Passenger breaks law, then whines when she's punished

[soil]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3025601/train-passenger-fined-615-for-four-minute-journey/
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/arriva-passenger-fined-615-not-12702000

Jenny Shearman, 46, was rushing to work when she jumped on an Arriva Trains Wales service without buying a ticket.


But when she was stopped by an inspector as she arrived into Cardiff, the married mum was told she should have purchased a ticket prior to boarding at Llandaff station.


“Regardless of it seeming unfair as they sell tickets on the train (not that day though of course) and you can’t exit the station at the other end without paying, it just seems vastly disproportionate. People get fined less for GBH.”


The summons orders her to pay £440 fine, £1.90 compensation, £44 victim surcharge and £130 costs, bringing the total amount to £615.90.

Jenny responded: “The first letter I received said I could appeal, which I did. The next letter said they’d received the appeal but it had failed.


“I then received the court summons then yesterday the notice of fine. But at no point was I given the opportunity to settle before that....

This for a journey from Llandaff to Cathays.

Ticket office at Llandaff
Opening hours
Monday - Friday 06:40 - 11:40
Saturday 08:40 - 14:40
Sunday Closed
This machine does not accept cash. Payment is by major debit and credit cards only.

Apparently she 'expected' a £80 fine, despite apparently not doing any research on the law, or even bothering to turn up to court.

Now she's upset she wasn't offered a settlement or to plead guilty for a lower penalty.

Bit late for that now....

Why do people not take legal documents seriously?

 

[Hadders]

Sounds like she ignored the letter asking for her version of events. I agree that legal documents should always be taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

 

[boxy321]

It would be an interesting experiment to travel about for a day with no tickets (on LM, say), trying to buy them on board only. I could try this, with my season ticket as back-up if anything went wrong. I always see guards selling them on the Chiltern line without issue though.

 

[BRX]

Why do people not take legal documents seriously?

Have you seen all of the legal documents she was sent, and supposedly did not take seriously?

I am not able to gain a full account of what actually happened from reading the newspaper articles.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am not able to gain a full account of what actually happened from reading the newspaper articles.

Indeed. We don't even know that she did anything wrong*.

*I was going to say "broke the law", but she was convicted so meh.

 

[soil]

Have you seen all of the legal documents she was sent, and supposedly did not take seriously?

I am not able to gain a full account of what actually happened from reading the newspaper articles.

Really? I managed quite well.

First person quote from the article:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3025601/train-passenger-fined-615-for-four-minute-journey/

The first letter I received said I could appeal, which I did. The next letter said they’d received the appeal but it had failed.

I then received the court summons then yesterday the notice of fine. But at no point was I given the opportunity to settle before that.

So she did not attend the court hearing, nor did she make any attempt to resolve the case - she expected them, when she has been caught red-handed and they have every right, legally to speaking, to prosecute, to present her with a more favourable deal on a silver platter.

What planet do you have to be living on? She committed the offence, she's the one in the world of trouble, she needs to go grovelling to them. Not vice versa. It's certainly no skin off ATW's nose if she gets a £650 court bill - it's her, and only her, who had the responsibility to try and act before the point when the court order arrived on her doorstep.

And then, also a first person quote from the same source:

I definitely wasn’t given an offer to pay a fixed fine at any point.

Yeah, so?

Continuing:

I’d thought the fine would be about £80. It doesn’t make it clear that you need to respond with your income details for the purposes of setting the level of the fine.

It doesn't make it clear? There would have been a Means Enquiry Form included! Did she think it was for fun?

The charges/costs/fines were:
£1.90 - fare (not negotiable)
£130 - costs (not negotiable)
£44 - victim surcharge (not negotiable)
£440 - Band B fine (100% of weekly income, but the offence could go as low as 25% of weekly income - perhaps as little as £70, a big difference - if she pleads successfully in mitigation)

It is also clear that the deemed income if the means form wasn't filled in is £440

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...nes-2/3-definition-of-relevant-weekly-income/

Where there is no information on which a determination can be made, the court should proceed on the basis of an assumed relevant weekly income of £440.

Even minimum wage is around £290/week. So it's not as if, in fact, the fine is significantly higher than it 'should' be because she wilfully failed to fill in the form. How much does a disability support worker anyway? Not much different to £440/week I wouldn't think.

If she had bothered to turn up in court she could have potentially mitigated the fine down to about 25% of weekly income. But she didn't. So what is the issue? If it wasn't important enough for her to fill in the form why does she expect the court to waste any more of its time than she did, by doing something other than giving a 'default' 100% of average weekly income fine?

 

[Darandio]

Have you seen all of the legal documents she was sent, and supposedly did not take seriously?

I am not able to gain a full account of what actually happened from reading the newspaper articles.

Then i'd respectfully suggest you go and read the articles again, and then again if needs be.

 

[al78]

Seems a bit of an OTT fine to me. The driver who nearly took my life two years ago (accidentally/carelessly) got less than that. I guess in the UK, life is cheap compared to money.

 

[Antman]

"whines when punished" and correctly so as the fine is obviously completely disproportionate to the crime.

 

[Clip]

"whines when punished" and correctly so as the fine is obviously completely disproportionate to the crime.

Is it? The max fine is £1000 so with the actual fine part being less than half of that I would say not.

Each crime needs to be addressed on its own merits and has to follow the correct sentencing guidelines when all evidence from both sides has been presented so should not be compared. And it's worth pointing out that they didn't turn up for the hearing so that's never going to look good or help with a more lenient punishment

 

[Antman]

Each crime needs to be addressed on its own merits

And you think the theft of £1.90 deserves a fine of that level?

 

[Darandio]

And you think the theft of £1.90 deserves a fine of that level?

If you make no effort to resolve the situation and ignore the legal process, then yes.

It seems strange that you state they are correct to 'whine' despite doing this.

 

[EM2]

And you think the theft of £1.90 deserves a fine of that level?

It's not for us to decide. We haven't heard the evidence.

 

[soil]

Seems a bit of an OTT fine to me. The driver who nearly took my life two years ago (accidentally/carelessly) got less than that. I guess in the UK, life is cheap compared to money.

They are similar offences, in fact.

Compare:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...driving-drive-without-due-care-and-attention/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/railway-fare-evasion/

Careless driving is Band A, Band B or Band C. While fare evasion is Band A to Band C.

But careless driving also carries the threat of disqualification and potentially thousands in insurance loadings.

A Band B fine is a range around 100% of weekly income, Band A a range around 50%

The relevant figure is actually the % of weekly income, as the fines are means-tested (or based on £440/week if you cant be bothered to fill in the form). Quite possibly your chap was fined 50% of weekly income, but I guess this woman could have been as well, if she'd turned up to court.

It's a little misleading to say 'got less than that', just because the circumstances vary so much. Engaging with the law is a big help!

It's of course a very valid argument that the fact that the sentencing is (in reality) basically the same is in itself unreasonable. But in terms of criminal sanctions, Band A and Band B are as low as it goes.

So it doesn't seem that the railway fines are in fact unreasonably high, but perhaps careless driving is unreasonably low?

You could argue that a railway matter should be more like a 'fixed penalty notice', however this is not a great argument because these are extra-judicial issued by the police - if you don't pay the FPN you in fact pay much more in court - and nobody I think wants to hand out official FPN powers to TOCs, do they?

The woman here is arguing she SHOULD have been given a pseudo-fixed-penalty offer in order to drop the case, but there is no legal basis for such an offer at all, so she really doesn't have anything to complain about.

 

[yorkie]

It would be an interesting experiment to travel about for a day with no tickets (on LM, say), trying to buy them on board only. I could try this, with my season ticket as back-up if anything went wrong. I always see guards selling them on the Chiltern line without issue though.

On LM you'd nearly always be sold a normal fare, and at worst you'd be charged a Penalty Fare.

ATW do not have a Penalty Fare scheme so when they do revenue blocks, they threaten prosecution.

Seems a bit of an OTT fine to me. The driver who nearly took my life two years ago (accidentally/carelessly) got less than that. I guess in the UK, life is cheap compared to money.

That is correct, yes.

Violent crimes and crimes involving dangerous driving are taken far less seriously than they should be in this country.

And you think the theft of £1.90 deserves a fine of that level?

Nope, and it wasn't even theft. Her crime was trying to purchase at the destination rather than the origin. This is a crime (many people would agree that it shouldn't be) but it is a very minor crime, and in reality much more minor than theft. However it appears that it can be considered more serious than theft, due to the laws we have in this country and the power given to train companies (which themselves can act unscrupulously, seemingly with impunity; it's not a level playing field by any means).

 

[soil]

And you think the theft of £1.90 deserves a fine of that level?

The amount of the loss is not actually relevant given the passenger's failure to respond to the case. The starting point for the offence is a Band B Fine of 100% of weekly income. Given the lack of response to proceedings, she was correctly fined that amount.

Had she responded and argued that it was only £1.90, but they still handed out a 100% of weekly income fine, then it would be a more reasonable argument. But since that didn't happen we can't comment on that side of things. Clearly it was correct to hand out a 'starting point' fine the absence of any plea or response from the defendant.

FWIW, the lowest possible fine would have been 25% of weekly income, which is £110 for the average person.

And moreover, had she pled guilty, she would have received a discount of 1/3 (assuming early plea) on the fine. That brings it down to potentially £73.33, which is about the same as I paid for driving across 3 metres of empty bus lane in London. So hardly disproportionate.

Or if in fact her income is lower than the national average, then with the minimum income (£120/week), she could have paid as little as £20.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/fine-calculator/

 

[Antman]

It's not for us to decide. We haven't heard the evidence.

It is hard to conceive of any situation where a crime involving £1.90 deserves that level of fine.

 

[yorkie]

This case demonstrates how important it is not to let such matters escalate, and to deal with the issue as promptly as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is hard to conceive of any situation where a crime involving £1.90 deserves that level of fine.

What would be the fine for stealing a product of that value from a supermarket? I suspect surprisingly high.

 

[Antman]

What would be the fine for stealing a product of that value from a supermarket? I suspect surprisingly high.

Lets see -

Shoplifter tries to stab a security guard with a used needle, £220 fine and £85 costs - http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15135679.Shoplifter_fined_for_pointing_needle_at_guard/

Steal a £700 jacket and get a £200 fine - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38969580

£100 fine for stealing donuts - http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/shop...ded-sentence/story-30159184-detail/story.html

Conditional discharge for trying to steal a vacuum cleaner and someone else fined £60 for stealing £50 of food
http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/15085185.In_the_dock__15_people_who_have_appeared_in_court/

 

[EM2]

^^^
From what I can see, they all appeared at court and all pleaded guilty, which will go some way to ameliorating their punishment.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

These cases of someone "late for work" who doesn't buy a ticket before boarding are always a little odd. If it's a regular work journey, why haven't they bought a season ticket, or even bought tickets a few days earlier?

 

[soil]

What would be the fine for stealing a product of that value from a supermarket? I suspect surprisingly high.

Well that depends. The normal resolution is a £90 fixed penalty by the police.

IF it went to court (assuming value of the goods below £200 - based on selling price), the fine starting point is a Band A fine, but can go down to conditional discharge and up to prison.

So that's actually less than fare evasion, which is perhaps odd in that the value of the average rail ticket evaded is definitely less than £200.

But that I think would be something to argue in court when convicted of a rail offence.

 

[yorkie]

These cases of someone "late for work" who doesn't buy a ticket before boarding are always a little odd. If it's a regular work journey, why haven't they bought a season ticket...

Perhaps she doesn't work more than 3 days per week?

 

[BRX]

Really? I managed quite well.

First person quote from the article:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3025601/train-passenger-fined-615-for-four-minute-journey/


So she did not attend the court hearing, nor did she make any attempt to resolve the case - she expected them, when she has been caught red-handed and they have every right, legally to speaking, to prosecute, to present her with a more favourable deal on a silver platter.

What planet do you have to be living on? She committed the offence, she's the one in the world of trouble, she needs to go grovelling to them. Not vice versa. It's certainly no skin off ATW's nose if she gets a £650 court bill - it's her, and only her, who had the responsibility to try and act before the point when the court order arrived on her doorstep.

And then, also a first person quote from the same source:



Yeah, so?

Continuing:


It doesn't make it clear? There would have been a Means Enquiry Form included! Did she think it was for fun?

The charges/costs/fines were:
£1.90 - fare (not negotiable)
£130 - costs (not negotiable)
£44 - victim surcharge (not negotiable)
£440 - Band B fine (100% of weekly income, but the offence could go as low as 25% of weekly income - perhaps as little as £70, a big difference - if she pleads successfully in mitigation)

It is also clear that the deemed income if the means form wasn't filled in is £440

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...nes-2/3-definition-of-relevant-weekly-income/


Even minimum wage is around £290/week. So it's not as if, in fact, the fine is significantly higher than it 'should' be because she wilfully failed to fill in the form. How much does a disability support worker anyway? Not much different to £440/week I wouldn't think.

If she had bothered to turn up in court she could have potentially mitigated the fine down to about 25% of weekly income. But she didn't. So what is the issue? If it wasn't important enough for her to fill in the form why does she expect the court to waste any more of its time than she did, by doing something other than giving a 'default' 100% of average weekly income fine?

Just reading the newspaper article I can't see:

- The first letter telling her she could appeal
- The second letter telling her her appeal had failed
- The court summons and whatever other documents were enclosed with it including the means form (?) that you mention.

I don't know what dates they arrived either and how long she had to respond.

She says that the process wasn't made clear. I don't feel able to make a judgement on that without seeing the wording and sequence of documents sent to her. These forms can often be confusing. Also, given that the fare she owes was a very small one and assuming it's true that it's (a) often possible to pay on the train and (b) not possible to exit at the destination without paying the fare or being caught, then it would seem fairly reasonable for her to assume the fine would be proportionate to circumstances where it's fairly clear she wasn't intentionally dodging a fare.

If she mistakenly but genuinely thought the consequence of not defending herself was a fine of £80, I can see that she might make a rational decision that she'd rather just pay it than wasting a day, where she might suffer loss of wages, I don't know, showing up in court and so on. And the stress of it.

You can of course make a technically correct legal argument that reading all the small print and so on, everything has been done fully according to procedure. But I'd like to hope that train companies focus their energy in deterring actual fare dodgers rather than penalising passengers disproportionately. It's supposed to be a public service, not some kind of legal battleground.

It's a horrible attitude to take towards the provision of public transport, this idea that passengers should just suck it up if TOCs are taking unreasonably harsh action against them. As others have said, comparing this to the kind of fines that dangerous driving can attract puts things into perspective.

 

[Mag_seven]

Seems a bit of an OTT fine to me.

Just as well she wasn't sent to the stocks as they would have done in the old days - now that would have given her something to complain about.

 

[soil]

If she mistakenly but genuinely thought the consequence of not defending herself was a fine of £80, I can see that she might make a rational decision that she'd rather just pay it than wasting a day, where she might suffer loss of wages, I don't know, showing up in court and so on. And the stress of it.

Er, why on earth would you do that? Surely you'd take 10 seconds out of your day to find out what the actual penalties might be? It doesn't seem like a good excuse to me at all.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Ticket office at Llandaff
Opening hours
Monday - Friday 06:40 - 11:40
Saturday 08:40 - 14:40
Sunday Closed
This machine does not accept cash. Payment is by major debit and credit cards only.

This may be controversial with some people here, but IMO if someone is travelling from a station with limited ticketing facilities such as Llandaff, then really IMO the ToC needs to look at theirselves and ask if they are providing adequate facilities. A "ticket office" (which is a small portakabin with one member of staff with a guards ticket machine) and one ticket machine that only takes card really isn't good enough in my view, for what is a commuter station into Cardiff.

And I think what also gets me is that if the incident had happened just a few hours later, they probably would have happily been sold a ticket at the destination.

I've said this before and I say it again, ATW need to actually sort ticketing facilities out in the valleys and cardiff areas first before trying to clamp down hard on people. Its a joke at the moment (I travel from the station local to my parents and I'll happily be sold a ticket on the train, but I get a lift a few stations down with a mate and jump on the train there and I'll get prosecuted if its before 11am but will be happily sold a ticket if its after 11am, what sense does that make really, especially if you aren't "in the know").

 

[Puffing Devil]

The crux of the matter here, as Soil has pointed out many times in the thread is that the lady clearly ignored a Magistrates' Court Summons. A summons is not a party invitation - it's a summons. Fail to attend and you'll be hit with a standard penalty and no discounts based on the evidence presented. If it's a more serious matter you'll find that a warrant is issued and the police come along to bring you to court, most likely after a night in the cells.

Bother to show up and you'll be fined based on your income, given a discount if you plead guilty at the first appearance and be allowed to give your mitigation. You may even want to challenge the charges and go to a trial. All of that is possible if you show up.

 

[philthetube]

Tne of these a day for a month and ATW revenue would go through the roof.