Penalty for trespassing on the railway

[jessh]

Hi all, does anyone know when the penalty for trespassing on the railway (currently at £1000) was changed from £100 and if it went from £100 to £1000 or was increased gradually?

Also, did there used to be a penalty for not closing gates on the railway or have I imagined this?

Thanks!

 

[brel york]

Hi all, does anyone know when the penalty for trespassing on the railway (currently at £1000) was changed from £100 and if it went from £100 to £1000 or was increased gradually?

Also, did there used to be a penalty for not closing gates on the railway or have I imagined this?

Thanks!

On the North eastern railway around york and above the signs on gates read , shut this gate ,followed by a “penalty for neglect £2 “ sign

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Technically, the maximum penalty is an unofficial death sentence.

 

[brel york]

There is a few who have received it too

 

[mallard]

I do wonder why they bother printing the amount on these types of signs. They're out of date within a few years and are rarely replaced. AFAIK, there is no legal reason to state an amount and having an out-of-date sign does not limit the penalty that may be applied.

 

[neilb62]

No technically about it, its happened twice in the last couple of weeks, and I suppose anyone who actually gets struck by a train is technically trespassing in the first place?

 

[swt_passenger]

I do wonder why they bother printing the amount on these types of signs. They're out of date within a few years and are rarely replaced. AFAIK, there is no legal reason to state an amount and having an out-of-date sign does not limit the penalty that may be applied.

I think all the relevant offences have had their legislation changed to refer to positions on the "standard scale" of fines. I expect there is no requirement to retrospectively amend existing signs.

Previous thread here gives some dates:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalty-for-trespassing-on-the-railway.93329/

Which refers to the exact same sign...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - the penalty for trespass on the railway is, for some offences, death.

I know it's an official sign, but perhaps it should be accompanied by promotional material saying something like "it's £1000 if you are lucky - it could be death".

 

[Lockwood]

I've driven over a bridge and on one side it threatened a £1000 fine, the other a £200 fine.

"Ok", I thought to myself, "I'll trespass on that side rather than the other"

(That above thought being a joke, of course)

 

[Chris M]

I do wonder why they bother printing the amount on these types of signs. They're out of date within a few years and are rarely replaced. AFAIK, there is no legal reason to state an amount and having an out-of-date sign does not limit the penalty that may be applied.

I think the reason for putting the amount on the signs is the same as the reason for having the fine in the first place - to act as a deterrent.

 

[Master29]

I've driven over a bridge and on one side it threatened a £1000 fine, the other a £200 fine.

"Ok", I thought to myself, "I'll trespass on that side rather than the other"

(That above thought being a joke, of course)

I wonder how that could ever be enforced if anyone were caught. It would have to be literal surely unless a clever lawyer could argue the toss. One never knows.

 

[jessh]

This is a matter of great debate in our office currently!.... does anyone know when the fine was raised to £100 and what it was raised from? We have one guess of late 1800's, raised from £5 to £100 and another guess of 1942, from £50 to £100 (although a more precise guess, we have no evidence for either!) any help settling this debate would be greatly appreciated!!!

I have had a look at the other thread linked to (thank you for that!) and can see that the £100 to £1000 was around 1992, but no mention on there of when the "£100" came into place TIA!!!

 

[Gemz91]

I noticed last week that the £1000 part had been taped over at Saxilby station. The sign read something along the lines of;

"Do not trespass on on the railway maximum penalty" then the amount was blanked out with yellow and black tape. Seemed strange.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the reason for putting the amount on the signs is the same as the reason for having the fine in the first place - to act as a deterrent.

The fact that it was too much of a deterrent (and therefore stopping people using it in legitimate cases) may well be why the amount is no longer shown on the passcom.

But then I never heard of anyone having anything happen other than a telling off or at worst being thrown off at the next stop for misuse of the passcom. It's like the fine for removing reservation labels - was anyone *ever* convicted of that?

 

[al78]

If the value of the fine is there as a deterrent, you also need to have a high enough probability of getting caught as well. Otherwise people will just chance it and think there is minimal chance of anything bad happening. It is the same with motoring offenses, if the probability of getting caught is very low, people don't care about consequences, since it is so likely there will be no consequences.

 

[rebmcr]

"Do not trespass on on the railway maximum penalty" then the amount was blanked out with yellow and black tape. Seemed strange.

Maximum penalty: you get covered with bees.

 

[philthetube]

No technically about it, its happened twice in the last couple of weeks, and I suppose anyone who actually gets struck by a train is technically trespassing in the first place?

not trespassing if on public footpath, working or in cases of equipment failure, level crossing gates up etc.

 

[Chris M]

Nor are they trespassing if they've fallen or been pushed from a station platform or overbridge, etc, their car has broken down on a level crossing, they've been involved in an RTC that has resulted in their vehicle falling down the embankment slope onto the railway, if they've been detrained onto the track by a member of staff*, they've been ejected from a train in an accident, self-evacuated from a train following an accident (e.g. to escape a fire), directed onto the railway by a person authorised to do so**, and many other scenarios that are even less likely to occur.

*I hope nobody has ever been hit by a train in these circumstances, but it is at least theoretically possible.
**I don't know whether it would be technically trespassing if the person was not authorised but the person following the directions had a reasonable belief they were so. It would be unlikely to be prosecuted in such circumstances of course regardless.