal sanctions at all.

The complexity in this system is bewildering. Getting on the wrong brand train can be a criminal offence, if we're to take the Byelaws at face value, which is utterly stupid.

I find the number of people receiving Penalty Fakes from Northern at their destination, debit card in hand, to be disgraceful quite frankly. Not least because there is no appeals procedure if a Penalty Fake is unfairly requested (and "unfair" goes far beyond "unlawfully", given the queues at most ticket offices these days because of deliberate short-staffing). Northern take great glee in pointing out that the short-staffing doesn't change their opinion on Penalty Fakes, and that regardless of the queue length you must still pay before boarding. Doesn't matter if you miss your train due to a 30 minute queue, as I have seen at Leeds and at Shipley before, tough. No wonder they got rid of the statutory scheme, with its five minute queue lengths.

Plenty go on here about the evils of the "pay when challenged brigade", as though they're the worst people in the world. Call me naive, but instead of giving TOCs wide-reaching powers to use the court's sledgehammer to crack this particular nut, how about getting the TOCs to challenge the brigade just a wee bit more?

The trouble with the current system is that the TOCs are allowed to use the threat of court action instead of implementing strong revenue protection systems. Northern get more from one Penalty Fake than they do from half a train of fare-paying passengers; it's time that golden goose got put out of our misery.

It's precious little wonder that TL/GN are seriously considering shutting most of their ticket offices. Why bother with revenue protection and a good shopping experience when you can get the Magistrates Court to act as your personal heavies?

 

[al78]

What do you define as a minor mistake?

I had a minor problem yesterday evening when travelling from Gomshall to Horsham via Redhill, and as there is no way to buy a ticket at Gomshall and no guard on the train, I have to buy the ticket at Redhill. I used a machine to buy a ticket and for some reason when it came out it was dated for the 4th February, not the 3rd February, despite it not initially asking me which day I wanted to travel (which it usually does if buying a ticket from mid evening onwards). When I got to Horsham I approached a member of staff and explained what had happened whilst showing him my ticket, he accepted what I said let me through the barrier so no problem in the end. I would have been a bit upset to have been criminalised in a situation like this, given that without wearing a buttenhole camcorder or using a cycle helmet mounted headcam, I cannot prove that the machine printed out a ticket for the following day without asking me first.

 

[bb21]

Is there a possibility that you may have simply carried on the previous person's transaction without realizing?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think that it goes without saying that there should be a greater penalty for those that are deliberately defrauding the system by using fake tickets or some other course of action that is plainly deliberate.

However it can get difficult to determine what is deliberate and why it is being used. Does it really help society as a whole if someone who is in financial difficulties doesn't buy a ticket gets caught then because of fear of the cost gives an incorrect starting point, is then accused of an offence, taken to Court gets a criminal record, which potentially affects thei ability to work, and thereby meaning they are a greater drag on the state?

The flip side is of course that if you don't take action against them then everyone would claim financial difficulties and why should a TOC care about someone's ability to pay?

However if failing to pay your TV licence is to be decriminalised (and after all that is effectively theft as well) then why shouldn't be rail offences?

As regards the theft option at one point does it become theft? If you go shopping and pick up an item it is, as far as I am aware, only theft if there is a deliberate intention not to pay. So you can walk out the door carrying it without being guilty of theft? Surely therefore if travelling the point of the theft comes when you walk out of the destination station without paying?

If you have gone up to a member of staff to pay at any point in your journey it is not theft in that sense although the rules in a penalty fare area indicate differently.

If a penalty fare area is to exist though it has to be enforced consistently. It is no good if 99 times out of a 100 someone can walk on to a train and buy a ticket from a guard or at the destination but 1 time in a 100 will get a penalty fare. You either need to enforce a penalty fare scheme all the time or not all, however if you are goi g to enforce it you then need sufficient ticket buying opportunities at the commencement point and of course that leads to another issue as to how early you need to get to a station to get a ticket.

I agree, I was itching to get to the end of the thread to post very much along these lines. There is a need to establish how deliberately someone was trying to evade a fare. Interesting your point on consistency of implementation.

Another thought I had is when trains are persistently late. To the point where the timetable can be viewed as wrong. Surely there are grounds to view that as a criminal offence *IF* mistakes by passengers are also viewed as suitable for criminal conviction ?. It works both ways and I think the railways have to consider how straight up they are. The only winner will be lawyers if we go down the black and white purist route !.

I have been given the benefit of the doubt on many occasions - always paying the correct fare when the opportunity arrives. But TfLs Oyster Prepay is a law unto itself.

Here is a question for anyone interested. I have arrived at a London station with my Oyster prepay card ready. There is no barrier but a simple validator/reader at the top/bottom of the steps (like Syon Lane or Upper Holloway). As I touch in someone else does also. The machine bleeps but I cannot be sure if my card or the other persons card has been read and affected. If I touch again then one of two things will happen. Either I will be registered as entering OR the machine will think I am leaving if my first touch was successful - and charge me £4.40 - why ?. So to avoid the risk of being unnecessarily charged £4.40 I might not bother to touch a second time if I think it likely that I did touch successfully the first time. I then risk being penalised at the other end of the journey when I touch out or worse still caught by an inspector. Why do we have to be so quickly penalised when nothing could be wrong ?.

I find the Oyster prepay system is very quick to penalise automatically even if it is impossible for me to judge whether I am about to do something wrong. I even get penalised if my journey takes to long due to train service disruption. To get my money back involves a long and sometimes unsuccessful phone call. This is made harder to deal with as so many tube station ticket offices have closed. I HAVE A VERY REAL RESENTMENT OF TfL OVER THESE ISSUES with Oyster pre-pay. If I am doing a lot of complicated travelling I prefer to pay more for a paper ticket travelcard even if that means I have to pay for a bus before I can buy my paper ticket at the station (paper travelcards no longer sold at news agents).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's precious little wonder that TL/GN are seriously considering shutting most of their ticket offices. Why bother with revenue protection and a good shopping experience when you can get the Magistrates Court to act as your personal heavies?

So true. Mind you its called entrapment I hope.

On the other hand I do think the book should be thrown at people who persistently and carefully evade fares. About 20 years ago I used to regularly travel to work on a certain route at the same time as a colleague. He never needed a ticket as he only used to need to pay the fare on the train about once every two weeks. More regular ticket checks would have stopped that but also his efforts were rather "pre-meditated" if proven !.

 

[island]

Another thought I had is when trains are persistently late. To the point where the timetable can be viewed as wrong. Surely there are grounds to view that as a criminal offence *IF* mistakes by passengers are also viewed as suitable for criminal conviction ?

There aren't. Nowadays criminal offences are defined by law, not by what is "viewed as" a criminal offence, and a train being late is not in law a criminal offence.

I have arrived at a London station with my Oyster prepay card ready. There is no barrier but a simple validator/reader at the top/bottom of the steps (like Syon Lane or Upper Holloway). As I touch in someone else does also. The machine bleeps but I cannot be sure if my card or the other persons card has been read and affected. If I touch again then one of two things will happen. Either I will be registered as entering OR the machine will think I am leaving if my first touch was successful - and charge me £4.40 - why ?.

That's not correct. If you touch in then touch again within two minutes the second touch will be rejected with Seek Assistance. It will not touch you out.

So true. Mind you its called entrapment I hope.

Entrapment has a specific legal definition. This isn't it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

There aren't. Nowadays criminal offences are defined by law, not by what is "viewed as" a criminal offence, and a train being late is not in law a criminal offence.

I am not saying a train being late is a criminal offence. But I am suggesting if the train is regularly late and the TOC persists with a timetable that does not reflect reality then some sort of punishment is appropriate - if the TOC can punish fare evaders then it works both ways.

That's not correct. If you touch in then touch again within two minutes the second touch will be rejected with Seek Assistance. It will not touch you out.

My experience is at East Croydon when I went there to collect my hard won refund. This has normal entry and exit barriers. I told the barrier staff I had to collect a refund but was not travelling anywhere. I was told I would need to touch in, so I did and then straight away touched back out - cost £4.40.

Entrapment has a specific legal definition. This isn't it.

Fair enough but I am trying to point out that TOCs do not always make it easy for the passenger to get it right. Making it harder to buy tickets is a way of luring people to travel without a ticket.

I have queued at East Croydon ticket office for so long that I feared we would miss our connection in London even though I had allowed 30 minutes more than recommended plus we had got to East Croydon ahead of schedule. It was a family railcard group travel. I asked for us to be let on the platform so I could pay at Victoria. I persisted and eventually I was warned this was risky if there was an inspector on the train. My family have never travelled as a group by train since and so I have never used the railcard again !.

 

[island]

My experience is at East Croydon when I went there to collect my hard won refund. This has normal entry and exit barriers. I told the barrier staff I had to collect a refund but was not travelling anywhere. I was told I would need to touch in, so I did and then straight away touched back out - cost £4.40.

That's correct for barriers. It is not correct for validators, which is what you said originally.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's correct for barriers. It is not correct for validators, which is what you said originally.

Thanks. I had always assumed that the Oyster readers where there is no physical barrier would be the same. That is something I have learned, must remember it is two minutes though.

Incidentally, as you seem to know about these things, is there an easy way round the problem of when a journey takes too long ?. I mean without having to sit at work on the phone for ages (arguably stealing an employers time and phone line ). One way I realised I could have saved money once was after I exited from Upper Holloway having got held up earlier in my route. I got straight on a bus and worked out I had been charged a lot. I figured out that I had been fined for not completing the journey I started at East Croydon BUT then also fined again for touching out at Upper Holloway without touching in - does that make sense ?. Basically an over length (time-wise) journey seems to result in two penalties. So I figured its less waste to not touch out *IF* I am sure my journey has taken too long. Then I only get one fine which if I understand things correctly does not cause the one day cap to fail - which can otherwise cost me a lot extra. The failing of the cap is a bit vindictive in my view. I now keep a very close eye on what I spend on Oyster. By the end of one day I had to keep topping up my Oyster card, I ended up tailgating on the tube so that I had enough credit left for the train home. I was determined that if it got to court I could prove that I had already spent way over the daily cap already.

 

[al78]

Is there a possibility that you may have simply carried on the previous person's transaction without realizing?

It is unlikely I would have thought (there was no-one else immediately in front of me buying a ticket). I started from the normal home screen, went through all the normal procedure of selecting origin and destination station, and paid the appropriate fare. It was around 7:40pm when I bought the ticket which I assume is too early in the evening for the machine to ask the question as to whether I want to travel today or tomorrow. When I was ready to leave Redhill at around 9:30pm, as my train was delayed 10 minutes I had a go at going through the ticket purchase process again using the same machine (I didn't go all the way through to completion), this time it did ask whether I wanted to travel today or tomorrow.

 

[island]

Thanks. I had always assumed that the Oyster readers where there is no physical barrier would be the same. That is something I have learned, must remember it is two minutes though.

Incidentally, as you seem to know about these things, is there an easy way round the problem of when a journey takes too long ?. I mean without having to sit at work on the phone for ages (arguably stealing an employers time and phone line ). One way I realised I could have saved money once was after I exited from Upper Holloway having got held up earlier in my route. I got straight on a bus and worked out I had been charged a lot. I figured out that I had been fined for not completing the journey I started at East Croydon BUT then also fined again for touching out at Upper Holloway without touching in - does that make sense ?. Basically an over length (time-wise) journey seems to result in two penalties. So I figured its less waste to not touch out *IF* I am sure my journey has taken too long. Then I only get one fine which if I understand things correctly does not cause the one day cap to fail - which can otherwise cost me a lot extra. The failing of the cap is a bit vindictive in my view. I now keep a very close eye on what I spend on Oyster. By the end of one day I had to keep topping up my Oyster card, I ended up tailgating on the tube so that I had enough credit left for the train home. I was determined that if it got to court I could prove that I had already spent way over the daily cap already.

There is a webform on the TfL website somewhere which you can complete to get refunded for times where you have been charged a maximum fare. Can't find it now though.

Note that maximum fares are not fines but they do not count towards the daily cap no matter how many you get; they are simply ignored. They will not cause your Oyster card to be uncapped. Double-gating, on the other hand, can get you a fine as it is a criminal offence for which you can be prosecuted.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Incidentally, as you seem to know about these things, is there an easy way round the problem of when a journey takes too long ? (snip) I figured out that I had been fined for not completing the journey I started at East Croydon BUT then also fined again for touching out at Upper Holloway without touching in - does that make sense ?

An over-time journey will charge you two maximum fares, because the touch in and touch out will not be linked. You'll have one incomplete journey for the touch in and one for the touch out.

The easy way of getting it resolved is to walk straight to the ticket machines and get the ticket person to resolve the two journeys for you.

An incomplete journey used to cause the cap to fail, but I don't think it does anymore. I'm sure MikeWh will be able to clarify.

I ended up tailgating on the tube so that I had enough credit left for the train home.

If you get caught tailgating you can expect to get a Penalty Fare as a bare minimum. If you do not touch in when using PAYG you can be charged a Penalty Fare, or referred for prosecution regardless of whether you'd reached the fare cap or not, as you do not have a valid ticket.

 

[bramling]

It's pretty clear to me that the way forward is the situation you have in Scotland, where - for whatever reasons - prosecutions are almost unheard of, but there is a much reduced prospect of people not paying their fares. I'm not going to get into the details of how that is achieved, but that's clearly the best approach.

And no, Scotrail don't go round hiring loads of private investigators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, so by that logic there should be similar laws for taxis. Probably best to leave the analogies out of it!

No, but to achieve that on the railways would require the closure of the vast majority of stations on the network!

The difficulty with the ScotRail setup is that a problem occurs if someone reaches the train and then decides to say to the ticket inspector or guard "I'm not paying, what are you going to do?". Especially if it's a lone inspector, on a fairly quiet train, at a remote location (eg Ayrshire) where there's no prospect of BTP assistance. So you could try and throw them off the train - but you risk one or more of delaying the train, getting assaulted, or ending up with a situation of other passengers getting involved as happened a couple of years back.

If the thought of getting caught in a revenue block and potentially being prosecuted is enough to deter even a few people then it's worthwhile - as long as everything is done fairly and proportionately.

 

[Peter Sarf]

An incomplete journey used to cause the cap to fail, but I don't think it does anymore. I'm sure MikeWh will be able to clarify.

Phew - I hope that is true. I can tollerate a few maximum fares if the cap still works. I remember spending well over £20 more than the cap which was about £10 iirc. I was running out of means to pay so had to be "resourceful" to get home. I got most of the money back on the phone (gave up arguing over a few quid) but then lost £4.40 updating my card at East Croydon by touching in and straight back out. I was not planning to travel by rail within the week allowed to collect so had to do it. Luckily I had to go to Merton (by bus) a few days later and behold there was Morden tube station with an open ticket office !. The staff there recognised it as an illogical charge so I got that back. What a faff !. I try to buy a paper ticket instead but that costs the bus fare plus a bit more but is better if I know I am travelling a lot or in danger of waiting for someone on a platform for too long.

But I can understand how people do arguably illegal things to avoid problems not of their own making.

 

[yorkie]

The difficulty with the ScotRail setup is that a problem occurs if someone reaches the train and then decides to say to the ticket inspector or guard "I'm not paying, what are you going to do?". Especially if it's a lone inspector, on a fairly quiet train, at a remote location (eg Ayrshire) where there's no prospect of BTP assistance. So you could try and throw them off the train - but you risk one or more of delaying the train, getting assaulted, or ending up with a situation of other passengers getting involved as happened a couple of years back.

If the thought of getting caught in a revenue block and potentially being prosecuted is enough to deter even a few people then it's worthwhile - as long as everything is done fairly and proportionately.

That " problem" applies anywhere, unless every train is escorted by policie or every station has a police presence!

The thought of a rare revenue block doesn't appear to deter evaders (look at Metrolink etc). Having very regular checks, as on Scotrail, is. Having made numerous journeys in both areas, I'm sure there are many more fares evaded on the likes of Metrolink in Manchester than on the Glasgow suburban network.

 

[najaB]

The thought of a rare revenue block doesn't appear to deter evaders (look at Metrolink etc). Having very regular checks, as on Scotrail, is. Having made numerous journeys in both areas, I'm sure there are many more fares evaded on the likes of Metrolink in Manchester than on the Glasgow suburban network.

I agree that regular revenue checks is a good thing and should be encouraged by all TOCs, but you mentioned up-thread that "for whatever reasons - prosecutions are almost unheard of" in Scotland. That's nothing to do with Scotrail but rather due to the Scottish legal system where pretty much all prosecutions are pursued by the State.

Even if Scotrail wanted to bring a prosecution there's almost zero chance that they would be able to - in the 20th century there were only two private prosecutions in the whole country.

 

[7031]

Possibly controversial but I thought I'd air my own thoughts anyway.

In an ideal world (and I fully understand that this isn't feasible), we'd just have barriers at every station and penalty fare anyone who doesn't have a ticket. Barriers at every station would quickly make it uneconomical for people to bother trying. Of course, I understand that unfortunately, in the real world they have to be staffed and of course there's a cost associated with actually installing them everywhere.

With that said, I genuinely do believe, at least based on what I've seen in my own area (i.e. just outside greater London), that if an Oyster like system was introduced, regardless of what the effect on fares was, there would genuinely be less fraud simply because of the convenience - it's too easy to pay and just not worry about it. I've had times before where, due to frustrations such as faulty ticket machines or long queues that I think many would be tempted to just hop on a train and then not bother to seek out a guard.

In a nutshell though, my view is that, unless someone is actively trying to defraud the railway, they should be issued a penalty fare rather than prosecution. Just it wouldn't hurt to actively enforce said penalty fare a bit more.

With that said, people are welcome to disagree with me - I'm aware that perhaps I take too light a view on these things.

 

[najaB]

In a nutshell though, my view is that, unless someone is actively trying to defraud the railway, they should be issued a penalty fare rather than prosecution. Just it wouldn't hurt to actively enforce said penalty fare a bit more.

With that said, people are welcome to disagree with me - I'm aware that perhaps I take too light a view on these things.

In principle I agree with you. The issue, as always, is determining intent. Hence the 'light' level of criminal punishment offered by the Byelaws. Light in the fact that they are easier to prosecute, but also in the fact that they don't leave a criminal record.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In principle I agree with you. The issue, as always, is determining intent. Hence the 'light' level of criminal punishment offered by the Byelaws. Light in the fact that they are easier to prosecute, but also in the fact that they don't leave a criminal record.

Yes. It is my view that a criminal record does a lot more harm to the offender than the prison sentence let alone a fine/community service. Especially for an otherwise law abiding citizen. A criminal record will affect a persons job prospects for a long time, most likely the rest of their life. I think most people (criminals, non-offenders or prosecutors) do not consider that fact.

The above means that, when deciding how deeply to prosecute, consideration should be given to the long term effects if a criminal record is involved.

Apparently most people who re-offend do so because their criminal record prevents them from working. We need to punish people in a way that makes them think twice about offending again or just reform them. Giving them a criminal record really has the opposite effect - they have to offend. Granted there is a need to protect employers, for instance, from someone who is going to be an inappropriate employee. But ideally the first task should be to attempt to reform them.

My personal view of prison is that it is really only a place to put people so they are out of the way long term (for example people who are expected to murder again or otherwise cause irreparable damage to society). Prison is not a place to reform the vast majority of criminals - it does not work. For the rest the punishment should be made to pay society - not cost society. I think imprisonment costs over £45,000 per year per inmate !.

With offences we need to look at crime prevention as in grounding an offender or changing an offender. Not making so many offenders a burden on society.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I'm sure there are many more fares evaded on the likes of Metrolink in Manchester than on the Glasgow suburban network.

Fairly sure I posted on here about a journey on Metrolink in Manchester where I happened to be sharing the tram with revenue protection officers. At every stop when we arrived there were passengers waiting to board, at every station most of those passengers saw the ticket officers on board and changed their mind about boarding!

It was a real eye opener.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Apparently most people who re-offend do so because their criminal record prevents them from working.

That view is highly contentious and very dependant on the type of crime concerned. Surely the contrasts become abundantly clear when we consider the options for work and income available to: a herion addict, an opportunist pick-pocket, a car thief, a successful forger of passports, a desperate parent shoplifting, a whale catcher, an art thief, a low price scaffolding erector, email scammer, etc etc . . . .

A significant proportion of offenders, correctly prosecuted, have good income generation options available to them, regardless of their criminal record.

. . . . . when deciding how deeply to prosecute, consideration should be given to the long term effects if a criminal record is involved.

. . . . . We need to punish people in a way that makes them think twice about offending again or just reform them. Giving them a criminal record really has the opposite effect - they have to offend. Granted there is a need to protect employers, for instance, from someone who is going to be an inappropriate employee. But ideally the first task should be to attempt to reform them.

Prosecutors are aware - but it is not their place to make the assessement. Here is how criminal procedure works (terribly simplified & reduced) in this order, and only in this order:
The victim assesses the merits of a prosecution and its likely outcomes. (options include abandoning prosecution).
An investigator gathers the evidence. (no choice to abandon)
A prosecutor applies the 2-part code-test:
(i) is the evidence likely to achieve a conviction? If not abandon.
(ii) is it in the public interest to prosecute? If not, abandon.
The victim at any point can chose to abandon. (private prosecutors can reach settlements, the police can adopt alternative resolutions).
A Court will hear the evidence from both sides.
A Court will allow each side to challenge each other.
The Court will be unable to hear about the accused previous record.
The Court will hear the relevant legal authorities.
The Court will decide Guilt or otherwise on these facts alone.
If the finding is Guilty, THEN the Court will hear representations on sentencing, and THEN it will hear of any relevant previous convictions, and THEN it will hear of the accused's personal circumstances and options.
Both parties will contribute their own views on the sentencing options and outcomes.
THEN, and only then, does the Court reach a fully informed sentence.


I'm slightly concerned by your suggestion that you would wish a prosecutor to also be the assessor of sentencing. The practice of Law has come a long way since those provincial, inconsistent, corruptible, and irrational practices of 500 years ago. If you are unhappy with sentencing outcomes (and so am I), then the proper place to change them is through parliament. Courts (and prosecutors) have no authority over parliament, but parliament determines how law is applied and enforced, and therefore, how prosecutors fulfill their roles.

I will vigourously resist any efforts to put the prosecutor in the position of judge (whether that be judging the prospects, the impacts, the guilt or the sentence). Equally, I hope you would join me in resisting any efforts to put the accused in the position of judge (in any of the aspects above).

My personal view of prison is that it is really only a place to put people so they are out of the way long term (for example people who are expected to murder again or otherwise cause irreparable damage to society). Prison is not a place to reform the vast majority of criminals - it does not work. . . . .

You've gone way off on a tangent from railway ticketing irregularities here, so I'll just emphasise that this view is irrelevant and add no more.

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the Croydon Tramlink the trams are usually quite packed so the dodgers usually only notice the ticket inspectors after the doors are closed. Then you can spot the dodgers as they rather obviously struggle to move to the farthest end of the tram. I see this on the Wimbledon branch but goodness knows what the New Addington branch is like .

 

[miami]

Should people who sneak into cinemas without paying get criminal records?
Should people who don't pay for a TV license get criminal records?
Should people who download, obtain or use copyrighted material, illegally, get criminal records?

All similar offences, in that the action of doing it doesn't actually cause any increased cost.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Should people who sneak into cinemas without paying get criminal records?
Should people who don't pay for a TV license get criminal records?
Should people who download, obtain or use copyrighted material, illegally, get criminal records?

All similar offences, in that the action of doing it doesn't actually cause any increased cost.

None of those offences are comparable to the situation that exists on the railway where genuine passenger ticketing confusion, gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the train operating company, equipment failure and outdated technology can result in the passenger failing to obtain the correct ticket for their journey.

You can't claim not having a ticket in a cinema is comparable to not having a ticket for a train, given cinemas (in my experience, maybe I'm naive) don't tend to be unstaffed and reliant on a battered old ticket machine.

The choice on buying a TV licence is simply "yes" or "no", similarly so is the offence of downloading pirate material (with the odd exception of a fraudulent site selling pirate material).

The railway still has the situation where the most honest person in the world can end up at a ticket barrier being shafted gleefully by some of the absolute worst people to work on the railway (and if I'm referring to anybody here, damn well hang your heads in shame, particularly the Paddington gateline mafia). The sooner we get proper smart ticketing solutions which removes the issues of broken ticketing machines, ticket offices closed at unusual times, vanishing guards and cretinous gateline operatives, then I might support the current level of toughness on ticketless travel.

As it is, until the railway gets its house in order, it shouldn't be more than a civil issue, and in most cases, I'd screw the TOC over and limit their recovery to the lowest fare for any given route at the time, not the highest.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That view is highly contentious and very dependant on the type of crime concerned. Surely the contrasts become abundantly clear when we consider the options for work and income available to: a herion addict, an opportunist pick-pocket, a car thief, a successful forger of passports, a desperate parent shoplifting, a whale catcher, an art thief, a low price scaffolding erector, email scammer, etc etc . . . .

A significant proportion of offenders, correctly prosecuted, have good income generation options available to them, regardless of their criminal record.

I cannot agree. Consider a person with a criminal record who is competing for a job against people with no criminal record. I would expect the employer, rightly or wrongly, to choose the person with no negatives. In a competitive jobs market age is also a barrier, whether illegal or notso what chance does a person with a criminal record have.

Prosecutors are aware - but it is not their place to make the assessement. Here is how criminal procedure works (terribly simplified & reduced) in this order, and only in this order:
The victim assesses the merits of a prosecution and its likely outcomes. (options include abandoning prosecution).
An investigator gathers the evidence. (no choice to abandon)
A prosecutor applies the 2-part code-test:
(i) is the evidence likely to achieve a conviction? If not abandon.
(ii) is it in the public interest to prosecute? If not, abandon.
The victim at any point can chose to abandon. (private prosecutors can reach settlements, the police can adopt alternative resolutions).
A Court will hear the evidence from both sides.
A Court will allow each side to challenge each other.
The Court will be unable to hear about the accused previous record.
The Court will hear the relevant legal authorities.
The Court will decide Guilt or otherwise on these facts alone.
If the finding is Guilty, THEN the Court will hear representations on sentencing, and THEN it will hear of any relevant previous convictions, and THEN it will hear of the accused's personal circumstances and options.
Both parties will contribute their own views on the sentencing options and outcomes.
THEN, and only then, does the Court reach a fully informed sentence.


I'm slightly concerned by your suggestion that you would wish a prosecutor to also be the assessor of sentencing. The practice of Law has come a long way since those provincial, inconsistent, corruptible, and irrational practices of 500 years ago. If you are unhappy with sentencing outcomes (and so am I), then the proper place to change them is through parliament. Courts (and prosecutors) have no authority over parliament, but parliament determines how law is applied and enforced, and therefore, how prosecutors fulfill their roles.

I will vigourously resist any efforts to put the prosecutor in the position of judge (whether that be judging the prospects, the impacts, the guilt or the sentence). Equally, I hope you would join me in resisting any efforts to put the accused in the position of judge (in any of the aspects above).

Although I used the word prosecute I did not mean to infer that it is the duty of the prosecutor to decide. However that is a very interesting/useful description.

You've gone way off on a tangent from railway ticketing irregularities here, so I'll just emphasise that this view is irrelevant and add no more.

I was comparing the type of crime that we are talking about (fare evasion) to the more serious crimes that do result in a custodial sentence. Trying to amplify the point that fare evasion is not the sort of crime where we need to ground people so they are out of the way. Therefore is a criminal record on its own a better punishment - if indeed that is appropriate.

 

[feline1]

I am not saying a train being late is a criminal offence. But I am suggesting if the train is regularly late and the TOC persists with a timetable that does not reflect reality then some sort of punishment is appropriate - if the TOC can punish fare evaders then it works both ways.

"Theft is theft" ... except when a TOC commits daylight robbery

 

[Via Bank]

None of those offences are comparable to the situation that exists on the railway where genuine passenger ticketing confusion, gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the train operating company, equipment failure and outdated technology can result in the passenger failing to obtain the correct ticket for their journey.

You can't claim not having a ticket in a cinema is comparable to not having a ticket for a train, given cinemas (in my experience, maybe I'm naive) don't tend to be unstaffed and reliant on a battered old ticket machine.

The choice on buying a TV licence is simply "yes" or "no", similarly so is the offence of downloading pirate material (with the odd exception of a fraudulent site selling pirate material).

The railway still has the situation where the most honest person in the world can end up at a ticket barrier being shafted gleefully by some of the absolute worst people to work on the railway (and if I'm referring to anybody here, damn well hang your heads in shame, particularly the Paddington gateline mafia). The sooner we get proper smart ticketing solutions which removes the issues of broken ticketing machines, ticket offices closed at unusual times, vanishing guards and cretinous gateline operatives, then I might support the current level of toughness on ticketless travel.

As it is, until the railway gets its house in order, it shouldn't be more than a civil issue, and in most cases, I'd screw the TOC over and limit their recovery to the lowest fare for any given route at the time, not the highest.

Hear, hear.

To put someone at risk of criminal court action because the Railway is incapable of getting its own house in order is outright hostile to the customer - which is who the railway is there for in the first place.

The other day a colleague of mine was told by a clueless gateline operative at Old Street that her Welwyn to London Terminals ticket was not valid for exit there. Had she not known he was telling porkies - and had she not been able to simply walk past him - she could well have been charged for a new ticket under threat of prosecution. Of course had it reached court it would have been thrown out, but how in God's name is this an acceptable way for any of the Railway authorities to treat their customers?

 

[miami]

Hear, hear.

To put someone at risk of criminal court action because the Railway is incapable of getting its own house in order is outright hostile to the customer - which is who the railway is there for in the first place.

The other day a colleague of mine was told by a clueless gateline operative at Old Street that her Welwyn to London Terminals ticket was not valid for exit there. Had she not known he was telling porkies - and had she not been able to simply walk past him - she could well have been charged for a new ticket under threat of prosecution. Of course had it reached court it would have been thrown out, but how in God's name is this an acceptable way for any of the Railway authorities to treat their customers?

It needs to work both ways. The person on the gatline saying such lies need to be hauled up in front of a judge. If they have been told to tell such lies, that's a defence, and then the person up the chain gets hauled up there. Eventually the source of the instruction to attempt to extort money from the public will be found. Perhaps The Theft Act 1968 S 21 would be an appropiate starting point.

 

[bb21]

Eventually the source of the instruction to attempt to extort money from the public will be found.

What if it all started from messroom gossip?

 

[miami]

What if it all started from messroom gossip?

The last person to receive a formal instruction is the one to blame, so if a manager "hears on the grapevine", then tells the guard, the guard isn't liable, the manager is. If the guard "heard it on the grapevine" then he's liable (the correct action would be a memo to manager "I heard this - should I do it")

 

[Holly]

...
As it is, until the railway gets its house in order, it shouldn't be more than a civil issue, and in most cases, I'd screw the TOC over and limit their recovery to the lowest fare for any given route at the time, not the highest.

Yes, exactly.
When the railway was publically owned it was reasonable that the worse cases of defrauding the railway were criminal offences because, ultimately, the railway is held responsible for its actions through the political process.

Now the railway is privately owned and/or operated it is no longer reasonable that fraud is anything more than a matter of civil law.

Additionally, there needs to be recognition of the stark difference between one-time transgressions of a stranger on a rare sojourn to or from a distant locale as contrasted with a regular traveller (typically commuter) who can reasonably be expected to be more familiar with complex rules.

Having said that, persons who approach officials seeking to pay fares previously unpaid would do well to audio record the interaction. If the official then writes a clearly false or purposely misleading report he or she should then face criminal prosecution for perjury with the audio recording as admissible evidence.