Journey costs over £1000 after refusing to pay

[Qwerty133]

This was on the front page of yesterdays Leicester Mercury.
What an idiot, but from my experience very unlucky to be caught be an RPI on this route.

A 12-minute train journey cost a rail passenger more than £1,000 after he refused to pay the £5.60 fare.
Ben Warrington, 20, of Parnell Close, Littlethorpe, did not have a ticket when he took the 6.7-mile ride from Narborough to Leicester on November 7.
And when questioned by a ticket inspector, he gave a false name and address.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/t...ay-5-60-fare/story-30283350-detail/story.html

 

[yorkie]

A very straightforward case, not really newsworthy!

 

[Qwerty133]

A very straightforward case, not really newsworthy!

Sadly a lot more newsworthy than a lot of the 'news' posted by said publication.
EDIT: also they did this article (Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/m...0283415-detail/story.html#52iTctoCMMSVme4A.99)

Below we have listed the costs of alternative ways to travel from Narborough Railway Station to Leicester Railway Station.

Taxi (with Narborough Taxis) £11
Limousine with eight seats (Big Styles Limos) £160
Private Jet (with Private Fly, based on the average cost of flying with them per mile, which is £19 per mile) £127.30
Helicopter (with Jetz) minimum cost of hiring a helicopter is £1195 plus VAT (average cost per mile was not available)

 

[philthetube]

A very straightforward case, not really newsworthy!

Have to disagree with you there Yorkie.

The more of this sort of news which appears in the press the more honest passengers we may see.

 

[Spankthemonkey]

Have to disagree with you there Yorkie.

The more of this sort of news which appears in the press the more honest passengers we may see.

Totally correct. Down here in SWT land there have been several cases I can think of of successful prosecutions being displayed on station advertising boards. It may not stop the hardcore but these sorts of figures may discourage people "chancing it".

 

[johnnychips]

Reading the original article, in the first post (which for some reason I can't copy the link to), it gives details off other offenders and their fines. They seem to differ a lot. Is the fine based on income?

 

[Master29]

Reading the original article, in the first post (which for some reason I can't copy the link to), it gives details off other offenders and their fines. They seem to differ a lot. Is the fine based on income?

Not necessarily. They may have just refused point blank and ignored every correspondence. Hence the fact it was so large but may not have been originally.

 

[furlong]

A spokesperson for CrossCountry said: "There are always ways to buy a ticket before travelling, and if it's an unstaffed station you can ask to buy a ticket on the train.

It's only some local newspaper so I wouldn't want to assume the quote was reported accurately, but it really doesn't help the industry when unqualified statements like that appear in the press. There are not always ways to buy before travelling and on Penalty Fares trains there are consequences if you ask to buy a ticket on the train when travelling from an unstaffed station in the scheme!

 

[najaB]

Well, technically, online pre-purchase is always an opportunity though not one that is necessarily convenient.

 

[Mojo]

Well, technically, online pre-purchase is always an opportunity though not one that is necessarily convenient.

Isn't "always" an opportunity if you don't have a device/no signal/no battery/broken/stolen/lost/etc.

 

[najaB]

Isn't "always" an opportunity if you don't have a device/no signal/no battery/broken/stolen/lost/etc.

It's always an opportunity in that it's always available (excluding rare system issues). Being able to take advantage of it or not is a different matter.

 

[yorkie]

It's always an opportunity in that it's always available (excluding rare system issues). Being able to take advantage of it or not is a different matter.

The concept of "opportunity to purchase" is what matters, and in the example you are discussing there is none. Your own definition is just causing confusion.

 

[najaB]

...and in the example you are discussing there is none...

I am not discussing any specific example. I was responding to Furlong's critique of CrossCountry's statement. It's technically correct to say that there's a way to purchase your ticket before travel even from an unstaffed station without a TVM. Whether it's one you can avail yourself of in a practical sense is another matter.

 

[yorkie]

I am not discussing any specific example. I was responding to Furlong's critique of CrossCountry's statement. It's technically correct to say that there's a way to purchase your ticket before travel even from an unstaffed station without a TVM. Whether it's one you can avail yourself of in a practical sense is another matter.

In the example of an unstaffed station without a TVM, there is considered to be "no opportunity to purchase before boarding" which means they are entitled to the full range of fares on board.

Furlong's post was correct and we're now going off on a tangent (again! ) about a 'technically' which is nothing to do with what actually matters.

 

[Statto]

What an idiot, & i suspect the fine was high because he gave false details.

 

[mikeg]

What an idiot, & i suspect the fine was high because he gave false details.

And didn't attend court perhaps? Or was had loadsamoney?
He was given a fine for two offences but normally even then it would be lowered to take into account financial means. The amounts are typical for someone tried in their absence.

 

[Puffing Devil]

And didn't attend court perhaps? Or was had loadsamoney?
He was given a fine for two offences but normally even then it would be lowered to take into account financial means. The amounts are typical for someone tried in their absence.

Didn't attend:

Warrington was found guilty in his absence at Leicester Magistrates' Court of travelling by train without paying the fare, and of giving false details.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Reading the original article, in the first post (which for some reason I can't copy the link to), it gives details off other offenders and their fines. They seem to differ a lot. Is the fine based on income?

I have posted this elsewhere in response to a similar query, but no it isn't the level of income that is taken into consideration in this case. You'll see from the report that the defendant did not respond and the case was heard in his absence so the Court couldn't have taken that into account.

It is normal to charge two separate offences in this kind of case:

1. Having not previously paid, did travel on a railway with intent to avoid payment of the fare contrary to Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889]

2. Having not previously paid, did in response to a request by an officer of the railway company, give a false name and address when asked for his details, contrary to Section 5(3)(c) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889]

Both offences carry the same level of penalty - therefore if convicted on both counts it is a matter for the Magistrates to decide whether they impose a fine on both charges.

( 2 x £400 if proven case in absence with no previous known )

 

[Cantab26]

I have posted this elsewhere in response to a similar query, but no it isn't the level of income that is taken into consideration in this case. You'll see from the report that the defendant did not respond and the case was heard in his absence so the Court couldn't have taken that into account.

It is normal to charge two separate offences in this kind of case:

1. Having not previously paid, did travel on a railway with intent to avoid payment of the fare contrary to Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889]

2. Having not previously paid, did in response to a request by an officer of the railway company, give a false name and address when asked for his details, contrary to Section 5(3)(c) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889]

Both offences carry the same level of penalty - therefore if convicted on both counts it is a matter for the Magistrates to decide whether they impose a fine on both charges.

( 2 x £400 if proven case in absence with no previous known )

Without access to the full facts, the sentencing guideline tends towards a Band A fine at the highest end of the range (circa £330 per offence) on the assumption that there is lower culpability and lesser harm.

From the looks of things, it would appear that the mags have instead gone for the maximum Level 3 fine on only one of the s.5(3) charges, with the dishonesty and non-attendance as aggravating factors.

Alternatively, the prosecution could in theory have been brought under s.5(1) (failure to pay and failure to give name and address), both of which carry a maximum Level 2 fine of £500 per offence.

There does not appear to be an element of mens rea in the latter subsection, which would presumably make it a somewhat attractive route for the prosecuting authority.

PS Or just shove it through under the Bylaws: probably the same practical outcome. I suspect that the dishonesty and the non-attendance will have been amongst the most compelling factors when deciding on sentence though!

 

[Puffing Devil]

Methinks a small mistake has been made on the Victim Surcharge.... (EDIT: The VS is OK, see my later post below)

2 Fines at Band B (100% of Weekly Income = assumed to be £440 if no information provided) = 2 * 440 = £880
Costs requested by TOC = £130
Victim Surcharge £44 (Should be 10% of fines, max £170, looks like it's only be charged on a single fine)
Compensation = £5.60 (Value of fare avoided)

Also, I'm puzzled by the two fines, normally the following applies:

Where an offender is to be fined for two or more offences that arose out of the same incident, it
will often be appropriate to impose on the most serious offence a fine which reflects the totality of
the offending where this can be achieved within the maximum penalty for that offence. ‘No
separate penalty’ should be imposed for the other offences.

I would expect a higher fine for one charge and NSP for the other.

 

[Cantab26]

Methinks a small mistake has been made on the Victim Surcharge....

2 Fines at Band B (100% of Weekly Income = assumed to be £440 if no information provided) = 2 * 440 = £880
Costs requested by TOC = £130
Victim Surcharge £44 (Should be 10% of fines, max £170, looks like it's only be charged on a single fine)
Compensation = £5.60 (Value of fare avoided)

Also, I'm puzzled by the two fines, normally the following applies:



I would expect a higher fine for one charge and NSP [No Separate Penalty] for the other.

The totality sentencing principle is only a guideline, but this probably explains the discrepancy regarding the Victim Surcharge: it has only been applied to one of the fines.

No doubt we can expect a follow-up article on this chap when the bailiffs are sent in for non-payment.

Quite why people refuse to pay modest fares like this is beyond my ken.

 

[mikeg]

But if you ignore it, it all goes away...
Except it didn't and still won't.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Without access to the full facts, the sentencing guideline tends towards a Band A fine at the highest end of the range (circa £330 per offence) on the assumption that there is lower culpability and lesser harm.

From the looks of things, it would appear that the mags have instead gone for the maximum Level 3 fine on only one of the s.5(3) charges, with the dishonesty and non-attendance as aggravating factors.

Alternatively, the prosecution could in theory have been brought under s.5(1) (failure to pay and failure to give name and address), both of which carry a maximum Level 2 fine of £500 per offence.

There does not appear to be an element of mens rea in the latter subsection, which would presumably make it a somewhat attractive route for the prosecuting authority.

PS Or just shove it through under the Bylaws: probably the same practical outcome. I suspect that the dishonesty and the non-attendance will have been amongst the most compelling factors when deciding on sentence though!

There are further press reports on this case. It seems that the Legal Advisor & Magistrates correctly determined sentencing to be around 'intent' on both charges, thus Band 'B' on the sentencing guidelines is relevant.

Maximum fine level £1000 on each count, no previous matter on file and no response nor declaration of earnings from the defendant.

On that basis, the assessed weekly income of £440 determined the fine level x 2 and imposition of one victim surcharge, plus an order for prosecution costs to be paid.

Band 'B' is correct, the Appeal Court precedent in Corbyn (1978) will have been considered by the Legal advisor and Magistrates who seem to have determined that 'intent to pay only if challenged' is sufficient to indicate the requisite 'mens rea'. Furthermore, giving a false name & address in an effort to avoid a liability clearly indicates an intention not to pay.

 

[Puffing Devil]

My bad - which shows I've been away from the bench for a while. Checking with an ex-colleague, Victim Surcharge is only applicable to the largest fine, not the total of multiple fines. Hence 10% of £440 is correct, assuming two fines of Band B with the usual assumed income for non-appearance.

Both of us are puzzled by the two fines, rather than the totality principle being applied. We're assuming that there was more in evidence in court that would explain this stance.